Recalling what I said earlier this week

November 17, 2011 By 154 Comments

…about our deep disinclination to damage relationships with friends, family and Trusted Authority Figures, can you read this without making excuses for the police who did this?

I walked between the lines, I was alone, I was in full clergy dress, everyone knew who I was and what I was — with the protesters fleeing and the police line holding — with my back to the police and my hands waving the protesters to get back — alone in full alb, stole and cross — six officers turned their spray on me thoroughly soaking my alb and then one officer hit me full throttle in the face.

Yes. I’m aware of the excuses. The Occupy Seattle ninnies (some of them) were hostile. They are, some of them, dirty hippies. The minister is undoubtedly a lefty of some variety. Etc. Got it. Not of the tribe.

Still and all, is there any excuse for six cops pepper spraying an obviously harmless man and smashing him in the face? Note as well the sinister fact that he was selected for this beating while he was wearing vestments and was obviously a man of the cloth. The cops couldn’t know his politics. But they could see that he was a representative of some form of Christian belief–and they chose him out of that crowd to beat the tar out of him. That should give you pause about what is to come as the People’s Democratic National Security State of Heaven continues to groom a militarized domestic security wing that regards its citizenry as cattle and the Church as a threat to the power of Caesar.

Update:  One thing that doesn’t help the growth of the People’s Democratic National Security State of Heaven is when goonish behavior by the police gets documented in a striking photo that goes viral such as this one of an 84 year old woman after she was pepper sprayed:

To be sure, some stalwart defenders of ridiculous police state tactics against harmless people will continue to make excuses for this in my comboxes, but the mayor and the cops here realize they have a big public relations turd on their hands and are back-pedaling, not trying to float the ridiculous claim that an 84 year old woman was such a threat that she needed to be pepper sprayed. She was as much a threat as the 86 year old disabled and bed-ridden woman whom police tased (twice) after standing on her oxygen hose, and whose grandson was then arrested for protesting. She was as much a threat as the 10 year the cops tased for not going to bed. Or the injured kid with a broken back who was tased 19 times.

Of course, Colbert has fun with this:

But the most grotesque remark (which the Seattle gov’t has to be facepalming itself over) is the one from the Seattle Police spokesman talking about how pepper spray is fine for people from 10 to 80. Way to go on the PR, guys! Given the stories above, that’s perhaps not something you want to be remembered for as your big selling point.

Filed Under: Uncategorized 154 Comments
  • Doug Sirman

    Yes, easily. You judge the action, not the person doing or receiving it.

    And I still maintain that there is a vast difference between doubting hearsay, or witnessing a rape and doing nothing other than telling your boss. One is characterized by ambivalence, the other is a damnable evil.

    • Andy

      I am not sure what your comment has to do with Mark’s point. The use of force to evict those who are not bowing to the god of corporatism is frightening as hell. I guess the next thing will be we have to “turn in” those who do not worship mammon. By the way being a ninine or somewhat hostile (not violent) is not an excuse to attack a person physically or for that matter spiritually. Attacking a minister of any faith who is not interfering with or not hindering a “police action” is just plain wrong. However, it is also not okay to attack a leftie or a rightie because we do not like their politics/ or beliefs. If we the people can’t control ourselves in that fashion, and see the good intentions of those we disagree with, which is something I am trying to work on myself, then how will we retake control of our government?

      • Peggy R

        “The use of force to evict those who are not bowing to the god of corporatism is frightening as hell. ”

        Putting aside this apparently unwarranted attack upon a clergyman, these people are not exercising their right to free speech. They have completely occupied lands that are for use of the general public, not for themselves alone. (Zucotti is privately owned, but for public use.) These people are not the only members of the public entitled to these facilities. They’ve created environments for disease to develop and spread. Criminals are among them. Women are being raped. People have died, from sickness, gunfire. They’ve been disturbing to to the surrounding residents and businesses, not just large corporations. I didn’t know respecting the public & private property was bowing to the god of corporatism. It’s called shared use of public lands. These bums are dangerous thugs who are also interested in harming private property, maybe people too. Do the 10 commandments say it’s okay to break windows at Bank of America or Mens Wearhouse b/c they’re big companies? Is it really ok to storm Wall St today? I bet WalMart is glad not to be the whipping boy on this.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          Good point, Peggy. The First Amendment guarantees our right to assemble and protest to air our grievances and then go home. It does not give us the right to camp out for extended periods of time on property not our own, rendering it filthy and unsanitary while harassing local businesses and basically making pests of ourselves. All of which has been going on in NYC and at many other OWS sites. The judge confirmed this to be the case when he said that the protesters could return to Zuccotti Park but could not bring tents or sleeping bags. That is perfectly constitutional; we have a right to protest, not to “occupy.”

          Nor does the First Amendment allow for violence, which has also broken out at some sites. The list of violence and lawlessness at OWS sites that I posted a few weeks ago has grown to 271 incidents, so here it is again:

          http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

          Note that the police haven’t been stepping in until conditions deteriorated and crime, violence, even death began to become commonplace. Until then, the various cities tended to be very accommodating, even at the expense of average citizens who had to live with the smell and the noise.

          So I disagree that the police were using “force to evict those who are not bowing to the god of corporatism.” They were using force against squatters who didn’t belong there, were making a nuisance of themselves, and refusing to leave when asked. If/when the state starts evicting law-abiding citizens from their own privately-owned houses, because they refuse to “bow to the god of corporatism,” then you will have a point. That’s not what happened here. The protesters did not belong there and long overstayed their welcome.

          When such evictions occur, violence is often a part of that. The police should definitely have been more careful not to assault a non-violent clergyperson, however. I understand that such things can happen “in the heat of the moment” but that doesn’t mean I will justify it.

          • Peggy R

            Thank you. Glad to read your comments on these threads, too! God bless you and yours.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              Thanks, same to you! :-)

      • Doug Sirman

        Mark asked, “can you read this without making excuses for the police who did this?”, and I answered, “Yes.” What’s not to get?

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          Maybe it was a rhetorical question.

  • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

    The use of force to evict those who are not bowing to the god of corporatism is frightening as hell.

    No kidding. There are always good reasons, at the time, for any act of vicious suppression. It’s only after it’s written down in the history books in black and white do we look back and say, “How did we not see what we were actually doing back there?”

  • BenYachov

    You lie down with dogs you get fleas. Anybody can wear a collar but it doesn’t prove they are clergy. In my area there was a scam where a woman who wasn’t a nun went around dressed as one to beg for money.

    >with my back to the police and my hands waving the protesters to get back —

    With all due respect Father it’s the police’s job to do crowd control not you. You inserted yourself into it & naturally you got caught in the line of fire. Don’t do that!

    • Mark Shea

      Wow. So beat the tar out of somebody in Christian vestments who poses no threat, because a somebody once pretended to be a nun. Fascinating.

      • BenYachov

        Wow so people who wear vestments should insert themselves into the middle of a dangerous riot and not look suprised when they suffer collateral damage?

