OWS: This Food is for the Privileged! UPDATED

Delicious Irony:

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday — because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

I think this is my favorite part:

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Good heavens! They sound like…like…callers to the Rush Limbaugh show advocating spending limits!

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out — so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.

So, there you have it: in this living experiment in socialism, it turns out there are “legitimate” people and the illegitimate. And the legitimate people, who actually are working for something, they should get the good food, the “chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.”

They should have the “finer things.”

Meanwhile, the other people,
the “not-legitimate” people who are not actually working for anything and just taking advantage (because they are “professional homeless” who “know what they’re doing,” and how to game the system) — they shouldn’t get the finer things. They shouldn’t even be there. They should go away.

And the homeless, seeking a nice meal instead of garbage pickings?

They should get directions to the soupkitchens! It reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge asking: “Are there no workhouses?” Isn’t there some other place than here, for those people?

The Occupy Wall Street folks
must be stunned to find that all that they hate they are so quickly become.

Assuming they’re even cognizant of the fact.

I’m a little fuzzy here, are the legitimate people who get the better food, are they the 99% or the 1%?

Capitalism is a flawed, imperfect system that too often serves the impulse to greed that is part of our broken human nature. But socialism — unless it is rooted in something larger than the secular world and its wonders — is also flawed, and it too can serve our worst impulses to over-control and dictate.

The a humbling of the human heart, one that roots itself in a larger understanding of service to something inborn and fundamental and free, is where all revolution must truly begin. Without that, it’s a continual battle between weeds and wheat. It’s not a judgment. It’s just the world, as it really is.

Meanwhile, in related news, occupations are beginning to get violent. Oh, gee. Who couldn’t see that coming?

This is not going to end well.

PHOTO: Chad Rachman, NY Post

I love this! “We wanted to join the protests,” she added. “And we weren’t going to hire a baby-sitter.” Job creation and wealth distribution, not uppermost on your mind then. Good to know.

Riots erupting in “Occupied” Cities
Doesn’t look like fun to me
No Soup for You!
Hot Air has more
ACORN getting involved
Taranto enjoys the irony, too
“Income Equality” is the New “”Global Warming”

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • James Stephens

    After all the talk about equality! Perhaps some people are more equal than others.

  • http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com MrsDarwin

    Perhaps the people who want to keep on receiving the more upscale meals could (wait for it) pay for them. That would serve the dual purpose of recompensing the chefs for their time and effort and making sure that only the “deserving”, who are willing to sacrifice to maintain the occupation, get the yummy food.


  • Elaine

    They should be ashamed to even have said this and shared the food with everyone and did the best they could with what they had. It totally destroys their message to be for the people.

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    (((It’s not a judgment. It’s just the world, as it really is.)))

    There was a begger outside our church and long story short, after mass while looking him in the eyes, I started preaching to him that if he wanted some food, we were told that he should knock on the church door and all the food he needed would be given to him.

    I hear ya! You’re off topic again.


    Forgive U>S (usual sinners) Father for we know not what we do.


  • http://elizabethk-fthnfort.blogspot.com/ Elizabeth K.

    I heard about this earlier, and I had to chuckle. But it does demonstrate exactly what happens in any society designed by humans, no matter how noble it starts out. And good one, James Stephens.

  • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com/ Anonsters

    So, if I follow your logic, such as it is, anyone who would object to the kind of inequalities in wealth we have between the richest of the rich and everyone else is, ipso facto, a socialist. That’s the only way the claim that this is a “living experiment in socialism” makes any sense (along with the scattered and repeated claims that OWS participants are (apparently necessarily) socialists). Therefore, Blessed John Paul II was himself, according to your logic, a socialist.

    Of course, that’s probably more likely than that OWS isn’t a living experiment in any one thing, that you can’t really pin it down with one or two catchy or controversial labels, right? After all, “the world as it really is” is either one thing or the other, right? Either you’re a full-blooded, unregulated free-marketeering capitalist or a red-blooded, Internationale-singing socialist. Any regulation of the economic system is creeping socialism. Any admission that free markets are very useful ordering devices, given certain conditions, entails total commitment to Robber Baronism.

