By the way... the comment on the DHS in the above post(s) can be substantiated via a combination of a variety of blogs, on-the street observations from social media posts, and both mainstream and not-at-all-mainstream media (take your pick). Here is an example of, believe it or not,a Forbes story which appears to cover the angles on this, discussing both the mine resistant vehicles and questions why would DHS supply itself with nearly two billion rounds of ammunition which includes a certain amount in hollowpoint. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenk... It's safe to say, this isn't for practice anymore.

As 'amsler' seemed to imply in the (above) post, people who point out the Administration's hypocrisy are not paranoid. They just appear so to people with an agenda -- especially when those people (in mainstream media, and in partisan groups supporting oppression) are willing to support, propagate, and promulgate a double standard: promotion of ongoing militarization of America while supporting statutory obstacles to Constitutional rights (1st Amdt, due process, 2nd Amdt, more) of the people. Maybe after people get done with the drone issue (which by no means has gone away) they'll turn to the nearly 10,000 mine resistant vehicles purchased for domestic use by the DHS on top of the buyup of arms and ammunition. Some will continue to claim it's a "conspiracy," but there's nothing "conspiratorial" about pointing out the facts. And I should add, that any news entity that claims or implies that people are "terrorists" for pointing out what our government is doing, may find itself mentioned in FOIA requests, and / or lawsuits when people's names start popping up in government investigations. For more on what's happening in that front I recommend people check out: https://www.muckrock.com/

Wow, um, Joel Dyer, the Boulder Weekly, and the Coast Weekly, is pretty much blinders on and out of touch with the entire world. Maybe you could give yourselves a brief primer on reality by reading a few things: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us...
http://mashable.com/2013/02/19/most-t...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-575...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
In a country where our government has been ardently defending its position to kill US citizens with no due process, and even after protests in Congress, maintains that position, perhaps some of us just missed the chapter in 'The Audacity of Hope' about necessity of warrantless spying, double tap drone strikes, and Guantanamo? If we are talking about guns, are you even aware that in the California legislature alone, that there have grown (from the beginning of the 2013-2014 legislative session), starting with 3 gun bills, to what are now over 50 proposed bills that propose to control guns and / or firearms? (This is fact, not fiction.) Perhaps you are willing also, to ignore that some of these legislative proposals are couched in terms of guns or firearms, but have nothing to do with firearms (and are actually designed to reduce people's due process rights). But you aren't reporting on that, because, of course, you didn't bother to read the proposed laws, did you? Or are you going to go on and on (again) about how people who point out these kind of things are just "conspiracy theorists?" Because we who point out these things weren't even the ones who first claimed these things are happening. The U.S. government is quite open about what it's doing, announces it all the time, and the legislative proposals are clearly evident (either on the State website, leginfo.ca.gov, or for federal legislation, thomas.loc.gov - so people can do the research themselves and find out information on their own). And then, the references to "blowing stuff up" and "terrorism" -- as though anyone who speaks out against government is a "terrorist?" Whatever that term means these days -- since the Department of Defense has classified protests as "low-level terrorism." Pretty clear which side the Monterey County Weekly has come down on -- and it's not on the side of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Strange, since you are operating by using (or perhaps, abusing) the rights of the press. One wonders who you are really being paid by. Your newspaper is a sham.

Something else to consider as well: The passage of PTSD from servicemember to other family members, something our government does not care about in its pursuit of endless unjust wars which it "authorizes" by a new proclamation of "emergency" every year on 9/11. See: http://byliner.com/mac-mcclelland/sto... on the PTSD issue,
and see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o... on how Obama has continued to push unjust wars by claiming, every year, that there is an "emergency." This is sick and must stop.

Personally I see this as the most stupid thing to happen to America in a long time. First, women have already been serving in combat roles, but it hasn't been open as it has to men, and women's experiences are not well known. Women have for years been serving as drone warriors operating combat missions remotely, as door gunners exposed directly to combat, and in many other combat roles. This aside, the rampant militarism of this Administration, paradoxically coupled with its apparent desire to disarm the citizenry, sends a clear message: That it intends to continue a policy of sending even more people into harm's way in unjust wars while hiding behind a mask of equality as it does so. In addition, we see the "Freedom Seven" lawsuit against indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act proceed as the government and plaintiffs are back in court on February 6th. When it comes to the question of what we want to support, not only women, but families and communities should deliberate and decide: do they want to support endless war abroad and assaults on our Constitution, which would be supported by joining the military at this time? Or would it make more sense to support your family and community by engaging in endeavors (whether working or volunteering) which are more productive, positive, and less harmful to the world? Do we want more teachers or more soldiers? These and more questions. Ask yourself, and your children, these difficult but important questions.

If the City of Salinas treats the homeless as "trespassers" on the properties under discussion, and thinks scheduling a "sweep" for the end of the month will address the issues appropriately, this is wrong ~ it will only exacerbate issues and problems. There is a trend right now in society to look for people to persecute: Those with little material resources, those who are disabled or who will be seen as mentally ill, those who have not the means to contend with a legal bureacracy on their own. The City of Salinas cannot by itself solve homelessness or associated issues, but it can take actions that help, and do not harm, those affected by it. One way the City could do this in a way that is consistent with State law (and in fact is required to) is to identify SB 2 [2007] eligible and other properties where homeless can reside. According to Government Code 65583(a)(4) this requires the City to identify "a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. (...) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the
adoption of the housing element." This is applicable in every City in California. An example of where this process has been examined can be found on the Occupy Monterey site at http://www.occupymontereypeninsula.or... "Do no Harm."

This is all very interesting to read. All of you who have been commenting on this would be interested to know (if you don't already) that Monterey County water rate changes are anticipated to raise water cost for people in various Cities & the County, not Cal-Am exclusively and that this rate-setting business in relation to the "Water Project" is on the agenda of California Public Utilities Commission for July 12. Report is at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/pd/1686... - touches on various of the issues you've described in your comments. You can comment before July 12 by email to: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Include "Comment on CPUC July 12 Agenda Item 15 [11410]" in your subject.

Interesting. In the brief interview given to the Weekly's senior editor upon being called on this story, Mr. Gallagher specifically stated (in response to being asked if he was a "spokesperson" for Occupy Monterey) that he was NOT a spokesperson... that all people in #occupymonterey have free will and will shape this movement... and that other people's voices should be reported on, not just his own. But interestingly, the Weekly chose to call Mr. Gallagher a "de facto spokesperson," anyway. <sigh>

Thank you for publishing the photos. For the caption on the photo which reads, "Occupiers asked Monterey City Council to allow the permit to expire on Monday after heavy rains were expected for the previous weekend," a note of correction is that the request upon appeal was for an extension to Feb. 3 (and other items), but the City Council decision allowed an extension of the permit only until January 23rd, 2012. See http://www.occupymontereypeninsula.or... for additional details and a link to to the Powerpoint presentation shown to the City Council on Jan. 17, 2012.

this article is gold. I just re-read it, very good stuff.