        I was in the Navy. If you wandered around the Ship during a Security Alert you would be tackled and you would be beaten up unless you are the Captain in those cases assaulting a superior officer doesn’t apply. Since even a bootcamp Ensign would know better then to do so.

        If a Cop is trying to subdue a pack of criminal thugs & you physically insert yourself into it you are going to get hurt.

        Especially since these people have an anti-police agenda.

        • VAGreen

          Civil disobedience is not a dangerous riot. They’re thugs because you don’t like their politics.

          • Asclepius

            No. They’re thugs because they’re objectively thugs. Disagree with the Tea Party though you may, these people are not thugs: they pick up after themselves. They don’t rule by intimidation themselves. They don’t organize just to organize, and see what happens later.

            Thugs objectively. And when they get thuggish — even brutally thuggish treatment from the police, we are supposed to drop everything and say, “WHOA! This has got to stop!”

            Eh? Really? You mean, I’m supposed to be surprised when sin perpetuates more sin? It’s the oldest story in the Book.

      • http://7kids6dice1gamerdad.wordpress.com Raul

        No, not that at all. With all due respect to the clergyman, it’s just plain common sense that should keep one away from such things. No one should be surprised at the outcome of this. Regardless of who you are whether you appear as docile as a priest or as family friendly as Mickey Mouse, if you put yourself in that sort of risky environment don’t be shocked that you become a victim. That being said, I shall be praying for both the police and the protestors. What is needed is prayer…and common sense to prevail.

        • Mark Shea

          Quite true. One could say the same to the people hosed by Bull Connor. But that would not really be addressing my point, would it?

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          I don’t think I would make a blanket statement that the clergyman should have stayed out of it. If he wanted to avoid getting hurt, then yes, he should have kept away. But the clergy sometimes put themselves in harm’s way if there is a good reason for it. That’s how martyrs come about. I suppose this man thought he had a good reason to be there.

          However, if one is going to go into a dangerous situation, one should not be surprised if one ends up hurt. That doesn’t mean the police were right; they should not have used pepper spray on someone who posed them no threat. I guess it happened “in the heat of the moment.” That kind of thing occurs in chaotic situations; it’s not good or justified but it does happen. I’d have to know more about the situation to judge the level of the cops’ culpability, but if they knew he was no threat and sprayed him anyway then they were wrong.

          Yes, some early Franciscans put themselves in harm’s way in an attempt to convert Muslims, as someone points out below. However, I don’t recall the Order complaining about Saracen brutality when their friars came home in boxes. Martyrdom was to be expected; it was even embraced as a direct way to heaven. Should the clergyman in this instance rejoice in his white martyrdom rather than crying police brutality? I don’t know; I’m frankly not certain the two situations are perfectly parallel.

    • Sal

      “Yes. I’m aware of the excuses. The Occupy Seattle ninnies (some of them) were hostile.”

      Why is that an excuse? It’s a cogent part of the story.
      Don’t go to a gathering- any gathering- with the potential to become a riot expecting personal safety.

      Understand the point you made in the original post, but this is a bad example.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    I have been against OWS for a while, but I also oppose police brutality. If this account is accurate, then it is a travesty. The police should obviously show restraint and not do that to a nonviolent person.

  • ds

    In the interest of truth, and not excuses, I think what he meant by hit full throttle in the face is pepper spray right in the face, not physically struck in the face.

    But, full blast pepper spray in the face is probably just as brutal and in some cases worse than being punched in the face.

    The police are violence loving thugs. This is what I don’t like about police. Too many of them are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to beat the crap out of another human being.

    What really disgusts and frightens me about it is the way that all the cops (even the “good” ones) will close ranks around these violent thugs and protect them and not a single cop will be held responsible for what they do wrong.

    • Mark Shea

      “The police are violence loving thugs. ”

      Talk about broad-brushing.

      • ds

        yeah I should’ve said many, not all. I get a little worked up over this stuff.

        • Dr. Eric

          You shouldn’t even say “many.” I have more than a few friends who are policemen, county deputies, and state troopers- they are all good family men and fathers.

  • Andy

    To Peggy and Rosemarie – These people were thugs and criminals – they allowed situations where disease could develop…
    As you cast your comments that they are not like me and do not deserve my concern – I will recall this when the same corporate thugs come for you – because you are part of a subversive group that has as its core social justice.

    Ben – the reality of a priest or minister attempt to quell violence is part of their calling – who better to attempt this then a person who follows the words of the Prince of Peace – remember Him?

    What OWS did or did not do does not give the police the right to use violence – if they can single out the rapists or the murderers then arrest them. The blind support of the corporate overlords does little to answer the fundamental concerns that OWS and the TP raised – a concentration of power and money. In fact this blind support indicates that it will continue.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      >>>To Peggy and Rosemarie – These people were thugs and criminals – they allowed situations where disease could develop…
      As you cast your comments that they are not like me and do not deserve my concern

      Actually, there but for the grace of God go I. I could have certainly become like them had my life taken a different course. I didn’t say they don’t “deserve my concern.” Just that they were breaking the law and so were, not surprisingly, treated like lawbreakers.

      >>>I will recall this when the same corporate thugs come for you – because you are part of a subversive group that has as its core social justice.

      If I ever break the just laws of the state, then I will deserve the state’s punishment just as much as they do. If I am ever punished unjustly simply for being part of a certain group, the state will be in the wrong. How hard is that to understand?

      • Peggy R

        Rosemarie,

        You added some important aspects that I did not in my reply. Thank you for making those points.

        Yes, if I break the law, I may have some trouble coming my way. I should expect that.

        Yes, this could have been me, too. I used to think this way as a “have-not.” Then I finished grad school, got a job and became financial stable, paid taxes, etc. No one “gave” anything to me. I worked for my tuition. I paid my student loans. In college I dated a guy whose family was more prosperous than mine. It was serious. I kept thinking his family “owed” something to me b/c they had it and I “might” become part of the family. Then, when that relationship ended and I started making my own way, I realized how wrong I was. I had been envious. I had to go out and get economic stability for myself. No one was going to give it to me. I had to work to get “things” and status in the world. I remain a very prudent person given the many years as a “poor” college student. Good character building. But, “getting stuff” is not the way to happiness. This comes from uniting myself to Jesus. That is another lesson.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          I was more liberal in college myself. Always pro-life, mind you, but I held many liberal views. I’m not 100% “conservative” even now, by whatever standards of political conservatism apply today.

          I don’t think I would have rubbed shoulders with Marxists back then, though. The Communist Manifesto was required reading in my “The Making of the Modern World” course and I wrote a critique of it; I thought it was simplistic and unrealistic even back then. Of course, the USSR was crumbling at the time so the failure of communism was as evident as the headlines of the daily paper. Maybe the generation that has grown up since then doesn’t have the same clarity of those of us who lived through the Cold War. Especially if they’ve got Marxist professors filling their minds with nonsense.

      • Spastic Hedgehog

        “treated like lawbreakers”

        This is my biggest issue. While Andrew Breitbart has an impressive list of news stories on incidents at OWS sites, I’m having a hard time seeing how defecating on a police car = pepper spray and batons.