    I think we can, and should, agree that we can civilly and respectfully and fraternally disagree about what the right combination of economic regulation and deregulation is and why that may be the case. But when we become so totalizing that we consider anyone not with us on political or social questions to be ipso facto wholly against us (and, therefore, wrong, of course), perhaps we should take some quiet time to examine whether our first priority should be the humbling of our own hearts first.

    In all the above, I have assumed, consistent with the canons of charitable interpretation, that you’re not willfully missing the point, though the “update” to this post makes me question my assumption. After all, the very story linked to notes: “Knowing a teaching opportunity when they see one, the parents Ms. Olen interviewed talked about using the protest as a chance to talk about income equality, the right to protest and the joy of being part of a large movement committed to social change.” So apparently spending time with your kids, trying to teach them values, and generally, you know, parenting, is cause for you sneering at those parents, because they frankly admit that, for whatever reasons, they didn’t want to hire a babysitter, so they just used the protests as a parental teaching moment. But let’s pick out one quote, assume what their motivations really are, and then smear them for it….

    ["Either you’re a full-blooded, unregulated free-marketeering capitalist or a red-blooded, Internationale-singing socialist." Well, I'm not either of those things. I just had a long and excellent exchange with an "anarchist communist" on twitter that probably would surprise you. But I won't bore you with it. You've already made up your mind simply because I choose to find ironic humor in some of this. I found some in the tea party, too. admin]

  • http://catholicliberal.blogspot.com/ Anonsters

    Actually, I wish you would bore me with it, because it sounds interesting. And this may surprise you, in turn, but it turns out I haven’t made up my mind about anything. Yes, in general, I’ve found your posts about OWS to be consistently one-sided and alarmist, but so what? You occupy, from what I can tell, a very different position on the political spectrum than me, so I expect some of that disagreement to manifest itself even in such simple things as how we interpret what we see in front of our eyes (I think it’s safe to assume we’re actually seeing the same things, so, yay common ground! :)).

    The surest sign that I’ve already made up my mind about something is that I’ll just stop reading or listening to it, not commenting on their blog post. My commenting is a sign that I think there’s genuine space for me to understand someone else better than perhaps I do, and to try to probe to find out where I may be wrong. While, naturally, also venting a little bit (hopefully not too caustically or forcefully!) at what I perceive to be perhaps an unfair interpretation. :)

    [Well, you're welcome to follow me on twitter and look at my feed. For the record, I have said publicly (both on tv and in First Things) that I am not wholly out of sympathy with the concerns of the OWS people. I simply think they're being as narrow in their concerns as some accuse me of being -- ie, sure, let's frogmarch some bankers...but there are a few empowering legislators who need to be shackled up along with them. I am far from an alarmist and only brought up the violence angle today because, well...there is now violence, and I frankly don't think it has anything to do with the first folks who settled in there, but with elements who specifically want to see that sort of thing. I have swung a broad pendulum, from too-far left to too-far right and am trying to find some equilibrium. Increasingly I discover that my Catholicism won't allow me to embrace either ideology with a whole heart. Nevertheless, I reserve the right to enjoy irony where I see it. - admin]

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Anonsters, following your own line of thinking, is everyone who points out some of the things suspect things the OWS movement has done (the hypocrisy over the food service, the anti-semetic slogans, the clashes with police, etc.) simply doing it because they adore capitalism, the free market?

    Is any reportage on the OWS that shows its members as anything less than angelic idealists somehow wrong? Are we simply supposed to parrot, “Yah, yah, yah, they’re all just honest idealists, protesting. . . (Um, what exactly? No one seems to be sure. A lot of them don’t like capitalism, and seem to like socialism—an unworkable economic system. They’re not happy with the way things are now—but who is? And constantly blaming “The Rich” and “Wall Street” smacks to me of envy, and ignorance. The government, and too many people in too many high places bear some responsibility for the current economic woes, as well as the voters themselves, who helped put them into office. And rioting? That’s just trying to rule by thugocracy.)

