He has the right to free speech but he does NOT have the right to incite violence on our streets..he got what was coming to him..trhe cops said disperse...what didnt he get about that?Hey, Captain America, are you sure that's what the cops said? "Disperse"? Or did they say something like "Disperse, ye villains! ye rebels, disperse! lay down your arms! why don't you lay down your arms and disperse?"
Jesus wept, can you be that tone deaf? Let me guess: American History was an elective course at your school and you took wood shop instead...
They need to look at his website "I hate the marine corps before they make to much of a martyr out of him.
ReplyDeleteWhy would that bother them? They're not terribly fond of the Marine Corps, either, for the most part.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight. A group of Leftists Protestors, "Occupying" some land in a Leftist City run by a Leftist Gooberment, gets told by that same Gooberment to Disperse, and the Leftist Mayor orders the Police in to do so. The same Police who have built a Rep for being "Highly Overreactive," which has resulted in some people dying in the past couple of years. Police fire or toss some "Riot Control Devices" into the Crowd, and through the Laws of Physics and Probability, one of them hits a disgruntled former Marine in the Head, nearly killing him. This spurs on a reaction a few days later, where the same Leftist Group gets a massive influx of "Supporters", who then proceed to start Rioting and Smashing Property during their "General Strike," even causing Damage to one of their Political Supporters stores (Whole Foods), terrorizing the Customers trapped inside. As a side note, one gentleman, who spent Millions developing part of the city to try and revitalize it, has to grab a Shotgun and Defend his Property from the same crowd of Protesters.
ReplyDeleteHaving a Degree in History, I don't think this is in the same category as Lexington and Concord, where abused Colonists wanted to be treated the same as their fellow Subjects back home in the Motherland.
This reminds me more of Weimar Germany, where the Communists were Fighting the Fascists for Political Control.
Though some in the HuffPo crowd are trying to push the concept that this is a "Second French Revolution."
Which begs the question: Has Michelle Obama said "Let them eat Cake," yet?
I thought she said "Let them eat low-fat tofu burgers?"
ReplyDeleteBubblehead Les,
ReplyDelete"Having a Degree in History, I don't think this is in the same category as Lexington and Concord..."
Didn't say it was. Merely commenting on the idiot's choice of words to back up his opinion.
Not a bad comparison, but it should be noted that the 1st Amendment recognizes a right to peaceably assemble, which sort of goes out the window when the protesters start in throwing rocks, bottles, etc. The cops are acting lawfully when they act to disperse protesters in such circumstance, and they weren't using lethal force to do so, either. That someone was injured during the riot (and when you're throwing hard objects it qualifies as riot) is unfortunate, hardly qualifies it for Boston Massacre analogy.
ReplyDeleteIf you're looking for guidance from history, the OWS crowd looks more like the Whiskey Rebellion than Lexington and Concord.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDelete1) Again, I am commenting in the poster's choice of words.
2) "Disperse, ye rebels" is Pitcairn at Lexington Green, not the Boston Massacre. ;)
What the hell does his website have to do with ANYTHING?????
ReplyDeletePerhaps "they" are looking at the fact that he served (rather honorably, according to his record) in spite of his opinions.
Maybe his Constitutional rights and his service medals should be voided because he doesn't like the government, and he says so out loud.
The facts are not all in, and many of them may well be covered up, but it appears that Olson was severely injured by a cop who was misusing his weapons, and possibly following unconstitutional orders.
Doesn't anyone have the sense to question the motives of the deeply entrenched institutions who are frantically trying to demonize the protesters? Personally, I'm kind of grateful that all those fringies have time to wave signs and allow themselves to become laughingstocks. They are drawing attention to a very real problem: a corrupt (an unconstitutional) political/financial arrangement that suppresses honest competition by sucking working capital out of our economy.
I'm tired of my taxes going to support parasites and predators who contribute little or nothing to this nation. Some of them are poor, some of them are fast becoming poor, and some of them are filthy rich.
Tam, I stand corrected. :-)
ReplyDeletePothead ex-Gyrene must've totally forgotten Rule #1: Incoming projectiles have the right of way!
ReplyDeleteBy the time we got to wood shop, we were half a million strong.
ReplyDeleteSuz,
ReplyDeleteMaybe his Constitutional rights and his service medals should be voided because he doesn't like the government, and he says so out loud.
See, that is part of the "rights" in the Constitution.
No one has the right to break the law.
We have the right to free speech. But we can find ourselves in violation of various laws for speaking the wrong stuff at the wrong time.
