On TV Personalities Who Eat Each Others Moist Butt Flesh, Cut and Sloughed Off From The Bone

A disturbing Story from Yahoo out of The Netherlands. Two television personalities, as mentioned in the article below, volunteered to eat chunks of each others flesh. This footage is scheduled to be aired tomorrow. As sick as this is, it may have an audience among both foreign soccer teams and woodland bears. I am trying to not have it affect me personally, but the thing is, whenever a woman asks me to go "Dutch" again at a meal, I am going to be extremely creeped out. On a positive note though, it appears the experience wasn't two bad for those involved, so they should consider themselves lucky they weren't game show hosts, for if that was the case the flavor may have been just a little too gamey. Finally, everyone should consider themselves blessed that this horrid story wasn't made more horrible by the two involved by opting to eat other chunks of their personal nether lands.


From Yahoo News:

TV presenters eat each other's flesh

A Dutch television stunt is generating headlines around the world - for all the wrong reasons.

The two presenters of TV show Proefkonijnen (which means guinea pigs or test rabbits) brought reality television to a whole new level when they ate each other's freshly cooked flesh.

Dennis Storm and Valerio Zeno were earlier filmed while they were under local anaesthetic as a surgeon cut a piece of their muscle at a clinic.

Storm watched as flesh was cut from Zeno's abdomen, and Zeno returned the favour when muscle was cut from Storm's bottom.

A chef was brought in to fry their flesh on their TV show, in front of a studio audience.

Zeno and Storm then sat for a candlelit dinner - complete with wine - to dine on each other's muscle.

Storm told ABCNews in the United States that the muscle was cooked to medium-rare in sunflower oil without seasoning.

"Nothing is really that special when you're talking about the taste of the meat, but it is weird to look into the eyes of a friend when you are chewing on his belly," Storm told ABCNews.

"The punchline of the show is to get really simple answers on stupid questions, such as can you shave with ketchup or can you drive blind?

"And we wanted to find out how human flesh tasted."

Storm said the stunt was worth the pain in his behind.

"It was just a few centimetres of meat," he said.
"And now I have a good story about that scar."

Storm and Zeno said the stunt was legal because both entered into the cannibalistic pact voluntarily, Britain's Daily Mail reported.

"A lawyer advised the program's producers that while cannibalism is not itself against the law, the presenters or the surgeon who operated on them could run in to legal difficulties," The Mail said.

"The presenters also claim that there is no risk of ill health, as long as the human meat is properly cooked."

International news headlines ranged from "Cannibalism on Dutch TV generates world-wide repulsion" to "In the worst possible taste: Sick TV stunt features presenters eating EACH OTHER".

The pre-recorded episode will air on December 21.

On Technological and Online Intrusions Into Personal Privacy

Maybe I am too much of a romanticist, but I miss the old days, absent of all the technology which obtrusively permeates today's current social landscape. It's not those technologies which contain inherently a purpose which makes our lives better and healthier on a day to day basis I raise issue with, but those which, much like this blog, are completely arbitrary. I remember the day when starved for attention, I could do misdirected stupid stuff, act like a complete moron, and not have to fear someone taking a picture or video of my mischievous, although harmless, frolicsomeness. At the risk of sounding too much like Thoreau, I prefer those bygone days, where technology was there for those who sought it out, but remained somewhat distant, at least relatively, in our private lives. Now I can't even run through the mall shirtless, in cut off denim shorts, while mimicking the Macarena without being placed on YouTube.

How can we defeat this intrusion and how did it get so bad in the first place? I believe the culprit is not so much the photographic devices themselves and their ability to capture images, but rather how small and somewhat inexpensive they have become, not to mention their inclusion in cell phones. To fix, what I consider a large part of the problem, we need to take these camera's out of cell phones, first and foremost, then force companies which manufacture camera's and camcorders to emphatically increase their size, to no less then three feet wide, four feet long, and over 60 pounds. This way, you would at least need a tripod to operate it, and you wouldn't be able to carry it around all the time in your fanny pack or man purse to pull out whenever you see anything even remotely amusing. At the very least, give cell phones somewhere in the neighborhood of over 300 buttons, most of which won't do anything, or randomly change their functionality during the operation of the device. However, keep the most basic functions intact and easy to accomplish, so that functions like making a phone call will be the most frequently used out of all the features.