  • http://workingonmyrewrite.blogspot.com/ bob c

    boy Elizabeth, you really got the core of what OWS is all about – what a great “gotcha” moment

    it summarizes everything about this phenomenon the same way those Obama as Hitler signs summarized the Tea Party

    at least that is what Roger Ailes and the Koch brothers tell us, right ?

    [I don't even have much of an idea who Roger Ailes or the Koch Brothers are. I know you are determined to pin me as some kind of fervent ideologue, but I'm not a tea partier, I don't watch Fox, and I rarely listen to Limbaugh. This is not a summary statement, and it's not even a "gotcha." It's just an appreciation of an ironic moment. Do you think it is not ironic? Are we not allowed to notice irony, anymore, or are we only allowed to notice it at certain times? What a flat world that would be! I wouldn't like it. admin]

  • Greta

    There is absolutely nothing in common between the OWC and the Tea Party. Zero. The Tea Party from day one was a movement with very clearly defined goals. Small government, less spending. It ignited when the new administration seemed to be spending as if there was no end, no limit and with the influx of things that would take away the rights outlined in the Constitution.

    OWS seems to have one message. We hate the rich and this country should take away what they have and give it to us. The OWS message was quickly supported by the US communist party and people like Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore who is against the rich except when it is his money. There he sues to get more of it. I also find it interesting when someone points out that the way some are framing the debate that they are taking socialist positions, there is great angst. What happens in every socialist takeover in history? The government moves in to take over everything and set up government controls with those in power and associated with the government doing very well and everyone else, including the poor, doing very poorly. Those who want to get everyone mad and organized set up targets such as the rich, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, banks, wall street, company CEO’s, and anyone else who has worked hard and been successful. The fools think that if they join this new mob, their life will get better and it never does but they only find this out later because few of them bother to learn history.

    Now we learn that Soros is at it again using his money to stir up hatred and venom to try to bring about revolution and he has his Acorn haters and agitators on the payroll to stir up this mess. and of course we have the COIC (Community Organizer in Charge) backing the mob because that is all he ever learned to do as witnessed by his total inablity to lead.

  • http://workingonmyrewrite.blogspot.com/ bob c

    if you don’t even have much of an idea who Roger Ailes or the Koch Brothers are
    and you are being honest about that

    then, um, it is pretty ironic that your politically themed post are almost straight down the line that they promote

    as for being a fervent ideologue
    fervent: having or showing fervor, enthusiasm, zeal, conviction, persistence or passion.
    ideologue: an adherent to or advocate of some ideology

    if you do not fit that, we live in a world that even the Catholic leadership would deny existing for decades

    P.S. – glad to hear you do not listen to Limbaugh that often. he was once a comedian – now he would make McCarthy shake his head. Limbaugh & Pat Buchanan – classy couple of guys who prove the point we live in a great country where speech that hateful, bigoted and dis-honest is not only allowed – it is promoted as truth. Relativism resigns supreme, huh ?

