Attention, starfish. Beware the brine icicle. // Owl petting. // Predator and prey. // Inflatable fifteen-foot-long six-legged robot Ant-Roach. // A Lego ball that’s very nearly spherical. // Electromagnetic leak (or what aliens are watching.) // Occupodpeople versus reality. // Desk lamps of note. // If you’re looking for a motorbike… // Bad photographs. // “I can’t think of another pathogenic organism that’s as scary as this one.” // Obviously, the Guild of Evil has a full-size one of these. // And an artificial tornado may well prove useful too. // Don’t tread on me versus tread on everyone. // Saul Bass title design. // Woob: Return to the City.

KC Johnson encounters more protesting intellectuals: 

According to the New York Times, organisers “were protesting not only tuition increases [of $300 per year] but also the university’s push for a public-private partnership,” such as the $1.4 billion in private philanthropy that [City University of New York] has received this year. Of course, if the university received no private support, either tuition bills would have to increase dramatically or services, including the number of faculty, would need to be slashed dramatically. But logic doesn’t appear to be a strong suit of “OccupyCUNY.”

Note the hostility to private and commercial philanthropy, i.e. money given voluntarily, and the simultaneous belief that using money taken forcibly via punitive taxation is a much more righteous endeavour. Apparently, funding by coercion makes the protestors’ education virtuous, or at least more satisfying. It’s a pattern we’ve seen before, of course. Note too the standard “occupy” traits – arrogance, unrealism and a passive-aggressive disregard for the safety and rights of others. Why, it’s almost as if socialism were a license for neoteny and spite.

Charles Kadlec ponders the unspoken meaning of “social justice”:

The OWS movement demonstrates that “social justice” is based on unjust policies similar to those they condemn. The protestors rightfully assail the bailouts of banks and Wall Street executives, but their solution is more of the same including bailouts for student loans and individuals who took out mortgages on houses they could not afford.

In truth, the OWS protestors are only skirmishing over the distribution of the spoils system they claim to abhor. Their demands for higher tax rates on the “1%” show their desire to join those who pillage through the power of government. They call it “social justice.” But its credo is the same as the crony capitalists who exploit the American people through government handouts: Both seek to use political power to satisfy their needs by taking the income of others rather than through voluntary exchanges. In each case, its true name is “greed.”

And Mark Steyn is unimpressed by U.S. budget “cuts”: 

In return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling (and, by the way, that’s the wrong way of looking at it: more accurately, we’re lowering the debt abyss), John Boehner bragged that he’d got a deal for “a real, enforceable cut” of supposedly $7 billion from fiscal year 2012. After running the numbers themselves, the Congressional Budget Office said it only cut $1 billion from FY 2012. Which of these numbers is accurate?

The correct answer is: Who cares? The government of the United States currently spends $188 million it doesn’t have every hour of every day. So, if it’s $1 billion in “real, enforceable cuts,” in the time it takes to roast a 20-pound stuffed turkey for your Thanksgiving dinner, the government’s already borrowed back all those painstakingly negotiated savings. If it’s $7 billion in “real, enforceable cuts,” in the time it takes you to defrost the bird, the cuts have all been borrowed back. Bonus question: How “real” and “enforceable” are all those real, enforceable cuts? By the time the relevant bill passed the Senate earlier this month, the 2012 austerity budget with its brutal, savage cuts to government services actually increased spending by $10 billion.

As usual, feel free to add your own in the comments.

“Fox chained to automobile,” 1940. By John Vachon. Note the water dish.

It’s about antagonising people and slapping them around a little bit and waking them up to reality.

So says Kalle Lasn, editor of the anti-capitalist magazine Adbusters and inspiration for Occupy Wall Street. He and his OccupodPeople are slapping us around for our own good. It’s altruism, see – because they care – and it’s the only way we’ll learn.

Mr Lasn also shares his views on Christmas, the build-up to which he hopes to disrupt with a mix of flashmobs, “rabble-rousing,” sit-ins and other yuletide obstruction:

[Christmas] has been an empty, soulless kind of ritual that very, very few people  enjoy.

He’s therefore giving us “a new way of thinking about the holidays.” He, or rather his minions, will “occupy the paradigm” and “occupy our minds.” Yes, they will save us from Christmas. With sit-ins and mobs in shops. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, here’s a video of an attempted flashmob “occupation” from earlier this year, in which protestors, some of whom were masked, invaded and eventually shut down a Boots store in Oxford Street. One protestor was arrested for suspected criminal damage, at which point other protestors tried to overpower the arresting female officer in an attempt to prevent the arrest. Despite repeated instructions to step back, a scuffle ensued, during which at least three protestors ended up with CS spray in their faces. The protestors inevitably accused the police of being “violent,” “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate.” The views of the store’s owner and customers were, sadly, unclear:  

Heather Mac Donald on the moochers of Zuccotti Park:

While the number of people who commandeered Zuccotti Park was pathetically small – several hundred a night – compared with the weight of media attention lavished upon them, their sense of entitlement to take other people’s property, whether public or private, is unfortunately widespread… The demand by student participants in the Occupy Wall Street protests that they be allowed to welsh on their student loans simply because they don’t want to pay them displays a similar sense of royal privilege over other people’s property – in this case, the assets of taxpayers who extended the loans.

As regular readers will know, seizing and demanding other people’s stuff is, among some, a very fashionable idea.

Silvia Morandotti shares a cautionary tale and some simple lessons. Among which, “Higher taxes mean bigger government, not lower deficits.” And, “Nations reach a point of no return when the number of people mooching off government exceeds the number of people producing.”

And John Sexton parses the vanity of Kalle Lasn, whose idea to “occupy” Wall Street has now become embarrassing: 

Why should [taxpayers] have to subsidise some kid’s desire to study 20th century protest movements? Answer: They shouldn’t. Lasn’s entire move is about getting someone else to pay for the society he envisions… You cannot take over private property, irritate the neighbourhood with drumming day and night, put local business out of business, allow crime and violence to flourish in a cop free zone that is unsafe for women, and then demand that the city endlessly spend millions to deal with your nonsense… People are already sick of it. And that’s why cities around the country are tossing these camps out of public spaces so they can once again be for the public, not for the tiny fraction of a percent of naïve dopes that read [his] magazine.

Whenever you read a statement by an OccupodPerson, look for the signature traits: Arrogance, vindictiveness and utter self-involvement. You may be surprised just how often they crop up.

As usual, feel free to add your own.