Norm Stamper Speaks: "Police Departments Are The Junior Partners In The Community"

Since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security on November 25^th, 2002 under the Presidency of George W. Bush, an unprecedented militarization and escalation of tactics in the US has taken place among police departments. From the arming of our police forces with armored personnel carriers to the frequent use of SWAT teams against unarmed and non-threatening protesters, a rash of police actions have swept the country that has led many activists, advocates, and citizens to ask: is this what our police force should be used for?

In no place is that escalation and use of heavy force more apparent than Seattle. The Seattle Police Department has a long history of excessive force in its actions, perhaps most notable by the slaying of John T. Williams, an indigenous woodcarver who was shot by Officer Ian Birk simply because he could not hear Birk’s order to stop.

Occupy Seattle has seen its share of extreme action, most famously in the case of Dorli Rainey, an 84-year old woman who waspepper-sprayed on November 15th, 2011 after complying with a police order to stand on a sidewalk. In other cases, police have used horses, flash-bang grenades, and physical assault in order to subdue peaceful protesters.

The Department of Justice has, since these incidents, issued a strongly worded letter to the Seattle Police Department for their abuses, specifically citing Occupy Seattle as a matter of interest in their investigation. The Department, under the auspices of Chief of Police John Diaz, has been recalcitrant in the wake of this admonishment and continues to refute the Federal Government’s attempts to rein in what appears to many to be a department which has gone out of control.

In 1999, a notorious riot exacerbated by police action took place in what has now been called the “Battle of Seattle.” The Chief of Police at that time was one Norm Stamper, who after his retirement has publicly stated he regretted his decisions during that action and now works tirelessly against police brutality. Thanks to the Occupy Seattle Media Team, I was able to schedule an interview with Stamper, in which we addressed the WTO riots of 1999, current uses of force in the SPD, and what he feels Chiefs like Diaz should keep in mind.

Ian Awesome: You were chief of police during one of the most notorious stateside clashes between police and protester in recent decades. What are you doing now and how has your tenure as chief of police in Seattle affected your current affairs? 

Norm Stamper: It was during that event that I made the worst decision of my career, which was to permit the use of chemical agents on a non-violent, non-threatening crowd on 6^th. We made that decision because we felt it was a necessity, but there was NO necessity for that decision, and I will regret that forever. That week is unfortunately considered my legacy.
I’m a writer, I do some public speaking, and I am mostly involved in drug policy reform and work for the abolition of the death penalty. 

So what’s happened of course is that every time there is an anniversary for the Battle of Seattle, I’ll get a call asking me for my reflections on what happened in ‘99 and what I would have done differently. Of course, Occupy has really taken hold in this country and captured the imagination of so many people so I’ve been doing a lot of interviews on that as well. 

IA: Occupy Seattle has frequently been the victim of heavy-handed tactics even though the recipients of those attacks were peaceably demonstrating or, in many cases, just sleeping. Do you think the current level of force (such as indiscriminate pepper-spray use, riding horses into crowds, punching, flashbang grenades, and use of SWAT teams) is appropriate to the actions of these demonstrators? 

 The remnants of a flashbang grenade used at our Port Action. Photo by Joseph H.

NS: There are times and circumstances when use of force is justified but, generally, there appears to be no justification of the use of chemical weapons and other methods of force. The iconic UC Davis video is a perfect example. These non-violent demonstrators were causing no harm to anyone, to include the police, and were sprayed in a manner that was almost cavalier. It was as if that officer was watering his roses! 

In short, I think that there has been a massive overreaction across the country. My overarching opinion is that it is too much too soon and that it is exacerbating tensions between Occupy and police departments. 

IA: You recently said on The Nation that the paramilitary bureaucracy today is worse than it was in the 1990s. Would you view incidents such as the use of SWAT teams to evict unarmed and peaceful Occupiers from buildings as a symptom of that increased sense of “protesters are the enemy?” 

NS: You know, I do believe that in general there has been a major increase in the militarization of American law enforcement. We are seeing SWAT teams used for things that were not part of the designed purpose of SWAT teams. They were established to deal with hostages, bank robberies, heavily armed individuals, and often times domestic violence situations where someone is holding their partner at gunpoint. SWAT is a smart response to these problems. What’s happened is SWAT is now being employed for very low level drug offenses, on political protests and other situations. 