    [I've been nothing but civil to you, and you've been aggressive and nasty from the start. Now you're calling me a liar. I don't think you'll be commenting here much longer. No, I don't know who Ailes is -- I believe he has a connection to Fox News but I don't know in what capacity; I don't watch Fox News, but I thought it was Murdoch's gig. I don't have a clue who the Koch brothers are -- I have gathered from sneery comments that they are somehow aligned with the tea party, but as I am not a tea partier, I really don't know. I'm pretty sure if you were to check my archives you'd never see their names in my posts. If my opinions go "right down the line" with theirs, I can't help that. I come by my thoughts pretty much on my own. I have my own opinions, but do not belong to a party, or an "ideology", however you insist that I must -- my own readers will confirm that for you, as they have chewed me out often enough for not agreeing with them on immigration, Sarah Palin and a few other things. Don't believe that? Not acceptable to you? That's just too bad, now. As to your pally aside to me about Limbaugh and Buchanan, why are you bothering me with that? Why do you try to put me in a position where I have to ask you if you approve of the cloaked racism of Lawrence O' Donnell or the hateful divisiveness and dishonesty of Harry Reid? Relativism reigns supreme? I suppose it does, then. But I'm becoming very bored with your aggression, your demands that I somehow make myself acceptable to you, and your insinuations that I am a liar. So, as I said, I think you're just about done commenting here. -admin]

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    bob c., nice way to hijack the thread, by going on and on about the Koch brothers, and Roger (whoever he is) Aisles.

    (The Anchoress doesn’t know them. However, I call them every morning, and given them their marching orders—just so you know. I also write Limbaugh’s scripts.)

    You do know who George Soros is, right?

    By the way, Greta, good post.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Because, of course, the only permitted reaction to OWS is, “The Kids have Something to Say!”

    Any other reaction is simply proof that we have all been manipulated by the diabolical Koch brothers! (Are they any relation to the Marx Brothers?)

  • SKay

    OWS is such an inspiration to this “talented young artist”. Interesting that there is not much comment in the US MSM about this.


    Thanks for the post anchoress. There are many more ironic things happening with this crowd-semoething new every day.
    Great discription of what is going on behind the scenes Greta.

  • Doc

    So, Rhinestone, it was you. It was you all along. I knew it!

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Ya found me out, Doc!


  • dry valleys

    [I am aware that this post has become very long- won't be too offended by anyone who skips over it :)]

    Here’s an introduction to the Koch brothers:

    Whenever I have mentioned them and their influence, conservatives have tried to shrug it off. Yet these are billionaires who have spent more on promoting right-wing causes than the average person earns in a lifetime, and that hardly strikes me as irrelevant.

    I’m not aware of there being any protests in Frankfurt, for example, about their banking system because almost no one objects to it. They have profit-making companies and ones that do exceptionally well, embedded in a system of social democracy that would be called Marxist in America. Yet does anyone hear about the economic woes of Germany? Only because they are being called upon to bail out other countries, not through anything intrinsic to their own, left-wing system.

    And if you want to talk about these countries as if they were paragons of system, the most conservative country in Europe, Italy, is one of the worst off. The British government, an exemplar of things being done as you want them to, is having no success. And the “austerity” in Ireland is yielding no results that I’m aware of.

    If you asked people in Brazil, another social democracy, about their sufferings under recession and their economy (which according to you is doomed to fail) they’d be mystified, because in fact they have roaring economic growth.

    And the comment by “Anonsters is completely right. In Germany, again, they elected governments of the SPD (which along with the PD in Italy is probably the closest party to my way of thinking that you’ll find) in West Germany, right at the heart of the Cold War. They knew totalitarianism better than anyone here, and a social democratic government clearly wasn’t it.

    To return, specifically, to OWS, it seems to me that the conduct and attitudes of atenders isn’t to your tastes. Very well, but you shouldn’t like banks any more than they do. Why, I wonder, do some people flare up at criticism of bankss, as if they were staunch friends and allies, and any criticism of them is an attack on yourselves? I can assure you that social conservatism and “morality” is something that no one in the City of London or Wall Street gives a turd about.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/gods-bankers-how-evangelical-christianity-is-taking-a-hold-of-the-city-of-londonrsquos-financial-institutions-2270393.html (NB: actual meat of the story has little to do with the headline)

    I’m hopefully your friend, but quite openly I’m not your ally in any known cause, and yet I’m less of a threat to you than neoliberalism is, ultimately. There is a reason why every known social indicator got worse during the 1980s, and it has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with the economic forces that were unleashed.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Valleys, George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Gore and various and sundry Hollywood stars and pundits are extremely rich—and yet you never hear anyone on the left criticizing them for their machinations, and manipulation of events; Soros has meddled in various foreign economies, but you never hear a peep from the Left about him. He’s on the right side, you see. Nor have I heard any leftwing criticism of ACORN, and the unions, who have, reportedly been orchestrating many of the events at OWS.