        Treat them like law-breakers but the punishment ought to fit the crime.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          The pepper spray and batons are supposed to be used against any protesters who become violent or refuse to leave after being warned of the impending cleanup and told to go. If they are knowingly, deliberately used against non-violent people that is wrong, although I suppose a case could be made that anyone who inserts himself into a potentially violent situation shouldn’t be too surprised if he falls victim to the violence around him. That doesn’t make it right to harm the non-violent, but it is a fact of life.

          • Spastic Hedgehog

            “The pepper spray and batons are supposed to be used against any protesters who … refuse to leave after being warned”

            I will remember this when it happens to Pro-Lifers.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              If pro-lifers are set upon with pepper spray and batons while peacefully, lawfully protesting then that is obviously wrong.

              However, if pro-lifers deliberately break a *just* law while protesting, then that merits punishment. No one is above the law, not even pro-lifers.

              • VAGreen

                Trespassing is a just law, which is often broken by pro-life protesters. I just talked to my wife, who engaged in pro-life civil disobidience when she was a teenager, and she confirmed that she was arrested, but the police managed to do so without beating or macing her for breaking the law.

                • James

                  Did she resist?

      • VAGreen

        The job of the police is to arrest, not to punish. The police can use pepper spray to subdue people who are violently resisting them, but using it to punish people for engaging in civil disobedience is thuggery. Police arrest, the district attorney prosecutes, the jury convicts, and the judge sentences. It’s some pretty basic stuff, and I shouldn’t have to explain it to you.

    • BenYachov

      A priest is not a Lawful Agent in this country to enforce the civil law.

      The Priest can refuse you communion at the order of the bishop after a canonical process. He can refuse to grant you absolution if in his judgement you are not truely repentant of your sins. But even with this authority he can’t Block God’s extra-ordinary grace.

      Can a policeman come into the church and force Father to give communion or grant absolution?

      No he can’t! Neither can the Priest enforce the civil Law. That belongs to Caesar by God’s divine decree(Rom 15) not the clergy unless you live in a Theocratic State & even then the Priest would be exercising civil powers not religious ones.

      • Mark Shea

        Right. And so it’s fine to beat the tar out of a minister who was harming nobody. You’re not even making sense, Jim. Just saying anything to prop up your irrational support for an act of unjust violence because it was done against a tribe you dislike.

        • BenYachov

          Rather it is what will happen if you take law into your own hands.

          It’s not his job to wave the crowd back. It’s his job to get out of the way.

          • Mark Shea

            Translation: He was harmless, but it’s okay they beat him up, cuz he’s the wrong sort. He had it coming.

            • VAGreen

              Mark,

              It’s just another example of the corruption of The Thing That Used to Be Conservatism.

  • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

    It’s not clear to me that beating up a man in vestments is worse than beating up a man in a pin-striped suit, or a man in jeans.

    • Mark Shea

      Nor did I say it was. However, selecting a man in vestments to beat up tells us something about the priorities of the thug.

      • BenYachov

        Or you are in the middle of a warzone you have no rational reason to be in and you get in the way.

        If I see a bunch of thugs picking fights with the Cops I am not going to be a dumb ass put myself in the middle of it and say “Can’t we all just get along”. I am going to presume the Cops are inforcing the Law & the thugs are breaking it unless I have rational reasons to believe the contrary.

        • Mark Shea

          Rubbish. Seattle is not a war zone. You are making an excuse for an obvious act of injustice because you don’t happen to like the politics of the guy who got beaten up. Good luck when the cops decide that your politics or religion need beaten up.

          • BenYachov

            Down town Manhattan was one till Bloomie grew a pair.

            >You are making an excuse for an obvious act of injustice because you don’t happen to like the politics of the guy who got beaten up.

            Bullshit! I would not stop a liberal police officer from subduing a convervative idiot who was being violent and breaking the law. I would not get involved since I have no authority and I would presume the police man was in the right while exercising his duty.

            • Mark Shea

              The man was not being violent or breaking the law, yet you still make excuses for beating him up. As I say, you aren’t even making sense. Do you also agree that cops should pepper spray 84 year old women?

              • BenYachov

                So you think it’s lawful for a private citizen without public authority to stand between a cop and a perp?

                Is what happen to the 84 year old woman a moral failing on the part of the cops or collateral damage because she was with a group of thugs who resisted arrest and defied a lawful police order.

                You militant desire to blame the cops for at all costs after hearing only one side of story is also noted.

                Plus your tendency to ignore that these are people who write “F*** the police on their tents”.

                • Mark Shea

                  Goodbye, Jim. Sick of the insults. Sick of the abuse.

              • Matt B

                Regardless of what the thugs were thinking, or if they were thinking, isn’t this the exact sort of thing that priests do; wade into a fight, get beat up or killed, as a witness to the Prince of Peace, aforementioned? Didn’t St. Francis foray into Islamoland? Wasn’t that the intention of St. Anthony. Weren’t Franciscans by the dozens returned from Northern Africa in boxes? Seems like you’re railing about thugs being thugs, and priests being priests – to no clear purpose. “Dog bites man.”

                • Mark Shea

                  To be clear, the guy wasn’t a priest. But to the rest: yes.

                • Richard Johnson

                  I have to wonder at those who would blame the clergy for this kind of thuggery. I have to ask them, did Jesus deserve to be crucified because he overturned the tables of the law-abiding moneychangers?

                  • Matt B

                    Maybe, but he most certainly didn’t deserve crucifixion for healing all of those people, setting captives free, proclaiming good news to the poor, etc. Or maybe these were more blameworthy after all?

            • VAGreen

              “Down town Manhattan was one till Bloomie grew a pair.”

              What an insult to anyone who’s actually been in a war zone. That’s just a sick comparison.

  • Peggy R

    **As you cast your comments that they are not like me and do not deserve my concern – I will recall this when the same corporate thugs come for you – because you are part of a subversive group that has as its core social justice.**

    Andy, they have at their core marxism, statism, and opposition to liberty and property rights. What “corporate thugs” are coming for them, anyway? They are blocking public streets and property. They are not doing anything constructive. The tea party cares also about government and business collusion. They demonstrate and go home. They raise families and vote. They call congressmen and scream, etc. But they don’t infringe on others’ freedoms or public safety. They don’t destroy businesses’ property.

    What are the OWSers doing to build up society? To encourage an economy that is ethical in the ways OWS values? To change laws that permit the collusion?

    Obama has been fomenting this discontent from early on. He told some CEOs he was the only thing between them and pitchforks. I don’t know if today is the end game for this agenda, but it is a result of his and others’ aggravating discontent and shifting blame away from government. Communists stoke discontent and stand back to enjoy the chaos, hoping the revolution is imminent.