There are numerous cell apps,like FourSquare, that will let you, "check in," at your present location. These are becoming increasingly popular and to stop this trend they should simply change the names of the apps to inform the user, appropriately, that they indeed are a loser. Perhaps something like, "No one gives a crap where you are at app," would be most affective, or at least, "Hey, if I liked you at all, I would be there with you already now wouldn't I?" Actually, come to think of it, it seems more-so that they would have to like you personally, to even entice them to invite you to their current location. Great, now every time I see one of those check-ins on Facebook I am going to get really depressed. Terrific. Sometimes I really hate writing blogs. I never thought of that. I despise those check-ins where everyone was apparently invited except you, then they rub it in your face like a jackass. Dammit.

Facebook, though has been cited by many for trespassing against individual privacy, though to be honest, Facebook, I feel, isn't the main perpetrator of this, given the choice of our decision to join the social networking site and the numerous privacy options Facebook gives its members. The real online threat to privacy, is the online search engine powerhouse which is Google. I wish I could say, that due to this I have jumped on the Bing bandwagon, but I haven't. I do use Google as my default search engine, so if I had any logical continuity concerning my convictions then I would cease to be the hypocritical person I am being today. Yet, because I occasionally indulge in my hypocrisy, I feel strangely comfortable attacking Google.

For a long time now Google has been creeping society out by their peeping-tom like indulgences, and, although sometimes it does take the hassle out of being a peeping tom, by alleviating those chance encounters like being chased by a dog, accidentally hiding behind some poison ivy, or falling out of a tree, what you can see or discover is somewhat limited. A real shame. Yet, overall, I find the service, which you aren't even civilly ffered to opt into, to be crossing a boundary into being completely inappropriate. In fact, I have taken up quilting, and by me taking up quilting I mean forcing my family members into quilting, so that I can cover up my house and car-part laden lawn from aggressive satellites.

They followed up this endeavor, obviously not satisfied with their satellite view featured on Google Earth, due to its lack of possible partial nudity, by something called "Street View." When I first heard about this, I was nervous about the venture, because I was frightened they might catch me with their camera equipped vehicles washing my van while, of course, dressed in my form fitting one piece swimsuit. I don't mind my neighbors viewing, in fact I encourage it, despite their colorful verbal objections, but me being all over the internet is quite another matter.

Now Google has announced the "Find Your Face" feature for Google+. With this technology, you can scan your face and Google will inform you whenever someone has posted a picture of you. Great, exactly what I want to be informed of, whenever someone places my ugly mug on the internet. I don't like being photographed and I would rather live in ignorance of the profound degree of my ugliness. Now if this technology was used in the confines of social media, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, it would just be like Facebook's "tag" function, but automatic. Yet, of course, this feature will help in supplying evermore intrusions into our daily life.

The movie, "Minority Report," contains similar technology which is currently being developed. In the movie, John Anderton, played by Tom Cruise, is bombarded with ads that recognize his face and appropriately, or inappropriately, display advertisements specifically suited for him. This very thing is being developed today, and currently, the technology will be able to determine race, weight, color of hair, and other physical characteristics and display ads which jive with the computers conception of you. I anticipate seeing a lot of Krispy Kreme, dog food, and Kaopectate ads in the not too distant future.

When many people hear of such emerging technologies, there is a school of thought, in which the reply is simply why worry about it if you don't something to hide? To me the biggest issue is that our inclusion and participation in such technologies is just assumed by large corporations and this is increasingly putting us in an environment where we are constantly being recorded on private systems 24 hours a day. Thus, our individualism is being belittled by those in possession of this technology, often times simply for the purpose of acquiring more capital from us by accosting us with unnecessary intrusions into our lives. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with capitalism or the concept of advertisements, but with how frequent they are getting, I can't help but feel annoyed by it. In fact, sometimes, if the ads are repeated or annoying enough, I won't buy the product just out of spite.

