The Cleansing of Zuccotti

---

Just a few thoughts about Tuesday’s TRO Wankfest.

The OWS lawyers obtained an emergency ex-parte restraining order from a friendly judge who made a 6:30 am housecall to sign it. They say a good lawyer knows the law but a great lawyer knows the judge.

But even without a judge in your pocket ex-parte restraining orders are about as hard to get as a $20 Rolex in Times Square and last about as long. “Ex-parte” means “by one party” and refers to a judicial proceeding where only one side gets heard. Ex parte orders are generally intended to freeze the situation until everyone can come to court and be heard.

The OWS’ pet judge only made the order good for five hours until a hearing set for 11:30 am Tuesday morning. The protesters could waive all the copies they wanted but restraining orders are only binding when personally served. More importantly, by the time it was signed Zuccotti Park had already been cleared.

Ironically, the TRO probably delayed the protesters’ return to the park. The police had stated from the beginning that after the park was cleaned people could reenter. But they weren’t going to let anyone return with tents and camping gear, which is really what the dispute was about.

Here’s the court order:

The parties dispute whether the First Amendment applies to the actions of the owner in enacting the rules. For purposes of this application, the Court assumes that the First Amendment applies to the owner of Zuccotti Park, thus obviating petitioners’ request for a hearing as to whether Zuccotti Park is traditional public forum, or a limited public forum. Assuming arguendo, that the owner’s maintenance of the space must not violate the First Amendment, the owner has the right to adopt reasonable rules that permit it to maintain a clean, safe, publicly accessible space consonant with the responsibility it assumed to provide public access according to law.

The Court is mindful of movants’ First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. However, “[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.” (Snyder v Phelps, 131 S Ct 1207, 1218 [2011], quoting Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense
& Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 US 788, 799 [1985].) Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.

To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the law and the owner’s rules appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of law, or in tort It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus.

---

I’ve said for weeks that the City was on solid legal ground. Since Zuccotti Park is private property the First Amendment would not normally be implicated, and OWS had no right to possess or occupy the park on a permanent basis. But for reasons too complicated to explain here the park could be considered public property for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.

The court made the assumption it was a “public forum” and still ruled against OWS. That, IMNSHO, is the correct ruling.

Here’s what is so stupid about all this drama and histrionic claims of government oppression – no one has attempted to deny the Occupiers right to protest. Not in New York City, not in Oakland, not in any city.

Mayors Bloomberg and Quan both said that the protesters in their cities were welcome to protest on a daily basis, from early morning into the evening. The main conflict has been over 24/7 camping in city parks.

The protesters were told they were not allowed to camp overnight. They ignored the warnings. They were told to leave. They refused to go. Finally, the police moved in to evict them. They resisted.

So all this time was wasted fighting over camping instead of protesting their cause. Talk about rebels without a clue!

Meanwhile, for nearly two months now nobody has been talking about Barack Obama.

Mission accomplished!

---

Is Zucotti Park a Big Enough Distraction?

I’m sure the failure of the administration’s creepy version of a Tea Party and it’s subsequent deletion is an interesting news story. I also know there are other real crimes like graft to administration donors and violations of civil rights by executive order. Still, one should ask these questions.

• Why has Hillbuzz, a site mostly confined to conservative circles, seen DDOS attacks since the owner used the Herman Cain standard of evidence to publicize stories about Obama’s sexual exploits?
• Why did Reggie Love suddenly leave his White House “body man” duties?
• Why was Hillbuzz’s scheduled guest tonight, Larry Sinclair, declared dead on Free Republic yesterday when he’s very much alive?
• Why is former White House celebrity staffer Kal Penn suddenly involved in a love story with one of the most attractive actresses on television?

Kevin Dujan of Hillbuzz has been Ground Zero for information about Obama’s past in Chicago. As an organizer for Hillary, he knew some of the things Obama did at a place called “Man’s Country.” In fact, he thinks the Vera Baker non-story was a fabrication to make Obama seem manly when questions started coming up in 2008.

I wouldn’t put anything past this guy. Besides the Politico standard of rumors being fact, I think it is valuable information to learn about the down low history of a man who has used sex secrets (and sexism) to take down his rivals.

Zuccotti Live-Blog III

---

The park is clean but empty, the protesters are roaming the streets hoping they will be able to re-enter. A court hearing is taking place this afternoon to decide if they can or not and under what conditions if they can.

Annoying Live Stream here.

Guardian Live Update here.

UPDATE:

Rule of law – 1

Occupiers – 0

---

The Horse That Wouldn’t Drink

It’s one of the oldest English proverbs around: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. (Or, as they would have said in the 12th century: Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken.)

Whenever selection day rolls around, the Donkeyphant party is the bartender serves you a choice of cyanide-infused koolaid or arsenic-sweetened goperade, in different colors and artificial flavors. Who says you have to drink?

What if everyone went down to the bar with their own bottles of pure, clear, clean water?

Primaries start on January 3rd in Iowa and roll on after that to other states. The Democratic Party is confident that Obama will be awarded the nomination uncontested, and the Republican Party is confident that Romney’s rivals are too weak and fragmented to oppose him.