    • Mark Shea

      I thinking talking about the “core” of the OWSers is like talking about the main structural features of a handful of dry sand. The “core” of this group, like the core of the inchoate group known as the Tea Parties is frustration over the incestuous relationship of the State and Big Business. Beyond that, they have no idea what they are doing. It’s a herd of cats.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Wouldn’t the core be the ones who run the official OWS website? Who put up lists of demands like this one on that site:

        http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

        Yes, I know it’s just a “proposed” list, but it’s been up for nearly four weeks now. If they weren’t serious about it surely it would have been taken down. Sorry, but I can’t support a group that wants to expand government and take away individual rights, like the right to homeschool, just because they may be right about a few other things.

        • ds

          eeesh, Rosemarie you keep harping on that list. That site is an open form where anyone can post. There’s tons of comments on the post from OWS supporters who oppose that list. This list is a strawman.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            The list is being compiled by one man from various media reports on the protests. He’s not making this stuff up.

            So it’s not a strawman; it’s factual information. The OWS supporters can complain as much as they like but that won’t change the fact that those incidents did happen. People have been robbed. Both men and women have been raped. Some people have even died. Those are the facts.

            • ds

              I’m not talking about a list of incidents, I’m talking about the list of demands that you posted. YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU POSTED.

              • Rosemarie

                +J.M.J+

                Okay, so I reiterate: the list of demands has been on the official website for nearly four weeks now. If the leaders of the movement disagree then they should have removed it.

                I’ve read the comments and yes, some people disagree with them. Good for them! Yet the leaders have left the list up regardless, so that only shows that some people in the movement don’t have the same influence as others.

                • Rosemarie

                  BTW, I’m sorry for answering about the wrong link. I’ve commented on quite a few threads in this combox and am trying to monitor them all. So things got a bit confusing there.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            Incidentally, why is it so hard to believe that OWS would oppose homeschooling? The United Federation of Teachers has been extremely supportive of the protest, even to the point of storing supplies for the Zuccotti squatters in a storefront owned by the union.

            Since the teachers union is no fan of homeschooling, it’s not hard to see why someone in OWS would include that in a list of demands. A modest payback for union support, maybe?

      • bob cratchit

        They (protesters) do strike a similarity to a vanguard party of sorts. I don’t even like refering to them as hippies, who at least had a heart for something they believed in. These “herd of cats” really don’t appear to know what they are doing, they are just sort of out there. Or maybe paid in some cases (ACORN).

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          I don’t call them “hippies” either; I don’t think the moniker quite fits. Many of them are more like the Yippies, but I wouldn’t call them that either since that’s a specific movement and, AFAIK, they’re not part of it (Wikipedia says the Youth International Party still exists, so I guess there are still real Yippies out there).

    • Andy

      Peggy
      I was referring to the Catholic Church – not OWS – I think that you and others might want to review all of the various encyclicals and teaching of the church and see the convergence – already I hear the Church is under attack – yet those who in some ways mirror the social teaching – they are bad -

      • Peggy R

        Yes, we are already under attack for our Catholic beliefs. I’m not out imposing upon public or private property as a result of that danger to me.

        I guess you’re attributing Catholic values to OWS. Be my guest. They get one thing right, which the tea party got right first a couple years ago: there’s collusion btwn big business and govt. There’s not much else right about this movement. It’s dangerous.

        • Andy

          And Peggy the second amendment responses advocated by tea party darlings angle, palin are just nothing – as far as private property goes re-read what Leo wrote and other popes wrote. I am not attributing OWS with all catholic values just some of them. And if our church is under attack when will you and I be next? Those attacked are not always those in the front.

          • Peggy R

            Angle said one thing… she didn’t win…she’s nowhere. You are falsely charging Palin. These OWSers are acting out violent ideas. No tea partier ever damaged property or persons. (Didn’t we go over this a week or so ago here?)

            So, Pope Leo said it was cool to break windows of businesses, upset your neighbors with drums and music all day & night, block people from going to their jobs or homes, take over a public park preventing any one else from enjoying it…?

            • Andy

              B+No actually he said that the economy should not be driven by complete private ownership for individuals (my paraphrase) He did n’t advocate breaking windows, but he did advocate that all people had a right to dignity and a living wage.
              the ANgle comment is a reminder not to over generalize – it is a sign of a lazy argument.

              • Peggy R

                Agreed property rights not absolute. See US 5th Amendment, though Kelo was quite evil. A couple of tea partiers SAID provocative things. A mob of OWSers are DOING violent things.

    • VAGreen

      “The tea party cares also about government and business collusion. They demonstrate and go home. They raise families and vote. They call congressmen and scream, etc. But they don’t infringe on others’ freedoms or public safety.”

      Except for Muslims’ freedom of religion:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?pagewanted=all

      “In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby. ”

      “Ms. Serafin was among an estimated 20 to 30 people who turned out to protest the mosque, including some who intentionally took dogs to offend those Muslims who consider dogs to be ritually unclean. ”

      Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html#ixzz1e1dtgadQ

      “Since May when the Center gained building approval from Rutherford County, local Tea Party activists have aggressively fought to stop the mosque, staging protests, claiming that it was too big (inflating it from a modest 6,800 square feet to a whopping 53,000 square feet) and making it a campaign issue in recent elections.”

      http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/17/371239/womick-tea-party-muslims/

      Tennessee state Rep. Rick Womick (R-Murfreesboro) found few defenders after his comments — first reported by ThinkProgress — calling for the purge of Muslims from the U.S. military caused an uproar as Muslim groups in Tennessee and across the country demand an apology. But the Wilson County Tea Party, in a newsletter emailed to supporters today, came to Womick’s defense and urged its members to support Womick.

    • VAGreen

      “The tea party cares also about government and business collusion. They demonstrate and go home. They raise families and vote. They call congressmen and scream, etc. But they don’t infringe on others’ freedoms or public safety. They don’t destroy businesses’ property.”

      When they get into Congress, they scream at people who dare to bring up the fact (yes, FACT) that the financial crisis was not Pure Freddie and Fannie, End of Story:

      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39409_Rep._Joe_Walsh_Screams_at_Town_Hall_Questioners

    • VAGreen

      “The tea party cares also about government and business collusion. They demonstrate and go home. They raise families and vote. They call congressmen and scream, etc. But they don’t infringe on others’ freedoms or public safety.”

      Except for the freedom of speech of people at town halls who disagreed with them about health care reform. This is just vile:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/tea-party-patriots-attack_n_367475.html

      “At a town hall held by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) on Nov. 14,, Dan and Midge Hough spoke about how they believed the death of their daughter-in-law and her unborn child were caused, in part, by a lack of health insurance. Twenty-four-year old Jennifer was uninsured. According to her in-laws, she was not receiving regular prenatal care and was not properly treated when she got sick. She ended up in an emergency room with double pneumonia that developed into septic shock, had a heart attack, a brain bleed and a stroke. The baby died and Jennifer died a few weeks later.

      Midge Hough was heckled by anti-reform crowd members. “You can laugh at me, that’s okay,” she said, crying. “But I lost two people, and I know you think that’s funny, that’s okay.”

      A local Tea Party organizer falsely claimed that the couple had made up the story and tried to justify the town hall behavior, according to the Southtown Star.”

      I guess that saying that people can die from a lack of health insurance is blasphemy against Lord Mammon and needs to be silenced.

  • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

    Just imagine if some folks did an Occupy Planned Parenthood.

    I expect that it wouldn’t last 10 minutes, and any clergy willing to defy their bishop would be complaining about worse treatment. (so why do some bishops oppose clergy protesting at PP and abortion mills?)

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Operation Rescue (OR) came pretty close to that back in the 1980s; only they didn’t try to camp out in front of the abortion clinics indefinitely. And we know what happened to them – anyone blocking the doors of the clinic was arrested post-haste. I doubt they would have been allowed to stay as long as they liked until the situation became unbearable.

      Why not? Well, the abortion mills are private property and… oh, wait, so is Zuccotti Park. Well, OR was disrupting business… wait, the OWS protesters were also having a negative impact on local businesses, and for many weeks, not just a single day. Gee, why were the OWS protesters shown so much more patience and accommodation than OR?

      • BenYachov

        Operation Rescue was a disaster that in the end hurt the pro-life cause.

        Life Dynamics did way better then them & without breaking the law. They used the law to screw over abortionists.

        Protest peacefully and go home an vote or run for office. The American way!

        Get into conflicts with police so you can cry “Help! Help! I am being opressed!”.

        I’m not impressed.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          As you know, Jim, I don’t agree with OR’s tactics. I’m simply pointing out the striking contrast between how OR protesters were promptly arrested and dragged away and how OWS has been allowed to camp out for weeks on end. I don’t agree with either group, but the double standard is still interesting. Make of it what you will.

          • BenYachov

            I was adding to you comments babe not disagreeing.

            Love you sweetie.

          • BenYachov

            We might want to point out that the Operation people did not resist arrest.

            That is true civil disobedience 101.

            Ephisis on the civil. But of course OR was still a disaster & thus how much worst are the Occupiers.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              Well, they were counseled to “go limp,” which would make it harder for the police to haul them away. That led to charges of resisting arrest. Also, when they stood before a judge they were supposed to say their name was “Baby Doe,” in order to “identify” with the nameless preborn babies being aborted. This led to charges of contempt of court.

  • http://moralmindfield.wordpress.com Brian Green

    Well, since there seems to be some controversy here in the combox about how correct (or expected…) it should be to pepper-spray clergy, how about pepper-spraying an 84 year old woman? Look at her face.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/photo-of-84-year-old-woman-hit-by-pepper-spray-at-occupy-seattle-protest-goes-viral/2011/11/16/gIQAAK7lRN_story.html

    • BenYachov

      The Seattle activists were blocking downtown streets. Rainey said police told the group they had to move.

      QUOTE“They picked up their bicycles and started shoving them at us and confining us in a very small place and they started to pepper spray,” she said.

      Seattle police on Wednesday referred reporters to a statement they released late Tuesday. Officers gave multiple verbal warnings and only used pepper spray against people who were “refusing a lawful order to disperse or engaging in assaultive behavior toward officers.”END QUOTE

      This helps the anti-police narrative how? A best this poor woman was collateral damage. The fault here lies with the thugs not the police.

      Now produce a narrative of a peaceful lawful protest where there was pepper spraying & maybe I’ll this whinning seriously.

  • Dan C

    Again, I remind folks that the US supported and gave excuses for this behavior in other countries when the priests and nuns poor inconveniently stood up for the poor. These Latin American priests were murdered alongside union organizers and others. Even as recently as this decade had demonstrated the selective targeting in Argentina of nuns who were associated with the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo or Dorothy Strang (a nun murdered for the promotion of private wealth and interest). Silence about this on the conservative blogosphere. (Unless the murderer is a Muslim.)

    If Catholics are discriminated against, it will be because the consequences of the promotion of power in other countries (by the US and its clients) “came home to roost.” And despite the high dudgeons in conservative blogosphere that the American Catholic pogroms will target the faithful who do not support gay marriage, the real physical attacks will start on those who support the poor and disengranchised.

    Maybe this blog post suggests they already have.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Yes, what happened to priests and religious in other countries was wrong. Even though a few of them might have been Marxist (which is what liberation theology is), it is wrong to kill someone consecrated to God.

      As I said above, if I or anyone else breaks a just law (like squatting on private property, vandalism, etc.) then the state has a right to arrest and punish us. If we do not do those things, the state has no right to punish us for simply belonging to a certain party or religion or for mere ungoodthink.

      Just because the state has finally, after weeks of tolerance, begun to remove these illegal encampments and arrest anyone who resists doesn’t logically mean the US is now totalitarian and on the verge of punishing law-abiding Catholics as well. If my country ever gets that unjust (and it certainly could happen), it will be a tragic day. But for now let’s keep things in perspective.

      • Dan C

        Liberation theology is not Marxism. Nor did a more detailed critique by then-CDF leader Cardinal Ratzinger equate the two.

        Marxism is a godless materialism.

        Throughout the documents liberation theology Christ is pervasive. It is a Christ-in-the-poor who is pervasive in this theology, however flawed.

        But you know that. It is just more damning and alienating to equate liberation theology to Marxism. Like doing something ridiculous like calling Obama a socialist.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          I went to a Catholic high school in the 1980s where the Religion department taught us liberation theology as though it were true Christianity. It is basically Marxist. It teaches that God is always on the side of the poor and opposed to the rich (class struggle). It claims that Jesus dreamed of establishing an egalitarian utopia on earth that He called the “kingdom of God,” where there would be no poverty because everyone would share their possessions. Not much mention of heaven, and the episcopal hierarchy was generally identified as an oppressor to be resisted.

          In one of my religion classes, we watched a Bill Moyers special about the “People’s Church” in Nicaragua, a liberation theology-based church with Catholic trappings that opposed the Church hierarchy in that country. The Sandinistas were okay with this church because it was communist like themselves.

          Liberation theology is Marxism with a crucifix around its neck. I know that sounds contradictory since Marxism is often godless and materialistic, but human beings are sometimes capable of the strangest forms of syncretism.

          • Peggy R

            Rosemarie,

            We must be on the same wavelength. I also thought immediately today of the Catholic clergy and women religious caught up in the Latin American conflicts. I read stories in a book by Daniel Ellsberg (“All Saints” a liberation theology book of heroes, I’d say) about Maryknoll and other missionaries to L.A., who were clearly espousing marxism, got caught up in the fight and were killed. I don’t see much difference between marxism and liberation theology. The latter is the former with a cultural/racial resentment angle.

          • Dan C

            Liberation theology retains a closer relationship to Catholicism than the Acton Institute. And American evangelicals. But…liberation theology is to be more reviled.

            God loves the poor in a special way that differs from the rich. Matthew 25 identifies this. This is a stumbling block for many.

            One woman, who had no affinity for work with the poor and clearly admitted this, made the corellation as follows: God loves the poor in the same way a mother loves her disabled child in a special way. This child is always “specially loved” by the mother. Her insight gave me the insight into why God loved the poor with special care. A love we are to emulate because He has indicated the poor are specially identified with Christ, in a way that differs from the non-poor.