Remember the days when you could go see a movie, or watch something on YouTube without ads being thrown in your face? Ads in movie theatres to me is ridiculous, that's one of the reasons I pay for a movie if I choose to go, to not be advertised to in the form of commercials. Yet, now a long list of commercials plays before the movie. It won't be long before our DVD's are filled with ads, which we will be unable to interrupt by skipping through to the movie menu in order to enjoy our purchased film. The scariest part is that I think the governments application of like technologies is already pronounced in our lives and if we were aware to what extent, no citizen would stand for it. Thus, I have to say it is the ol' "slippery slope" I am most against. Even given that these technologies present no danger, the fact is, the someday could.

It is easy to allow such freedoms to the government and corporate giants when we don't see any effect, but this doesn't mean big brother won't become a hindrance to freedoms in the future. How much this technology is progressing is evident in a rocket that was just launched yesterday by Japan. The rocket has the ability to zoom in and present details on any place on earth within a three foot square parcel of land, or anywhere on earth for that matter. I try to not be a paranoid person, but its not hard to imagine how much vast information is being gathered by those who can afford such technology. Can we really trust such people to only use it properly 100% of the time? I also wonder if they are honest with us on the full extent concerning the information gathering properties of any like devices.
I heard from an old boss, who happened to know, supposedly, that in the Vietnam Era the US had a satellite that was advanced enough that it could read the license plate off a car. Now, this is complete hearsay, but if it is true, who knows how much people can be spied on, tracked, and viewed without any warrant or congressional order currently. In addition, can we assume its only visual information that is being collected. I think such "slopes" need to be examined and spoke out against by the general public, not because of how it may be used currently in a peaceful fashion, if one is to assume this as fact, but because all it would take is some corrupt officials to break the rules of decency to trample on our right of privacy.

On The Evermore Present Frustration in Watching The Foosball

One thing I never thought I would write a whole blog entry on, other than my chronic flatulence, is sports. Its not that I don't like sports or fail to watch them regularly, its more so I never had any reason to write on it, and I often don't know what I am talking about most the time concerning sporting issues. Thereby, a blog entry on sports was extremely improbable. I don't know how people are so knowledgeable in it, but I find myself quite impressed when people rattle off stats, who was traded where, and what sports star just got charged with possession of a firearm, DUI, or for exposing himself in public. Indeed, every time I sit in on a conversation, or more likely, since I spend a lot of time alone, eavesdrop in on a conversation, I feel like I might as well be sitting in on Mike Greenburg and Mike Golic. I am pretty clueless when it comes to such issues, and if I was invited in on a serious sports conversation, I would be the Dexter to the conversation as a whole and just murder it completely, by stupid, obvious comments which have no consequence to any particular subject or individual engaging in the discourse.

This is why the blogging medium is so great, because people can't tell me to shut up, or pull my underwear halfway up my back (I have custom made them to rip once they reach a certain height) when I blather on about nonsensical issues. I only regret that a blog needs a coherent subject, otherwise I would just keeping going about things like socks, air conditioning, stamp collecting, forest rangers and green sequin skirts. Not necessarily in that order. (Those topics might not be funny, but I challenged myself to write down the first subjects that come to mind. The last one kind of scares me.)

Because I don't know how to make a segue from green sequin skirts, to football officiating other than thinking that green sequin skirts on refs would be pretty stylish, I will just begin now, my thoughts on refereeing in the sport of football today.

It should be obvious to the casual observer that, me being reared in Seattle, may have a sort of pseudo-bitterness towards referees in sports, particularly football, due to Seattle's ill-fated visit to the Super Bowl a number of years ago against the Steelers. You couldn't be more wrong. I have a full-fledged bitterness towards referees in sports due to that. I recall a year after the disaster, I took a trip down to Mexico while in a equally ill-fated relationship with my accompanying counterpart. Anyways, we went inside a Jewelry store and after some conversation with the clerk, he asked us where we hailed from. I informed him of my Seattle grunge roots, to which he replied, "Wow, did you guys get screwed in the Super Bowl." I remind myself that he was trying to sell us merchandise, but the fact he even knew about the whole fiasco and arguments concerning the game, was pretty impressive to me. I didn't buy anything, but due to his declaration, I decided to skip his store later that night while on my crime spree.