SWAT operations can get people killed when used improperly, even though the purpose is to protect lives, to include the lives of alleged perpetrators. There is a problem in law enforcement today and that is scared cops! They have been erroneously conditioned to believe that the next person who answers a door they knock on is going to kill them. If that’s your mindset and orientation and your tools are SWAT, tragic outcomes are all but inevitable.

IA: Recently the Department of Justice soundly chastised the Seattle Police Department with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez characterizing SPD’s practices to ensure trust with the community as “broken,” which Police Chief Diaz hotly denies. What would your response be were you in his position? Do you have a word of advice you would give to Chief of Police Diaz? 

NS: Well, without being presumptuous, I would offer this view to any chief including Diaz. If you do not conceive of your police department as belonging to the community, then you have the wrong conception of policing a free and democratic society. I think it’s very important the police take the view that they are the junior partners of the communities they serve. If there’s a senior partner in that relationship it is the community by at least a ratio of 51/49, and that isn’t just the business community or blind supporters of the police department, but also critics and those who have been on the receiving end of oppressive police action.

Norm Stamper is just one voice among many calling for the demilitarization of our police forces. The question is, of course, will current federal leadership and individual police departments listen? 

Video: Port Shutdown by Ken Lapworth

One of our fabulous Occupy supporters and Livestream viewers, Ken Lapworth, was on-scene for our Port action on December 12th. You may remember him from his last video about the Portland eviction. His latest installment is found below.

Time Magazine's Person Of The Year: The Protester

Time Magazine gave a nod to the activists who, globally, have taken to the streets in protest of unfair banking and despotic governments by naming Time Magazine's Person of the Year "The Protester."

They credit this year's trend of civil unrest with one man with a produce cart in Tunisia:

It began in Tunisia, where the dictator's power grabbing and high living crossed a line of shamelessness, and a commonplace bit of government callousness against an ordinary citizen — a 26-year-old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi — became the final straw. Bouazizi lived in the charmless Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid, 125 miles south of Tunis. On a Friday morning almost exactly a year ago, he set out for work, selling produce from a cart. Police had hassled Bouazizi routinely for years, his family says, fining him, making him jump through bureaucratic hoops. On Dec. 17, 2010, a cop started giving him grief yet again. She confiscated his scale and allegedly slapped him. He walked straight to the provincial-capital building to complain and got no response. At the gate, he drenched himself in paint thinner and lit a match.

Bouazizi died, but a wave of protests and outrage were born in the Middle East and have grown to encompass the world as people take to the streets. I wonder: will the powers-that-be begin to listen to the chanted slogans and angry shouts at their doorstep? And if not, what next?

Fallout: A Minister's Story Of Police Brutality

In the last video video I posted on OAQ, if you watch carefully you can see a minister being knocked to the ground by police. Now Rev. John Helmiere alleges that the incident was a clear case of police brutality:

Yesterday evening, I was brutally beaten by my brothers on the Seattle Police force as I stood before an entrance to Pier 18 of the Seattle Port in my clergy garb bellowing, “Keep the Peace! Keep the Peace!” An officer pulled me down from behind and threw me to the asphalt. Between my cries of pain and shouts of “I’m a man of peace!” he pressed a knee to my spine and immobilized my arms behind my back, crushing me against the ground. With the right side of my face pressed to the street, he repeatedly punched the left side of my face for long enough that I had time to pray that the crunching sounds I heard were not damaging my brain. I was cuffed and pulled off the ground by a different officer who seemed genuinely appalled when he saw my face and clerical collar. He asked who I was and why I was here, to which I replied, “I’m a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe another world is possible.” He led me shaking to a police van where began a 12-hour journey of incarcerated misery.

Click here to get his full account.

A Longshoreman Speaks: "I Fully Support Port Shutdown"

Please note that this is a post originally generated on December 10th, 2011. It was deleted in one of those stupid accidents that happens when you use blogger. Apologies.

As December 12th approaches, differing opinions on the effectiveness of a port shutdown are flying, with Occupy Wall Street organizers speaking on behalf of the action and ILWU officers releasing statements of non-support for interrupting the flow of commerce on that day.