            So…yes, God loves the poor in a special way, has indicated since the days of the apostles that He is truly manifest in the poor, in a way second only the the Eucharist, and the Gospels due not cast the wealthy in the same way. I reference largely the whole of Luke in this matter.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              Liberation theology doesn’t merely say that God loves the poor in a special way, as a mother loves her disabled child (I’ve never heard a liberation theologian make that particular analogy). It says that God has a preferential option for the poor *against* the rich, and that Christians should therefore engage in a class struggle against the rich.

              Christianity does not teach this. God does love the poor but He is no respecter of persons; He does not show partiality or favoritism based on ones wealth or social standing. He offers His saving grace to all. The poor are not automatically righteous; they too could potentially reject that grace and end up in hell. Though the rich should not become complacent due to their wealth or allow it to master them, they are not automatically “the enemy.” Rather God expects them to use their riches to help the poor, as many wealthy saints have done throughout history. The very existence of wealthy saints should put the lie to the idea that God is “against the rich.”

              To pit the rich and poor against each other in a class struggle is communist, not Christian.

              • VAGreen

                What do you call it when the rich are waging the class struggle against the poor and middle class, like they have been doing here for the past 30 years?

                • Rosemarie

                  +J.M.J+

                  I call it unChristian. Just because I’m critical of liberation theology doesn’t mean I support laissez-faire capitalism.

              • Dan C

                And yet…liberation theology is still closer to Catholicism than the Acton Institute’s dessicated isolationist dialectic.

                • Rosemarie

                  +J.M.J+

                  Yeah, and Mormonism is closer to Catholicism than Shintoism, but I’m not going to cease pointing out the errors of Mormonism because of it.

              • Dan C

                The wealthy can get into the Kingdom of God, but the synoptics seem to indicate it is vety hard, as hard as passing a camel through the eye of a needle. This quote comes after the young rich man was told what to do.

                The Gospels are very challenging to one’s economics. The pelvic morality stuff is nothing by comparison to the economic morality.

                • Rosemarie

                  +J.M.J+

                  Yes, it is not easy for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, but as Our Lord said right after that, “With God all things are possible.” God wants to save both the rich and the poor, and unite them in the Mystical Body of Christ, not divide them against each other, as liberation theology does.

            • Rosemarie

              +J.M.J+

              Liberation theology is worldly-minded. It is concerned more with the worldly matter of economics than with the spiritual matter of salvation. While the teachings and morals of Christianity do touch on economics, the primary concern is spiritual; when people are right with God, they can help transform the world around them.

              God doesn’t want the poor to fight and resist the rich. He wants to save them both, fill them with His grace and bring them together in the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. Then the rich can use their wealth to help the poor, not because of government-coerced “redistribution of wealth,” but out of the generosity of a heart transformed by grace. We see this in action in the lives of wealthy saints.

              At the same time, God does not necessarily wish to abolish absolutely all poverty in the world. As Our Lord said, “The poor you will always have with you.” Poverty is not the greatest evil in the world, in fact, when freely embraced for the love of God it can become a blessed way of life. Just ask St. Francis of Assisi, the great lover of “Lady Poverty.” The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom.

              This is much more beautiful than the worldy, divisive, “class warfare” model promoted by liberation theology. Which is, in turn, based on Karl Marx’s despairing vision of the human race as endlessly oppressing and exploiting each other. Jesus wants to bring an end to such division and exploitation, not through human struggle but by His grace.

              The highest thing liberation theologians aspire to is an earthly socialist society, which they think is what Jesus really meant when he spoke of the kingdom of God. How sad. That’s what happens when you immanentize the eschaton.

        • Peggy R

          You can have godless materialism in a capitalist economy too.

          • Peggy R

            Here’s a prime example. Why don’t these protestors do something useful such as picket outside the retailers and fight for American families and the employees who must give up their Thanksgiving time? I could respect that. sorry for long URL.

            http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/consumer-central/outcry-grows-as-black-friday-creeps-into-thanksgiving/article_5871f03d-1521-5fd7-8b88-e17819111c40.html

            • Dan C

              The left wing has had boycott Black Friday and varied consumerist approaches since before 1980. Walmart, stores open on Xmas and Thanksgiving are routine grievances.

              You need to respect the left more. They have been fighting this battle for decades.

              • Peggy R

                I have no respect for the Left. Period.

              • Rosemarie

                +J.M.J+

                While I can respect individual liberals, I don’t respect the Left. It’s promoting wrong ideas like abortion, contraception, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. Just because it may get a few things right doesn’t mean I must respect it. The same thing goes for conservatives and the Right. I can respect individual persons but if the Right as a movement is promoting something immoral like torture then I reserve the right to criticize it.

  • Dan C

    I will not change the discussion into a “blame the disenfranchised” direction some folks are trying.

    “Its the protesters fault” and, by corellation, this clergyman’s fault for aligning with them. Shame on this minister for forcing the police to beat him.

    • Peggy R

      Who says they’re “disenfranchised”? Many of the people arrested in NYC, eg, have been discovered to live in pretty nice digs, albeit mom and pop’s.

      • Mark Shea

        And many of them are jobless vets who sweat blood for their country and got bupkis from an ungrateful ruling class and rich elite. One of them, a homeless vet, killed himself in New Hampshire (which was taken as proof that OWSers are dangerous nuts, not as evidence that a million jobless vets have gotten the shaft from the system they gave body and soul to defend.

        • Peggy R

          I am sorry for that person’s case. It is indeed unjust. But his solution would be to seek redress from the government, not hang out with radicals wanting to overturn our economic system.

          • Dan C

            But, the government isn’t the answer, by the guiding light of Sirico.

          • Dan C

            Many homeless men are vets. In fact a huge percentage. It is clear that a consequence of fighting in a war is severe mental health consequences, addiction, and its social consequences in our society. The VA system publishes on this nearly monthly.

          • VAGreen

            You’re sorry, but you’re still going to take a whiz on his grave. No, I don’t think you’re very sorry.

            • Peggy R

              Why would you put a disgusting image out there and attribute such disregard for human life to me? When the govt asks men to fight for her, she must care for them in the aftermath. I don’t think too many Americans would dispute that.

              I don’t think the Zucotti Park denizens had much regard for the homeless or hungry. They didn’t want to share w/them. And some other Occupiers in other cities are taking up space in homeless shelters, taking from the homeless. That’s rich. Pun fully intended, I’d say.

              • VAGreen

                Because you said that you were sorry for him, but you couldn’t resist getting in a shot at him for daring to protest against economic injustice.

                Occupy LA is trying to get help for the homeless:

                “LOS ANGELES (AP) — Occupy Los Angeles is taking a new tack in trying to grapple with the nettlesome issue of the homeless people who have moved into the tent village — social workers.

                Volunteer social workers are scheduled to visit the camp surrounding City Hall on Saturday in a bid to help some of the more troubled residents, possibly moving them to facilities better equipped to deal with their problems, said organizer Darren Danks.

                “We love their support, but there’s a percentage who need social services,” he said Monday.