Now, I am obviously not Nostradamus and, in fact, any quatrain I try to write turns somehow into a dirty limerick, so this obviously gives valuable insight into my psychic abilities. At any rate, I don't know, if the officiating was perfect, who would've won that game, the Steelers might have very well one, who knows? What I do know is that the final score was altered in some way by the terrible officiating. Perhaps its because of this I find myself sensitive and abusive when confronted with a bad call on my television or indeed on someone else's. Its almost to the degree it gets so frustrating to me that I want to turn off the game no matter what team its against, though obviously it is less upsetting if its against the opposition of the team I wish to be victorious. However, it doesn't stop me from making a mental note of it, and when it comes down to it, I would prefer a game without such terrible calls, despite who may benefit from them.

That's somewhat the problem. The consequences of such calls from the officials have the inherent power to impact a game, change the momentum and the overall tide whether it be ebbing or flowing. With such a huge responsibility, you would think those who officiate the games would be more scrutinized by those organizations over them, but this seems hardly to be the case. To have better officiating one would need to understand the consequences that arise from a bad call and make it equitable to the official. Years ago this would have been a tall order, but now because of the increase in technology integrated in every sport, I don't believe this to be a impossible undertaking and it is sorely needed.

At this point many officials can represent their mood, favoritism and death threats by the mob they have received in their calls, which at times seems to triumph over their professionalism. Indeed, quite recently I have seen more than a couple games where bad calls occurred, but the aftermath went beyond people just the crowd booing the official testifying to my point. Their was an official review in one case, in another case one of the coaches challenged and in all angles and replays, the final conclusion that everyone was waiting for seemed apparent. This was confirmed by the crowd and by the announcers, only to have the opposite chosen by the officials, which caused a uproar of sorts, enough to be talked about in a negative light by the narrators of the game, and sports casters after the game and score were finalized.

Do mistakes happen? Yes, of course they do, to say they don't would be a completely moronic position to take. Just look at my blog(s). I think every human has the right to err to some degree, and referees aren't excluded from that. Yet, there are errors and there are grievous errors, and I think it is the latter which upsets the general fan the most and should be subject to review and perhaps disciplinary action. However, in my view, a bad call doesn't have to concern a game changing call to require disciplinary action, but also those little nitpicking calls, like holding or illegal contact, which though such calls have their place, a lot of time seem silly. In fact, depending on the game, some of them get so overwhelming that you wish the damn refs would just let them play the game.

Lets not kid ourselves. Football is a rough sport, I think most people of sound mind will agree. To look over and examine conduct among players in the normal course of the game with a fine toothed comb, to me, is ridiculous. I believe, because of its physical and somewhat violent nature, you could find an infraction with and in every play if you wanted to. Therefore, this grants ample opportunity for favoritism to be represent. I most often see this "nitpicking" concerning holding and illegal contact calls. Again, it doesn't make such calls ridiculous, but there needs to be some sort of standard of force, duration, or hindrance displayed within such infraction in order for it to get called. Its football, not ballet.

Its getting to the point where you don't know if you can cheer for a touchdown anymore before its reviewed. It used to be, in simplistic terms, once that ball crossed over into the end zone, more or less, a touch down. Now, they need to maintain control throughout the play, which sounds great and pretty straightforward. However, after watching some games and this rule cited when pulling points away from teams, I don't find it as straightforward as much as I find it dependent on personal interpretation. All calls somewhat are based on that, but although well meaning, this rule has turned out to be ridiculous to many fans, myself included. Again, not the rule itself, but its application when an official review or challenge is sought.