However, this has not impeded OWS organizers from orchestrating a large-scale shutdown across the entire West Coast. Thus far, major occupations in Tacoma, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Oakland, Los Angeles and Vancouver BC have endorsed and organized actions on that day, while Occupations in other cities such as Denver and Dallas have pledged to hold solidarity actions to support the shutdown.

This action is not only supported, however, by the Occupy movement. As I reported on my last post on the shutdown, port workers have been in meetings discussing the action and have spoken privately about their support. Many are unwilling to make statements to the press because they don't want to jeopardize their contracts, however, I sat down with one port worker to get his opinion on the action on condition of anonymity.

The longshoreman, who I will refer to as "John", also supports the Occupy movement and he spoke with me at length about the many reasons he is glad to see civil disobedience in the ports.

I fully support it. The major shipping companies and other corporations that work with them don't just directly affect port workers, but the power they wield over the economy, politics and society as a whole effects all workers on an international scale. The labor and Occupy movements need to take the fight directly to their doorstep. I had concerns even before Oakland called the November 2nd General Strike and 12/12 shutdown was that there wouldn't be enough dialogue between organizers, port workers and the unions that represent them. As such, we've seen something of a backlash specifically from ILWU officers which I think could have been avoided if there had been more discussion from the start.Of course, the ILWU's objection to the action is that it would negatively effect port workers on the job to interrupt business at the ports. When I asked John about that concern, he told me:

I think it's a valid concern, but if you want to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs. When workers themselves go on strike we discuss these issues. However, this is only a one-day thing. I think that these objections come up because the action was proposed by a seemingly outside group. However, port workers are members of the 99% percent as well! "An injury to one is an injury to all." We are all in this together.Finally I asked him if other longshoremen supported the action and he grinned and said:

Yes, absolutely. Longshoremen have a long proud history of radical activism and honoring community picket lines, much like the anti-apartheid pickets at ports in the 1980s. It appears that that history of radical activism is still taking place today, and with longshoremen supporting the action organizers and Occupier are more dedicated than ever to sending a message to the large corporations that operate in ports cannot engage in union-busting tactics without the community taking them to task.

On Monday, December 12th the day will kick off with a Hip-Hop Occupies rally in Westlake Park at noon, followed by a port shutdown at 3 PM. Transportation will be provided between Westlake and the Port.

Ian's Account: The Occupy Seattle Port Shutdown, Part 2

This post is a continuation of my account of the December 12th Port shutdown and ensuing events. The original post can be found here.


After we left Terminal 18 in order to take and shut down Terminal 5, a large group of people, around 200 or so, marched over the bridge dividing the two Terminals. We streamed during the entirety of that march and were able to get footage of the scene below at Terminal 18, which can be found in the archives our our Livestream channel (click here to go to the main page). Night had fallen and the temperature dropped. My finger-less gloves were no longer keeping my hands warm.

We head over the bridge toward Terminal 5.

We saw no police presence as we headed up the bridge, something we would come to sorely regret. One motorist, angry at our presence, decided instead of waiting for us to pass that he would put on the gas and speed through our march. We watched in horror as a member of our bike swarm was hit. In order to avoid being dragged under the car, he jumped on the hood and was catapulted over the roof of the vehicle to fall to the side of the road. The car sped away.

In the night, one motorist didn't care to wait for us to pass.  Photo by Joseph H.

The car speeds away. Ian ran to try and get the license plate number, but others were successful.  Photo by Joseph H.

One Occupier, Joseph H., approached a police car that had arrived on scene with lights flashing. He attempted to give the license plate number to the authorities, but the officer rebuffed him until he threatened to take his picture and report him for his failure to act. Information has not yet been forthcoming regarding the hit and run, but the victim miraculously sustained only minor injuries.

At this time, six to seven police cars tore onto the bridge, lights flashing and sirens wailing. Many of us assumed the police cars were headed to apprehend the murderous motorist, however we seem to have been proven wrong. I believe they were headed to Terminal 18, as about 20 minutes later we received phone calls announcing that our friends still blockading the east side of the Port had been attacked. 