                The Occupy movement, formed as a protest of government economic policies perceived to favor the rich, operates with an all-are-welcome policy, and organizers will even try to find a tent for those who lack one. But they admit the homeless have been an unanticipated challenge that has diverted the focus from political activities to keeping internal order.”

                Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Occupy-LA-to-bring-social-workers-to-aid-homeless-2268606.php#ixzz1e4VzQFOK

                • Peggy R

                  I didn’t bring up the one or two homeless veterans who’ve become involved by accident or not in the overall movement. The movement is not about homeless vets. It is about attacking people who have made money and destroying the property of others.

                • Peggy R

                  Apparently, NH has an explicit program to help homeless vets I found on google, but the vet was in Vt, according to articles.
                  While the man was at an OWS encampment, I am not sure what his suicide has to do with the OWS movement. It is a tragic thing, in and of itself, but not very related to the agenda of this radical movement. He already felt hopeless. This movement didn’t improve his life, did it? It was beyond them, too. Not knowing more about his case makes it difficult to say any more. The question is what VA services were made available and did he use them? Unrelated to OWS.

              • VAGreen

                Occupy Oakland is feeding the homeless:

                “CBS 5 Eyewitness News producer Wilson Walker wanted to find out exactly who comprises this movement and spent two nights recently camped out with Occupy Oakland outside City Hall.

                Walker described many of the Occupy campers as young, politically liberal and predominantly white.

                “They have welcomed and embraced a large number of homeless people as well,” he further explained, noting that the homeless have come in droves because food is plentiful at the encampment, there’s basic medical aid and conditions are far safer than the streets of Oakland.

                “It’s somewhere where I can lay my head and I ain’t got to worry about everything getting stolen from me,” said one homeless man who declined to give his name.”

                http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/08/occupy-oakland-encampment-includes-liberals-homeless-drifters-anarchists/

              • VAGreen

                Of course, when the 99% doesn’t feed the homeless, they’re callous hypocrites, and when they do, they’re causing filth and crime, according to your right-wing pals in the media.

                • Peggy R

                  Well, good on those folks, after they’ve attacked shipping docks and such.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    Uhh…before I start writing the narrative (evil police-state goons, or agitating priest playing innocent, I’m happy to go with either one) where is the corroborating witnesses for his account?

  • Richard J. Daley

    Gentlemen, get the thing straight once and for all– the policeman isn’t there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Why do I get the feeling the more stories like this I see, and the more the MSM and folk like Colbert and Stewart (though I repeat myself) jump on them, that this is exactly what some are wanting to happen? People say the OWS isn’t accomplishing much. For my money, it looks like they are accomplishing quite a bit.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      They’re not accomplishing much good for society as a whole, but they are trying to use these police actions to garner sympathy for their movement.

      If the leaders of the movement really cared about ending poverty, surely they would be working toward that within the system. Instead, they are mooching off of services intended for the homeless:

      http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1379242

      and not willing to share their food with them:

      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL

      This makes me believe that the goal of the movement isn’t to improve our society as it exists today, but to cause chaos and social disorder in hopes of bringing about a socialist revolution. Yes, there are some good people in those encampments who have legitimate grievances and pure motives, who are unaware of this. Yet I’m talking about the people behind the scenes, the socialists and anarchists who started OWS in the first place and who are still pulling the strings.

  • Sam Schmitt

    Police act badly.

    So this means OWS is good?

    • Mark Shea

      Did I say it did?

      • Peggy R

        As a general matter, you appear to find the OWS movement inherently good. This is the only group/person I have noticed upon which you have NOT heaped one ounce of derision. Yes, you’ve acknowledged some shortcomings of the movement, but you don’t seem to see its violence or disruption of social stability, much less its revolutionary agenda, as a problem.

        Cheers.

        • VAGreen

          Most members of OWS have not engaged in violence.

          • Peggy R

            No members of the tea party have engaged in violence.

            The OWS are basically a mob loaded for bear at this point. No, not every one threw a rock or whatever, but enough people did violence and damage. The mob atmosphere is at work. The individual is now lost.

        • James

          That’s because the Distributist ideology finds the position of OWS useful. The Received Narrative from the Distributist tribe renders OWS’s support of numerous intrinsic evils acceptable. The Distributist ends justify the intrinsically evils means. A form of Distributist consequentialism. Oh. Of “the thing that used to be Distributism.”

          There, did I hit all the points. :)

          • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

            James, that was one of the worst misrepresentations of Distributism I’ve read in a long, long time.

            • James

              It is merely a take on Mark’s representations of other positions. As you find this (facetious) presentation false, so others do many of Mark’s positions.

              Rhetoric and humor are double edged swords.

        • Mark Shea

          I don’t know what “inherently good” means. I think they have an obvious point, as the Tea Partiers did: economic and political injustice. I also think they have no clue how to address it and that many of the solutions posed by this herd of cats are crazy, evil and worse than the problem. I also think many are good-hearted, open to hearing from the Catholic tradition, and trying to do the right thing. I don’t buy the narrative emerging in the media, just as I didn’t buy the narrative about the Tea Parties as racist gun nuts.

  • http://www.communionantiphons.org Andy, Bad Person

    I agree that both the minister and the older woman were not threats, but I would withhold judgment until I actually saw video or at least heard a complete account of what happened. Too often these things go like this: agitator, well, agitates, cops respond to agitation, various scuffles break out between agitators and police, then pictures get taken when agitators get beaten up by the police.

    Mind you, I doubt that either the minister or the older woman started a scuffle with the police, but these things tend to get muddled when a crowd turns into a melee. Pepper spray in particular is indeterminate when choosing targets. There are probably many people in the crowd who didn’t deserve pepper spray, but the advertising going into this particular day of OWS was one of revolution. Everyone knew what was coming today.

    It’s also just as possible that the police completely overreacted and beat up an old woman and a minister under non-muddled, horrible circumstances. I just don’t trust Web 2.0 when it comes to reporting these things. It’s every bit as one sided as coverage in the Middle East.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      Smart thing to do. I withhold judgement as a general rule. When I heard the first stories that the OWS was less pure than organizers wanted, and when I hear stories like this. I’m a good old innocent until proven guilty type. And even if there is guilt (that is, the cops shouldn’t do these things if they turn out to be true), I’m willing to look at other possibilities (like this is what the OWS movement wants to provoke or certain outlets benefit by focusing on the bad cops, or on the bad in the OWS movement).

  • http://thecrawfordfamily.net/blog Ken Crawford

    I don’t know what happened in this particular case, and assuming it’s accurate, it’s deplorable that the cops resorted to such violence. There’s also mounting evidence from other sources, the 84 year old lady being one, to suggest it was accurate in this case.

    But I also think it’s important to note that it’s a standard operating tactic of the Alinsky minded protestors, for those involved to distort what happened to the degree that it could only be accurately described as a bald-faced lie. (Note Mark’s constant reminder about the evil of lying.)