Unfortunately, what I feel they don't call enough is personal fouls. Every game there is some moron who takes a swing at another player, despite the fact he is wearing a helmet. What damage can they possible do, I mean other than break their hand? In football don't you kind of need your hands, so what good can possibly come from that? Such incidents are broken up, but often not called. To me it not only seems so pointless because of all the protective gear, but also because a large portion of the game concerns hitting each other. It makes as much sense in football as it would in boxing. They should get called, not for damage they may cause or inflict, but simply for being an idiot.

Obviously there are referees that make great calls and thus I hope nobody concludes that officiating is worthless in my view. Certainly a number of calls are necessary and correct, but it always seem like the ones that have the most impact are the ones where the referee should see some kind of consequence for it. Perhaps they should go to some form of merit pay.

On No More Omar, 49 Rounds For 56 Escaped Animals, and The Occupy Wall Street Movement

Greeting and Salutations Once Again,

So, I am sitting in bed a while ago picking at my face, when I see breaking news come on the television. Now, the breaking news most often featured on our local TV stations here in Seattle, usually consist of puppies or kittens that get stuck in a drain pipe somewhere. Yet, this time it was somewhat different. Instead, it was the cruel Libyan dictator Kaddafi hiding in a drain pipe. I sat up when the flashy “breaking news” graphic flashed across the dusty screen of my RCA 18” tube television (it’s not that bad – it’s the lightest in the series, only weighing a measly 85 pounds). The anchorman announced over my headphones (the only thing that functions as speakers for my TV due to a mishap with Sunny Delight and vomit) that Omar Kaddafi was indeed dead. They immediately followed this report with a video of an extremely graphic nature, which despite my love of horror films and amateur wrestling, made me want to throw up. I was going to put the Omar death video I saw on here, but I decided that due to its graphic nature, I would instead post this video of bunnies.

Immediately after, it suddenly occurred to me that one really needs to be impressed with the abilities of Arabs to search random scattered holes in the ground and other subterranean edifices for the evil dictators who are fleeing their eventual judgment or demise. Indeed, if Elmer Fudd had an Arab ancestry, I am convinced he would have no problem tracking down that infamous wascially wabbit in his wabbit hole before the hare could surface and carry on with his mischievous shenanigans or hijinx.

I would like to offer my advice to all evil dictators in the future. Perhaps find a hiding place above ground. Maybe in a box car or something. They would blend in just fine with all the city hopping hobos, who all speak gibberish anyway, though admittedly the ex-dictator would have to settle for a somewhat lower quality harem.

Anyway, after this fascinating and somewhat, admittedly joyous news story, came one of the Ohio escaped animal fiasco. The anchorman was quick to warn the viewers that some of the following story would contain "disturbing images." Then, the narrator began to report the story with a long distance camera shot with a field containing several animals dead. Now they never showed blood on this particular report, only a collection of animals which could have been sleeping for all I would have known if it hadn't been for the narration. This was interesting to me because they had just showed Kaddafi getting his head blown off with no such warning, but were quick to label the animal involved story as "disturbing."



Although, the stories themselves were quite interesting, and truly tragic when it comes to the animals, but for some reason, perhaps because of my lack of social life and friends, I found this to be intriguing detail concerning the juxtaposition between the two subjects and their portrayal in the local news. Why is it that you can show a real person getting a bullet to his head, or the aftermath of it, and nobody is disturbed by human blood and brain matter, but showing a dead animal is assumed to have the ability throw people into conniptions without a cited warning before the footage is aired? I find there to be several reasons for this, including the desensitizing of society through movies or TV, and media ethics, which culminates to the eventually effect that human life seems to be increasingly devalued over that of animals. I think there are several more reasons, but number one, I believe I have narrowed it down to it somehow being the Disney corporations fault.