Many of us had completed the crossing over the bridge and at this dismaying news, turned around to hurry back to assist in defending our friends. However, organizers who were on the phone with personnel on-site at the blockade reported that Occupy Seattle's wall at Terminal 18 had been successfully removed by police. Somewhat disheartened, we turned back once again and continued on to Terminal 5.

We entered the parking lot to Terminal 5 and immediately set up a picket line there. The parking lot had two entrances, and some activists stayed at those entrances to provide a first line of defense should police move in. Many of us argued with each other as to the best tactics, having been shaken up by the reports of violence used at Terminal 18, but in the end Occupy Seattle set up a circling picket line with people linking arms to block the entrance. 

We blocked the entrance and we waited.

Terminal 5 is Occupied.  Photo by Rendao Liliang

As we milled about in the parking lot, our friends who had been attacked by police joined us. Many puffy faced from pepper spray and all outraged at the assault, they showed us their injuries and we shook our heads in anger.

Injuries sustained during the scuffle with the police.  Photo by Rendao Liliang

Finally police cars pulled into a parking lot across the street and got out of their vehicles. They monitored the situation from afar and we eyed them with suspicion. Our picket went on.

Finally we received a phone call from the union hall: the arbitrator had declared the Port unsafe due to our presence, work was canceled, and we had successfully shut down the Port. Applause erupted, and before police could act against us victory was declared and we marched away, pleased at a successful action.

We were dismayed, however, to learn that the Longshoremen sent home by the union arbitrator were being denied payment for time lost during our picket. Far from usual, this constituted a breach of contract on the part of the Terminal and we swore we would not let this unjust action go without Occupy Seattle's say.

We went to bed, got some rest, and some of us woke up the next morning, ready to return. A 6:30 AM picket was scheduled at Terminal 5, and around 20 of us showed up to express solidarity with longshore workers.

Early morning picket. Longshoremen are looking on, respecting our picket line.

Some workers crossed our picket line, though we thanked them for their work as they entered the Terminal. We later found out that they were machinists, non-ILWU workers who were not obligated to respect our picket. However, about 8 out of 10 of them expressed their support and thanks as they entered the port, with one woman relating to us that the Terminal authorities had denied her health benefits for an injury sustained on the job.

Longshoremen gathered in the parking lot and watched us. They are contractually forbidden for causing a work disruption, but as they huddled up to discuss us one casually sauntered by us. "You would need more people if you wanted to shut down the port," he said. I took a step toward him to ask him a question and he hurried away.

Eventually, the arbitrator arrived and asked us to move out of the parking lot so that the Longshoremen could go to work. We agreed, as we didn't have enough people to hold the line. 

To our shock and delight, he then led a round of applause from the port workers. As they filed into the Terminal, they shook our hands, thanked us, and hugged us. Footage of the applause can be found here, at the end of the video. We have since heard that they will be getting paid for their time on stand-by from the December 13th picket.

In the end, did we change anything? I don't know. Goldman Sachs and EGT, the companies that are the financial beneficiaries of the revenue generated on the backs of longshore workers, will most likely continue their corruption and union-busting tactics. We may very well have to return. But we have definitely sent a message to those who would exploit the working class:

We are the 99%. We are determined, we are focused, and we are angry. If you trample on our workers we will shut down your ports. If you use the police to brutalize us we will take to the streets. We are the ones who are too big to fail, and you would do well to remember that.

Oh, and you know what? I'll be there, filming every minute of it. Smile!

Ian's Account: The Occupy Seattle Port Shutdown, Part 1

Yesterday's controversial Port action swept the West Coast with Port closures, with varying degrees of police action taken against Occupy movements, to include at solidarity actions in cities outside of the region. Vancouver BC, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, and others joined the port shutdown with other Occupations obstructing other facilities in a move to send a message to Goldman Sachs and other shipping giants: "We are the 99%."

I attended one such shutdown as the Livestream reporter for the action at the Port of Seattle. It started with a rally put on by Hip Hop Occupies at approximately 12:30 PM, with a march directly after which took to the streets of Seattle for the long walk to the Port from Westlake Park. Laptop in hand, I followed the march, streaming the procession as it made its way down 4th Avenue to the Port fishing area on Spokane Street. Fellow team members Dan J. and Jenny D. accompanied me.