The divide here is that the OWS/OOakland people act like, and I imagine some believe, they are back to the "When in the course of human events . ." time. That is, they believe the laws, the city, the state, and the nation have become tyrants and that the law enforcement is an attack by the enemy.
Some of the rest of us look at them as paid political puppets, and wonder why special prosecutors haven't been turned loose on the money driving the bums. OWS seems like one big campaign finance irregularity to me.
Now, myself, I figure if the OWS/OOakland people would just re-focus their attack a slight bit, to say "Fix the banker, security, and mortgage loopholes and accounting gimmicks, you Congress and President hacks!", why they might get a lot more popular support.
"By the time we got to wood shop, we were half a million strong."
ReplyDeleteWinning!
C, S, N, Y.
Brad K,
ReplyDelete"No one has the right to break the law." That includes the cops. (I'm from a cop family and I strongly support what LE used to be.) There's something about "due process" somewhere in that Constitution, and I think it's supposed to apply to people who break the law. Did you see this? -
http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/
Think they might be backpedaling (again) because they fucked up (again)?
I think you missed or ignored my point about the Olson incident: ..."was severely injured by a cop who was misusing his weapons, and possibly following unconstitutional orders."
Here's the point behind the rest of what I'm saying, because we could spend a month nit-picking over obscure "Yeah, but-" details:
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/03/owscagle_custom.jpg?t=1320332160&s=4
Ignore the names of every "news" organization on that cartoon, and you are left with the truth.
"Some of the rest of us look at them as paid political puppets" Some of them ARE paid political puppets. It's what politicians do - they take over every independent political cause and bastardize it to suit their agenda. It's what the Republicans did to the Tea Party. Do you think there's no difference between the independent Tea Party and the Republican Tea Party?
"Now, myself, I figure if the OWS/OOakland people would just re-focus their attack a slight bit, to say "Fix the banker, security, and mortgage loopholes and accounting gimmicks, you Congress and President hacks!", why they might get a lot more popular support."
I agree with you, and so do MOST of the real people who support OWS. Here's the vicious circle: The protesters on the street are all being being portrayed as the buffoons and the caricatures among them, because that's who the pundits like to yap about. There is very little coverage about the real issues behind the protests. This is to ensure that the movement will go NOWHERE. Yet I wonder how many people are at their banks this very minute, quietly closing their accounts, due in large part to OWS. The protesters ARE getting popular support, and for all the right reasons. But the support is being actively undermined by the partisan pundits who are stirring the pot and encouraging the REAL "99%" to dismiss the whole movement because of a visible minority of silly people within it. Exactly the same way the pundits from the other side did it to the Tea Party.
The parallels between OWS and the Tea Party are staggering! And the result is frighteningly THE SAME. The PTB's provide us with bread and circuses. We watch the show, get riled up, point, scream and laugh at each other, demonizing everybody who is not exactly like us. Then the PTB's go about their business, knowing nothing will ever change. As long as the peasants are angry at each other, we will never agree on what to change. So let's just be obedient little subjects, shall we, and just keep dancing to their music?
Kool-Aid comes in more than one flavor, and I have met VERY few people who don't drink it.
No one has the right to break the law.
ReplyDeleteI'll pass that along to Ms. Parks.
We have the right to free speech. But we can find ourselves in violation of various laws for speaking the wrong stuff at the wrong time.
Did you ever consider the possibility that it may be the law that's wrong, not the citizen?
I'm not necessarily defending everything the Occupy * groups do, just suggesting that it's not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. Suz correctly points out that the police are also subject to the law, and that there's evidence to suggest that they broke it. I'd suggest that the law itself may be bad, a violation of the Constitution and natural law itself ($DEITY knows the Constitution was imperfect, too). Right and wrong have precious little to do with the law.
And, for the record, I fully agree with you about the banking, security, and mortgage issues. The problem, again, is the law itself, crafted to provide special benefit to a select few.
Last time I looked--which was yesterday--the smelly hippies were admitting that ex-jarhead was hit by a rock or bottle thrown by a smelly hippie, NOT by anything thrown or fired by a cop.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are photos of him texting or tweeting on his iPhone as he was being loaded into the waahmbulance.
Drang, you may be right, it's possible that he was hit by something other than a teat-gas canister. None of the videos I saw showed him actually being hit. A couple of the videos did show a cop firing tear gas into a tiny crowd of people on their knees trying to help him.
ReplyDelete"the smelly hippies were admitting..."