Truth be told, I am an animal lover (not in the gross sense). I like animals and despite my jokes or comments on here, I have never hurt an animal. While kids were frying ants and caterpillars on the sidewalk, I could never partake for some reason because I just felt bad for the insect, dying and tortured at my hands just for the sake of some form of twisted entertainment. So I would distance myself from such activity and go play with my sisters dolls instead. That in itself has led to many years of social awkwardness. I like household pets as long as they aren't mine and they don't relieve themselves on my carpet, any personal belongings, or my person. Yet, I am not a extreme animal lover either. That is, I don't mind hunting and fishing, as long as the carcass isn't just left there to rot and though there are examples of zoos or enclosures that seem somewhat like torture because of their limited size, I don't think a zoo, or enclosed habitat, is in and of itself terrible or by those facts alone we can presume that the animal is mistreated or tortured. Yet, again, a habitat does need to be of considerable size relative to the animal displayed within it. Further, I am not a vegan and frequently partake in the eating or wearing of the flesh of an animal, though my friends tell me I should really take the extra time to cure the flesh first before I wear it. Even what I don't use, like hide, legs, head and such, I find uses for. Like tossing it over an overpass for a cheap laugh and a brisk run immediately afterwards. I clarify my feelings towards animals just so nobody jumps to the wrong conclusion in these examples and concludes somehow that mistreatment of animals is somehow permissible in my view. I assure you it is not. Even with the overpass thing it wasn't mistreated while it was alive mind you.

In the case of Libya, and indeed within many countries in the region, humans are very much treated like animals, or worse. Their rights are stripped away to such a degree that even the basic human right, the one to survive, is stripped of them. Protests and riots have erupted from Africa to the Middle East proper as is evident every night in news broadcasts, and in these protests, the participants are not threatened with pepper spray or having a tent confiscated, but rather death at the hands of the dictatorial government. Though we have seen a number of corrupt autocratic government systems collapse within the last few years because of such uprisings, before it is all said and done, many of the protesters are tragically killed for declaring their dislike for government or policies. If one looks across the world at how many citizens or members of the press have been killed for stating or writing something against those in power, its truly astounding.

It is almost silly to juxtapose such horrible events with the protests of the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, where, in essence, all they have to worry about it getting booted out of a public park, maybe feel a little dope sick when their drugs are confiscated, and sent back home to occupy, once more, their parents basement. That may seem unfair, and though I will concede every individual still engaged in the movement may not hold to that globalization, I think it is the direction, what may be called, the dregs of the moment are going.

Coming from Seattle I see the occasional protest, most notably the 1999 WTO protests and riots that caused havoc downtown. In that case, and indeed the case of the OWS protests, everything, for the most part, starts out alright. A notice is put out to invite people of like minds, to use their constitutional right to free speech and they quickly organize in a specific location in order to best profess whatever their mission statement may be. Though I may disagree with a particular groups ideology, the right to organize without the fear of death or violence is one protection this country gives us, and I particularly like the idea of ordinary citizens getting involved in the political process, no matter if it is OWS or the Tea Party. Yet, Tea Party excluded, there seems to be a pattern in these modern examples of protest. When the initial participates organize to protest, everything is somewhat and relatively calm. Those individuals within the group wave signs, maybe yell a little bit, but for the most part, everyone eventually goes separate ways after the rally dies down, though admittedly there might be a couple days of "camping out." After the movement gains momentum, and gets media attention, more people are attracted to the protest and rallies, some with pure motives, while still others are probably on so many drugs they think they are protesting for Denny's to cut their prices on their "Moon's Over My Hammy" meal.

Obviously, this isn't a absolute conclusion, but I do know that as of a few weeks ago, at least three people had to go to the hospital from Portland's OWS protest due to heroin overdoses. In addition, local Seattle protests have been shuffled around more than Air Force One when Obama has something important to do in Washington. These reasons are frequently reported to be health concerns due to needles being found in the area immediately surrounding the encampments. It has got to the point that though, at first, someone would know why are they are really there and give a coherent message to a reporter, that such questions from reporters are responded to now with incoherent and contradictory statements. In general, I would say when such protests move from daily rallies to camping indefinitely, the message gets lost and the movement becomes occupied by fist bumping, tattered clothing wearing college aged kids who raise their fists against the establishment, capitalism, and at the same time have no issues with demanding your spare change.