Some estimate 700-800 people in attendance, but I guessed closer to 1000. At one point the march stretched across two city blocks, yet we saw a very minimal police presence, excepting a helicopter hovering overhead with the Sheriff's department. When we turned down Spokane St. and marched into the Port, our chants were echoed back to us as we passed under overpasses.

During organizational meetings, the planned terminal to be shutdown had not yet been decided. If we had 1000 people or more, we would have the numbers to block every entrance of Terminal 18, but if we had less we would cross a bridge and close the smaller Terminal 5.

We chose to close Terminal 18.

A blockade was hastily erected at the main entrance of Terminal 18 at roughly 3:30 PM, constructed out of signs, scrap wood, and corrugated metal. Eli Sanders of the Slog has pictures here.

The blockade was constructed in minutes, with the exit lane left clear so that port workers attempting to go home would be able to leave the Terminal. However, two lanes were reduced to one, and traffic began to back up. The demonstrators quickly began to direct traffic, allow three cars at a time from each line to pass the blockade unhindered.  The entrance was blocked, however. We had shut down the Terminal 18.

Photo by Katia R.

Our action had not gone unnoticed. I lit a cigarette, content to observe the protesters building the blockade, until I turned around and saw a huge line of police officers on bicycles approaching the barricaded entrance.

Photo by Katia R.

Ian points out the approaching police to the Livestream audience while Dan holds the laptop.

The police acted quickly, setting up a bicycle barricade to prevent protesters from moving forward of the blockade and then, to our surprise, extending their barricade to block the exit lane. The crowd of protesters erupted into outraged shouts of "Let them leave!" This continued for approximately ten minutes as traffic piled up in the port, workers already late getting home now inexplicably detained.

While I am willing to admit that the Seattle Police Department may have shut down the exit lane in confusion, part of me is very much tempted to characterize this as an attempt on the part of the SPD to create a stressful situation that would make Occupy Seattle appear to be transgressors against Port workers. As the foremost trucker in the blocked traffic leaned out his window to see what was going on, he struck up a conversation with Occupiers sympathetic to his plight. 

"I know why you're doing this. I barely make enough to feed myself."

Photo by Katia R.

Finally the police changed their tactics and began to allow the truckers and other employers to leave the Port. What would they do next? They eyed the crowd uneasily.

At this point, organizers assessed the amount of people we had and declared that we could take Terminal 5 in addition to Terminal 18. A large contingent of people left to cross the bridge across the water and occupy that section of the port. In what some are calling a tactical error, around 100 protesters were left to hold Terminal 18, left to the mercies of the police. I joined the moving march in order to stream the erection of blockades at Terminal 5.

According to on-the-ground sources, the SPD escalated their tactics as the exit lane cleared. Seeing a possible entrance, they attempted to guide a truck laden with goods to be shipped through the exit. Occupiers then moved their bodies and the blockade to close that space as well.  The briefly empty exit lane then filled up again, and tensions mounted.

Seattle Police Department alleges that items were thrown at them during this time, while Occupiers I've spoken to deny this and state that the police were the first to use violence. The alleged weapons flung at police were lit flares, a pointed rebar, bags of paint, and bricks. Wendy Leigh, a writer for the Huffington Post, was on the scene and indicated that she saw no such thing. Whatever the case, it is confirmed that at this time Seattle Police Department used horses (one person was stepped on by a horse), flash bang grenades, and pepper spray in order to attack and disperse the crowd.  11 were arrested.

Seattle Police Department rode horses into the crowd to disperse the demonstration.

The remains of a flash bang grenade.  Photo by Joseph H.

Protesters indicate to police, among the wreckage of the blockade, that we are a peaceful demonstration.

Photos have been captured of an SPD officer punching a protester in the face, resulting in his fellow officers restraining him in his fury. KIRO TV's account of the police tactics can be found here.

This is the first of a two-part series. The second is posted here.