What if every registered Democrat who is unhappy with Obama went to their primary and caucused for or wrote in Hillary Clinton?

What if every registered Republican who was dissatisfied with the GOP field went to their primary and caucused for or wrote in Sarah Palin?

The power of the Donkeyphant Party to select our leaders rests on our going along with their fake choices. Heads they win, tails we lose. Picking one of those false choices is throwing away our vote.

Why not make a real choice? Write in the name of a real leader.

Mob rule

---

Protesters hope to shut down New York’s Wall Street

Protesters hope to shut down Wall Street on Thursday — home to the New York Stock Exchange — by holding a street carnival to mark the two-month anniversary of their campaign against economic inequality.

Protest organizers acknowledged that the “day of action” could be the group’s most provocative yet, and could lead to mass arrests and further strain relations with city authorities.

“I think we’re certainly going into this with our eyes wide open, but (the march is) to provoke ideas and discussion, not to provoke any violent reactions,” said Occupy Wall Street spokesman Ed Needham.

“I think it is very difficult to do a day of action and not expect some sort of reaction from the (authorities),” he said.

The protesters plan to march to Wall Street from their camp headquarters in a park two blocks away and then spread out across the city’s subway system to tell the stories of disenfranchised Americans. They will reconvene later on Thursday for a march across the Brooklyn Bridge.

[...]

“We will shut down Wall Street,” a post on the movement’s Facebook page said. “We will ring the People’s Bell, and initiate a street carnival in which we rebuild and celebrate the neighborhoods that the Wall Street economy has destroyed.”

The group promises a “a block party the 1 percent will never forget.”

A spokesman for the stock exchange declined to comment.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, asked by reporters on Monday about the protesters’ plans, said: “The New York Stock exchange will open on time. People will be able to get to work, you can rest assured.”

[...]

At times the police presence has outnumbered the protesters and city officials have shown their patience is wearing thin with the encamped protest. But Thursday’s march could attract up to 10,000 people, protest spokesman Needham said.

---

Forget whether this is a good tactic or not. Don’t worry about whether it will be successful. Ignore the fact that 10,000 people isn’t even 1% of New York City.

What I want to know is what gives them the right?

Seriously – what legal, political or moral theory justifies taking it upon yourself to impose your will on others?

How is blockading Wall Street any different from blockading an abortion clinic or gay bar?

I keep asking this question and have yet to receive an answer.

More thoughts along this line from Arthur Silber:

If we restrict ourselves to instances of civil disobedience which are entirely non-violent (again, in common understanding), we can observe that those who engage in such civil disobedience decline to follow those courses of action which are expected and informally condoned or, in the case of more overt conflict, those courses of action which are legally required. In other words, they decline to obey; they are being disobedient. While that much is obvious (perhaps painfully so, you might be heard to say), the reversal that is attempted is perhaps not so obvious: those who engage in civil disobedience seek to make others obey them.

[...]

One of the results of the commonly accepted view of non-violence as devoid of compulsion, and thus tautologically devoid of violence, is that we are led to bewildering reactions, as reflected in a number of comments I’ve seen about recent events in Oakland, for example. Advocates of non-violence will enthusiastically applaud the fact that the port of Oakland was forced to be closed (those who operate the port did not choose to close the port voluntarily), while they fervently condemn those protesters who smashed some windows and caused other property damage (all of which seems to be comparatively minor, to judge from multiple reports).

Why is compulsion approved in one case, but condemned in the other? I am unable to identify a principle which justifies the disparity. (There may be one, but I have yet to find it, even though I have read and continue to read extensively on these issues.) The answer cannot be in the nature and degree of the harm inflicted. Consider the Milk Street Cafe example with which we began. The chain of events which led to the dismissal of more than 20 employees, and which may lead to the closing of the Cafe altogether, includes the presence of Occupy Wall Street. Rather than the continuing presence of the protesters, the Cafe’s owner himself might prefer, if he were free to choose, that the Occupiers broke some or even all of his windows, and perhaps went on to damage some of his other on-site property. If that happened on one occasion (and possibly even two or three times), he could replace and repair all of it, and his business might return to previous levels. That result would be a significant improvement over what is happening now.

---

Money quote:

I sometimes get the sense that certain advocates of non-violence are more enamored of their self-perceived moral superiority than concerned with identifying and analyzing the immensely difficult questions involved. But the contradictions in their views alone fatally undercut the moral righteousness with which they seek to smother those who disagree with them.

---

There is a word for people like that – authoritarians.

---

---

Occupy Godwin – Zuccotti Park Live-Blog

The Final Solution?

riverdaughter, on November 15, 2011 at 8:46 amsaid:

More and more I am beginning to believe that the words “clean”, “health” and “safety” have been tested.

Lambert Strether, on November 15, 2011 at 8:53 am said:

That is extremely acute, and I’m sure you’re right.

It’s also exactly the same rhetoric that the Nazis used against the Jews.

---

Yes, because telling people they can’t camp-out in Manhattan is the same as putting them in death camps.

This is a live-blog on the situation in Zuccotti Park. I have stickied it to the top of the front page.

Newer posts can be found below this one.

---