Recently while watching the news coverage of the Black Friday shopping madhouse, they briefly focused on some OWS protesters, protesting Black Friday. The man, who to his credit was standing their quietly with a sign, did say he and his colleagues were protesting consumerism. Now, if I wasn't so busy trying to teach my dog how to tap dance, I would have laughed outright at the screen. The man apparently had no concept of where his clothes came from, his Fox racing beanie, or how he got those markers to make the sign and which he sniffs on a nightly basis (Marker huffers are an untapped market. How you think you got those there genius?(When writing this it occurred to me that marker huffers are an uncapped market. Thus, I am currently in negotiations to make my own line of pen, "Snuffies.")

Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best. No perfect system will exist as long as imperfect people exist. Its one of the harsh realities of our world, but we do have the ability to speak out and change the tide of "progress," but what makes it affective, is not only how much sense it makes in its message, but the methodology behind the protest. When we look at such affective protests of the past, in our country alone, it usually doesn't take people throwing things through mini-mart windows or random acts of violence. The most effective have been those that have been civil. For instance, most recently, when Bank of America announced their five-dollar debit card fee, people organized and encouraged people to move their money elsewhere. This was so effective that Bank of America eventually dropped the charge. Though the OWS movement at the beginning was charged with not having a coherent message, I think what was displayed with OWS and The Tea Party is quite clear, the frustration the public is having with their current political leaders and corporations. When it comes to corporations, I have no problem with the mere existence of corporations, but rather those economic powerhouses who make profit by price gouging the public. I understand due to inflation sometimes prices need to go up, but I perceive that the general public is increasingly under the impression that they are being taken for a ride by many corporate entities and politicians. This, above anything else, is an important message which should be heeded by those who provide services and those in power. However, if people like those who now have hijacked the OWS movement, continue to speak for such groups and propose to be under their banner, then the message or possible influence the rally might have had might as well be tossed out the window, for as the respect decreases, so does the power of a particular group to produce change.

You really need to feel bad for the police who are given the responsibility to keep such groups under control. I am sure on occasion a cop oversteps the bounds of his authority, but for the most part I feel cops are well trained to handle such situations and their actions display as such. Yes, being pepper sprayed isn't exactly pleasant, but when it comes down to it, its probably one of the most "humane" ways to control an unruly crowd, especially when considering all the other methods. I always hear people complaining about the police and their conduct to some reporter on the news, but the next moment footage shows some moron swinging a big metal bat or pole at police. What's to be done? Police hardly ever pepper spray without warning unless attacked or threatened, and ample warning, sometimes in fact for days prior, is given to the protesters to disperse.

If a cop rushed one of the protesters and beat him with a nightstick people would call foul, but still when a 84 year old woman is pepper sprayed by getting caught in the crossfire, people still call foul. I feel bad for the old woman, but pepper spray isn't as accurate as say a night stick, but that would be unacceptable. What was she doing there in the first place? Perhaps her family should look after her a little closer. To her credit though, she was rather humorous and good natured when asked about the whole ordeal. If cops threaten to arrest or spray then you should probably heed the warning and not consider it a joke. Most cities have been more then accommodating to the movement, but cops have a duty to make sure that nobody else's rights are infringed upon by their presence. The most tragic thing about all this was when I saw the elderly pepper sprayed woman doing a interview on TV and realized that it was Keith Olbermann interviewing her. Yes, Keith Olbermann is back! That is the most horrendous thing about this whole story and soon I expect protests to arise just from this fact alone. Horrible. Horrible.

In closing, finally, I would say in America the word to live by when protesting and speaking ones mind should be, "civil," or depending on the extent of which one is fighting for their rights and what that right is, possibly even, "civil disobedience." Of course, the extent of these can change relative to the cause, but I feel its a more than an essential rule of thumb especially if one considers what they want the eventual outcome to be, successful or unsuccessful. Basically, the ends must justify the means. The man who got this process exactly right was the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which he outlined in his famous, "Letter From Birmingham Jail." His boycotts and protests changed the world profoundly and the methodology which made it so successful has been long since forgotten by those who stage protests and those who participate in them.