Port Shutdown: Why It Matters

Occupy Seattle has voted to stand with Occupy Oakland's call for action at West Coast ports in a controversial and visible action to send a message to multiple corporations who have acted against port workers:

"We're shutting down these ports because of the union busting and attacks on the working class by the 1%: the firing of Port truckers organizing at SSA terminals in LA; the attempt to rupture ILWU union jurisdiction in Longview, WA by EGT. EGT includes Bunge LTD, a company which reported 2.5 billion dollars in profit last year and has economically devastated poor people in Argentina and Brazil. SSA is responsible for inhumane working conditions and gross exploitation of port truckers and is owned by Goldman Sachs. EGT and Goldman Sachs is Wallstreet on the Waterfront" stated Barucha Peller of the West Coast Port Blockade Assembly of Occupy Oakland.   

Meetings have been occurring weekly since Occupy Seattle's General Assembly vote to support the port shutdown.  Held in West Seattle, the meetings were open to the public and organizers heard community concerns about the action in order to conduct the action in an efficient and community-friendly manner.  Continuing outreach has been staged at the Port of Seattle in order to talk to workers as they end their shifts about the impending shutdown.

Reportedly, Port workers who must remain anonymous due to their contracts, have attended the meetings in West Seattle and voiced their support for the move.

The Stranger's online blog, the Slog, posted today that the International Longshoreman and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has now stated that they do not support this action:

“Local 19 and the ILWU as a whole has taken a position against shutting down the ports on Dec. 12," Williams told me. "Obviously we support the Occupy movement as a whole and the causes they’re fighting for. But as far as shutting down the Port of Seattle, we’re not in favor of that. There’s a lot of jobs—union jobs and other jobs as well—associated with shutting down commerce, and we can’t support that.”

Far from concerned about the statement, organizers I spoke with were confident that this action was appropriate.  Longshoremen have been secretly meeting with Occupy Seattle on a regular basis and do support shutdown, and it's not hard to see why.  One only needs to look to the recent conflict between local unions and multinational conglomerate EGT in Longview to understand why a strong statement needs to be made to companies that represent the 1%'s interests to the detriment of union workers.

Why use a shutdown to get our point across?  At its most basic concept, we're sending a message by fucking with the 1%'s money.  Frankly, the impact to workers (who already support the action) is minimal.  They're still going to get paid.


On a broader scope, however, we only need to look as far as the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail, written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to see why shutting down the Port of Seattle for a day will benefit union workers:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.

In the end, ILWU's statement that they do not support port shutdown is an effort on the part of the union to cover their proverbial asses.  It would be a breach of contract to support our action, so they cannot speak positively for it.  They have no option.

Luckily, we do have options, and we're going to use them.  One of those is shutdown, and on the 12th of December we will be doing just that.

See you at the Port!

OneAngryCultist: Love Thy Neighbor

In a recent article on the Catholic Lane, retired schoolteacher and fellow, Seattle OCCUPY activist and writer Robert “Bob” Struble, Jr. writes about the ongoing problem of institutional child abuse. In his recent articles, Paterno, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, and Cowards; and Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation? Struble explores the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal in which assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had been found guilty of sexually assaulting or having inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys as indicative of the moral decline of society due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

In the first article, Struble writes:

“Cultural commissars in the West urge citizens to worship at the altar of a much-touted triune ethic – tolerance, diversity and choice. This secular trinity militates against the influence of righteous indignation. It demands that people who express disgust at sexual sins be reprogrammed. Teach them to reconsider their negative attitudes. Show them that a tendency to look down on homosexual sex is wrong in itself. Brow beat them with the notion that such a critical attitude is condescending and judgmental.”

Putting aside any snarky reference I could make by invoking Matthew 7:1-5, there is a tendency in our culture to censor language that is perceived to be intolerant or that doesn’t respect the current values of diversity and choice and with good reason –this kind of language kills people!

 In a free society we do have the right to speak our minds, however the point at which this language and dialogue infringes upon the lives and liberty of others, I take serious concern.

In specific regards to Catholic social teaching, of which Mr. Struble should be well aware, sexual minorities, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Quoting the controversial archbishop of the airwaves, Fulton Sheen, Mr. Struble writes in agreement:

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil…, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment…. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles.”

Immediately following, in his own words, Bob additionally calls for an end to, “the prevailing idolatry about inclusiveness. We need, rather, to exhibit the militancy and intolerance that Jesus modeled when he cleansed the temple.”