I kinda have the impression you don't think smelly hippies are very credible. Except maybe when they "admit" something that backs up the company line spouted by a corrupt city government, and its minions?
Suz,
ReplyDeleteThat there is a problem with our financial system is a fact that we and the OWS people agree on.
What we don't agree on is the solution to that problem. The OWS soultion is More. More taxes, more entitlements, more power to the government, more regulations. In other words, more of what got us into this mess in the first place. "The patient is still anemic? We need more leeches!"
And that is where we disagree. We want less- less power in the hands of the government. Less government over all- you don't have "too big to fail" if the government can't give bailouts. You wouldn't have the housing and student loan bubbles if the government wasn't there to backstop all the bad loans.
I could go on. But there is really little common cause to be had by the two different sides.
"He does have the right to free speech, but he does NOT have the right to incite violence."
ReplyDeleteThat much I agree with.
The rest is crap.
--AOA
Joe you just illustrated my point. Beautifully. Yes, those people are in OWS, and thanks to the corporate media, you think they ARE OWS. You see two sides: "us" and those commie morons. But the REAL two sides are "us" (sadly including the morons) and the the People-Who-Own-The-Government.
ReplyDeleteThe ringmaster is working his ass off to keep you focused on the monkeys; his job is to divide and conquer the public. He's good, isn't he?
The status quo thanks you from the bottom of its frosty little heart.
I don't want the status quo. I just want less government. Get rid of big government, and the Too Big to Fail Big Business are sure to follow.
ReplyDeleteIf your solution to this mess is more regulation, taxes, ect, then YOU are the one being played by the very thing you profess to be against. Big Business is more than happy with that, as they tend to benefit from it.
Truth is, I don't care if one is a smelly, dreadlocked hippie Che wannabe, or a regular well dressed suburban homemaker. If you want More from the Government and More Government, then we are just going to plain disagree.
ReplyDeleteWell, as far as comparing to Lexington and Concord, those grubby colonial revolutionaries did not write up a declaration of independence full of whiny wish lists of free socialist crap to fall from Federal Manna distribution centers like the OWS stooges did.
ReplyDeleteJoe, we don't disagree. I DON'T want more government, I want far less government. The real problem IS the government, *and many of these OWS people know it.* (But they aren't the ones getting the press coverage, are they?)
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming I'm one of "Them" because I haven't jumped on the "Occupy=Idiocy" bandwagon. (Of course my more liberal friends don't understand why I'm not on the "Tea Party=Armageddon" bandwagon either.)
As a true independent, I have two choices: Dismiss as idiots everybody who doesn't agree with me, or engage people with what we DO have in common. I'm not on either side of the fence, nor am I sitting on top of the fence. I'm trying to move the fence.
Tam, you have some REALLY intelligent readers. And no, I'm not being facetious.
ReplyDeleteSuz, would you still think we're intelligent (or at least some of us!) if I pointed out that you typed about getting hit with a teat-gas cylinder?
ReplyDeleteThat sent me rollicking with laughter.
Personally, I'm more Rod Dreher than Rush Limbaugh
I think the underlying emotion on the original comment of "They got what was coming to them" is a fundamental bias held by many if not most people: they want to believe that their cops are the good guys - the kind of cops that you see on those cop shows that always follow procedures and have politically correct doctrine to follow, like Hill Street Blues, and such.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is, those cops are fictional characters. Real life cops have bad days, hangovers, bitchy ex-wives, and other real world problems that affect their judgment and attitude. They make mistakes, assumptions, and jump to conclusions. They do what they are told, rather than follow the law, or policy, or procedure, or doctrine. They have trouble remembering the Peelian Principles, if they ever learned them in the first place. Real cops are as much like real cops, as TV parking is to real parking. They aren't as smart, handsome, or as educated on the fine nuances of the law as TV cops are.
Add to that the fact that the kind of guy who wants to be a cop tends to be the kind who likes to strut around with a gun and a badge, force people to display respect for his authority, and you often get the naive citizenry voicing support for cops who are not much better than the thugs they are supposed to be protecting us from.
Oops - make that "TV cops are as much like real cops..."
ReplyDeleteHa! Thanks Lewis! I guess you guys are observant too! ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I'm a crappy typist. This is what I get when I climb up on my soapbox. I just never learn...
Robin - Well, as far as comparing to Lexington and Concord, those grubby colonial revolutionaries did not write up a declaration of independence full of whiny wish lists of free socialist crap to fall from Federal Manna distribution centers like the OWS stooges did.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point! Can you imagine:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, and that they are endowed by whatever greater power (if any, and especially Allah so please don't cut our heads off) they might believe in with certain unalienable rights that the government has to provide for them free of charge, and that among these are the rights to a free college education, free health care, free diapers, free high-speed internet, free cell phones..."