    (And, yes, many of the actions and attitudes of the OWS folks, such as spouting anti-semetism, jeering at ordinary people going to work, calling for those they don’t like to be beheaded and fighting with the cops are pretty distasteful. Yes, I know—I’m just judgmental that way.)

    And please, please, please, pretty please with a great big heaping slab of sugar on top, please stop trying to get us “Hate” bankers, or the Koch brothers (who are, probably, rather hateful—but, then, so are Moore and Soros)—or get us to “hate” any group! Selecting an enemy, and telling people they’re the ones responsible for all their woes, be they Jews, Bankers, Capitalists, Counter-revolutionaries, neo-liberals, Kulaks, etc. is, pure and simple, Marxist Agit-prop. It’s an appeal to the base emotion of envy, and the even baser politics of class warfare, which is supposed to make us blindly support our “saviors” who going to rescue us from these evil beings and support them, and their political agendas, without question. After all, if we don’t, we’re just supporting “Evil Bankers,” right?

    When the banks started collapsing, partly due to the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and giving out home loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, the rockbound conservatives and heartless Republicans were pretty much in favor of letting them fail, and letting the free market run its course. We were told that the banks were too big to fail. The heartless conservatives said bailing them out wasn’t a good idea, and that in an economy such as ours, no one is too big to fail. The heartless conservatives were told they were heartless, the banks were bailed out, stimulus money was thrown out left and right, we were told prosperity was just around the corner, because the banks had been saved!

    Somehow, it didn’t work out that way. Now the banks are the bad guys.

    Wall Street, and the banks, have been some of the biggest backers, and contributors, to President Obama, by the way. This is not a revolution we’re seeing, on Wall Street; revolutions are against governments, but OWS has received support from President Obama himself, as well as Pelosi, and other polticos (not to mention the various mayors and city officials who’ve let them camp out in public spaces for weeks on end—something we ordinary citizens would never be allowed to do.)

    Myself, I wonder why so many people flare up at the slightest criticism of OWS? It’s as if we’re supposed to see them as angels, perfectly pure and idealistic. Anyone who doesn’t like them has been, supposedly, brainwashed by the nefarious Koch brothers, or loves those evil bankers; there couldn’t be any other reason for not liking them, right?

    I don’t like bankers, per se. But I also don’t like the politicians who are also responsible for the current mess, or the American people who’ve supported many of the policies that helped bring it about.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around.

  • Rhinestone Suderman


    The kids just had something to say, when they hung up that effigy!

    /Okay, sarc. off.

    They were saying they want to hang bankers, I guess—or, maybe, people who look like bankers. Or who are friendly with bankers. Or whom they suspect of being bankers; or maybe they just want to hang somebody. Which is the problem with a mob, when it cuts loose; anybody, and everybody, can become its victims.

    (That pic might not be in the MSM much, but it’s been all over the blogs.)

  • dry valleys

    I was in the middle of writing a quite lengthly response when I accidentally hit the X button. I suppose I’ll be back to say pretty much the exact same things another time though!

  • LisaB

    Check out:

    *The mainstream media’s obsession with the leftist movement in America is preventing them from objectively reporting on the facts surrounding the ‘occupy’ movement. Most Americans who rely solely upon the mainstream media for their news have no idea of what is actually taking place and why.

    Our goal is to educate the public on the real facts behind the OWS movement by reporting stories most people won’t likely see or hear from the mainstream media. It is our hope that this information will help people form a more honest perspective on the ‘occupiers,’ many who are seeking to destroy the American way of life.*