    Their standard distortion is to act like they did nothing to provoke any retaliation when they were in fact constantly doing so, and then to maliciously over emphasize both the harshness and the nature of the retaliation… er… as they would say the “unprovoked attack”. They’ll do this during the confrontation by acting as if it’s far more severe than it is with wailing and screaming and all sorts of physical and vocal antics and after the fact through exaggeration and lying in their reports.

    That’s not to say that there aren’t cases of true unprovoked attacks, but the corrosive nature of lying makes me perhaps too suspicious of all such “reports” from the protests. Generally speaking I tend to be skeptical without video or at least enough photographs to give a meaningful image of what happened (because one or two pictures can be made to look bad when it’s not).

    This should also be a reminder to those who think lying for a good cause is an effective tactic. It may work for a while, but eventually society realizes you’re the boy who cried wolf.

    • Dan C

      Wait…The code term “Alinsky” was used….and the Pavlovian response results. Alinsky’s methodology deserves critique, but it also requires one to actually know what it means, because it is not all bad or in error.

      There was a time the left expressed critique in caricatures…the right wing seems to embrace that now.

      • http://thecrawfordfamily.net/blog Ken Crawford

        I’m not sure what your criticism of my comment is Dan.

        Is it that I used a modifier to reduce those I was criticizing to a subset as opposed to labeling all protestors with using those tactics? Do you deny that there are protestors who act as I suggest? Do you deny that those who act like that come from a mindset that Alinsky and others of the same mind promoted?

        And while it may not have been ALL bad, the vast majority of what Alinsky suggested in “Rules for Radicals” was terrible, bordering on evil. Have you read the book?

  • Observer

    Being Clear:

    Liberalism: Do something wrong with something good.

    Conservatism: Do away with something good because the crooks have something wrong with it.

    Conservastim speaks of preservation and never of mending. Conservatism is about using least amont of effort to fix something. If the house is bad, do away with it and get a new one. Because, the crook who advocates liberalism goes about ruining the home. With current protests, bad people do some terrible things in order to cause scandal to anyone who protests (Murphy’s law done with reverse psychology – neo-murphianites.) Or, to put in Chesterton’s point of view, doing away with anyone who would jeopardize the marriage of Hudge and Gudge. And, the current theme of mis-using (called: abuse) polce authority to do away with anyone involved in a protest is precisely the clean-up process for Hudge and Gudge’s wedding reception – http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/05/the-wedding-of-hudge-and-gudge/

    • Dan C

      Identifying liberalism with crooks paints your liberal opponents such as myself as therefore arguing in bad faith and being unjust.

      Show some respect.

  • James
  • Peggy R

    Folks,
    Do you know the real reason for the timing of all the clear-outs? Besides, the polling showing the public’s dislike for OWS? Many cities have Thanksgiving Day parades next week. Sure, it’s good for Macy’s, but the cities want the public to come downtown and have a good time and spend money every where. I don’t knock it. It’s for the benefit of the general public and the reputation of the city. Every one gets something out of these events.

    St Louis had to contend w/these people taking up the plaza where most Cardinal rallies are held. Amazingly, the city was able to hold a parade after the WS and the OWSers appeared to stay out of the way for the most part. (Oh, and did you notice no cars were overturned or torched when StL won the WS, unlike championships won in some other cities?)

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      The timing also may have had to do in part with a spate of deaths at some of the protests last week and reports of epidemics sweeping through some of the encampments, including the main one in NYC (where the malady was dubbed “Zuccotti lung”). Mayors may have decided to get rid of what might become, or had already become, a public hazard to life and health.

      • Peggy R

        Yep. Those were vital factors too.

  • Peggy R
  • Zach Foreman

    Note: This is not condoning the actions of the police.
    It is the expressed aim of a large fraction of the protestors to goad the police into overreacting so that they can film them committing acts of police brutality. This does not, of course, excuse their brutality, since they are trained for these situations and given our trust. But, almost anyone can lose their cool when subject to this treatment for hours or days on end. Do you know how much overtime these OWS protests require? The shouting, the cursing, the threats that the police face? Again, it is wrong for anyone, most especially a police officer, to act violently.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    A prayer that our police officers may receive the grace to keep their cool and react in the right way, and not react badly (as I sometimes have been known to do in heavy traffic when I become frustrated and aggravated – only when police officers react badly, the results may be much worse.)

    Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

    Saint Michael is the patron of soldiers and of police officers.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    My father was tear gassed by the police once. In 1968, my father-of-five, Ivy League alumnus, Navy veteran, computer designing, home-owning, registered Republican Dad and the rest of our family were out to take in a Sunday afternoon concert at one of the monuments at our nation’s capital. Suddenly crowds of hippies and yippies and what-nots waded into the nearby reflecting pool, chanting and pumping their fists. In no time at all helmeted police were on the scene. Naturally, all of the tourists and families kept their distance, but my Dad wanted to see what was going on. He asked my Mom to keep us kids well away while he headed over to the disturbance and disappeared into the crowd.

    Not long afterwards, we heard some loud popping noises in the direction of where the police were, a smoky steam arose, and quite a commotion as the hippies and yippies scrambled out of the reflecting pool. Dad emerged from the sidelines, red-faced and coughing, tears streaming down his face. Mom was horrified and wanted to go home. Once he washed his face off, Dad thought what had happened to him was funny.

    Our take-away was: don’t get anywhere near these kinds of situations, even as an onlooker. And if you feel you must take part, do have the protective gear necessary.

    • Peggy R

      I tend to agree….more words to satisfy filter…..

  • Peggy R

    Here’s a lady who’s closed up her hedge fund shop this week because of corruption and political influence on Wall Street. The rule of law is no longer at work she says. Chew on this for a while…

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/going-galt-hedge-broker-shuts-down-firm-with-chilling-letter-about-the-market/

    • sjay

      Ms. Barnhardt seems singularly unreliable in her report, with her repeated references to her villain as a “crony of Marxist Obama.”

      • Peggy R

        She’s been rather outspoken politically it appears. Does it make her claim less valid? She’s shutting down a business b/c she can’t protect her clients’ interests in the corrupt market. That’s a pretty drastic action.

        • sjay

          Her reference to “crony of Marxist Obama” makes the objectivity of her assessment and explanation of her actions more than a little less credible without significant corroboration.

  • Mark R

    People have to be prepared to face the consequences of standing up for what they believe in.

  • bones

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSi09gLmX5Q

    Ah, the Grandman in Combat Boots. The situation is utterly ridiculous, from the SPD spraying protesters (we didn’t even do that in Vancouver!) to Rainey posing as an innocent victim.

    What worries me more than the silly behaviour of OWS (chanting for jobs while disrupting the evening commute of regular people) is the docile acceptance by the public of the crackdown on the protesters. I’m not sure if you know of the Ron & Don Show, Mark, but while hearing them speak of these incidents as if escalating violence is just what the authorities have to do, I was struck by the easy consequentialism at work. .

    • Mark Shea

      HEre in the Land Where There Are Only Two Sides to Every Opinion, it’s not possible to say some of the protestors were out of line *and* that the cops behaved wrongly. You have to choose a side, declare it good and the other side evil.