Tam - Hey, Captain America, are you sure that's what the cops said? "Disperse"? Or did they say something like "Disperse, ye villains! ye rebels, disperse! lay down your arms! why don't you lay down your arms and disperse?"
Question: when does free speech and free assembly end, and subversion and riot begin?
Answer: a lot sooner if it's the other side doing it!
The OWS clowns have done themselves no favors with their aimless, whining "demands", their filthy hippie commune ways, and now their violent behavior. Those of us on the right, therefore, tend to feel a more-or-less grim satisfaction when they "get what's coming to them".
However, you raise a good point: we have to be damned careful about cheering too loudly when the police bust up a protest, for next time it might be a protest in favor of something we support. I'm very sure, for example, that certain people would love to send in the cops to bust up Tea Parties, or right-to-life protests, or shut down the NRA, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Suz,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm sorry if I've lumped you in. It's easy to point out problems, harder to fix them.
For instance, Dr. House and Theodoric, Barber of York will likely both agree that you have a serious illness. But which one would you prefer when it comes to treatment? Personally, I'm not all that thrilled about leeches... or bleeding to death.
I think it's far too easy for "our side" to mock the OWS'ers. It's far too easy to go all tribal, and say they're the other tribe, and screw them anyway. I disagree with a lot of their solutions, but I think a lot of their pain, fear and anger is real, and not only real, but justified. They're realizing they were sold a bill of goods.
ReplyDeleteIt would be easier to find common cause with them if so many of "them" (you know, "them," you know how THEY are) hadn't poured their hoity-toity latte scorn on the Tea Party---the original Tea Party, before it got all hijackified by the GOP, the Greatly Ossified Party.
The dotgov has been doing some profoundly stupid shit for a long time now, and people are waking up to it. Personally, I reject both the Ayn Rand superman school of thought and the Hillary Clinton "it takes a village" (a top-down-and-run-by-me village) school of thought.
It's not time to strap the colanders on our faces, it's probably time for us all to get used to the wookie suits. I don't want to come across all faggy and leftist here, but our current model isn't sustainable, and I'd a whole lot rather rebuild infrastructure here in the States than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Didn't Merle Haggard have a song about that?
If I didn't have such a visceral reaction to Tony Blair, I'd say we need a Third Way.
What Lewis said. In five eloquent paragraphs. Dude, you are way better at this than I am.
ReplyDeleteSuz -
ReplyDeleteI agree with your (and Lewis') overall analysis that the OWS and TEA crowds are picking at different heads of the same hydra. I further agree that wasting our fire on each other is pretty much exactly what that hydra wants. (So I especially appreciate the Oathkeeper speechifying you mentioned on your blog).
HOWEVER
I don't think we can long forget that the conflict of visions is very real and very deep. We want fundamentally incompatible things. The childish "please make me a victim for the camera officer" OWS street theater is bad enough, but the violence and economic damage they've already shown not just to their targets but to the surrounding neighborhoods and each other - that's inexcusable.
If there's anything the Cold War taught us, it's that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend... and that aiding them in hopes of surviving the bigger evil is always going to come around to bite us in the posterior.
I frankly don't have an answer - other than both sides might be able to work together on certain mutually agreeable, clearly defined goals.
... but I'm not seeing that marriage of convenience lasting long one way or another.
What Jenny said.
ReplyDeleteYes. The hardest part of cooperating with such people is maintaining that unstable middle ground between naivete and paranoia. Your core principles must be firm and your eyes must be wide open. "Moving the fence" in no man's land is risky, dirty work.
ReplyDeleteHere's where my innate optimism borders on naivete: I think it's possible to draw a vast number of "sympathetic" moderates away from the socialist/victim crowd. With facts, not cold contempt. Perhaps I put too much faith in the intelligence of the Average Joe.
Tam:
ReplyDeleteThe word "Disperse" is not evil by itself.
Whether or not a lawful order is a moral order depends on the laws in question.
Expecting a group that has turned a peaceful protest into violent long term squatting on public property to "disperse" is entirely reasonable. I wouldn't accuse them of treason however.
"Disperse, ye hippie retards! ye dumbarses, disperse! stop throwing those damned bottles. why don't you stop shitting in buckets and living off of ACORN pallets of Spam, and disperse!"