So, Bob, tell us what you really think about the teachings of Jesus who enjoins all Christians to, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31). Thousands of Catholics struggle on a daily basis with deep-seated problems related to being faced with having to choose between being true to themselves or their faith – I for one think they are owed at least a modicum of tolerance.

In his second article, Bob attempts to make the case that the child abuse case at Penn state is not only a moral problem, with which I fully agree, but correlates homosexuality to pedophilia – clearly something I cannot endorse. Pedophilia cannot in any way be related to homosexuality.

Pedophilia, as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” and has nothing to do whatsoever with homosexuality even in cases where the abused are of the same gender of the abused.

In essence, pedophilia is a profound psychological and emotional disorder that cannot be correlated in any way to homosexuality in which relationships formed between same-sex partners are most often consensual in nature, as with heterosexual relationships, and based on positive regard for partners and are not typified by power-dynamic disparity as in the case of pedophilia.

Continuing, Bob predicts:

“That if social mores continue their downward trajectory, and society reaches such a level that NAMBLA’s agenda gets mainlined into the culture (as was its equivalent in ancient Greece and Rome); then the social climate will be about as libertine as we read about in pagan antiquity, when there was not much about pedophilia that scandalized people… 

At that point, homosexuals and homosexualists (their heterosexual backers) will not be compelled to conjure up so much anger or indignation whenever someone associates them with pedophilia. To the extent that all sex is considered good sex, no stigmatizing of deviant sexuality will exert enough social suasion to make people feel guilty about sexual relations with children.”

With all due respect, Bob, NAMBLA represents a socially deviant organization that I can guarantee the majority of the LGBTQI community along with the rest of society views with equal disdain as you yourself hold. Also, as something of a lay-historian myself, I’m profoundly disappointed in Bob’s anachronistic reading into the fall of ancient Rome which most historians now assess as being due to extreme economic pressures brought about by territorial expansionism and not about sexual excess and moral denigration. 

Historically speaking, same-sex attraction as understood in the ancient world was understood differently than it is today. While the cultural practice of pederastry as practiced to a small extant in Ancient Greece and Rome may be to some extant equitable with hebephilia – a related but different disorder from pedophilia and something against which Paul rails in Romans – there are cultural contexts which separate making such a drastic comparison to NAMBLA.

These two articles fail to pass biblical and intellectual standards of editorial excellence and are indicative of a small-mindedness that should not be confused with the great academic and loving religious values present in Catholicism, instead they appear to regurgitate the same old “gays are bad because the pope says so” arguments that contribute to a strong social stigmatization of the Church.

I humbly, yet frankly, ask the author to look deeper into the issues at stake as well as inform himself better on the Spirit of the Gospel as opposed to the letter of the law and enjoin him to make a sincere and loving inventory based on love of his sisters and brothers and cease depriving what he likely would not appreciate having deprived himself – the right to love their partners as themselves.

In Dedication to Ss. Sergius and Bacchus
(Aren't they cute?!)

The US Constitution Responds To The Passage Of Detainment Amendment

Ian: Hi Constitution!  How do you feel about this amendment?
Constitution: No sir!  I don't like it!

Upon hearing that the US Senate has approved a defense appropriations amendment authorizing the military to detain American citizens indefinitely, a concerned United States Constitution leaped into the national debate on the issue, stating in no uncertain terms that this amendment is illegal:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I asked a friend and fellow White House arrestee, Scott Wooledge, how he felt about the matter.

"Scott, does it give you second thoughts about handcuffing yourself to something?"

"If by second thoughts you mean considering doing it a second time, definitely."

 Hmmm.  Scott and Ian no likey.

Who's REALLY Being Divisive, Newt?

Newt Gingrich attempted to "evict an idea whose time has come" recently by calling on President Barack Obama to denounce the "concept of the 99 and 1".

I repudiate, and I call on the President to repudiate, the concept of the 99 and the 1. It is un-American, it is divisive, it is historically false…You are not going to get job creation when you engage in class warfare because you have to attack the very people you hope will create jobs.

Watch (courtesy Think Progress):



Of course, Newt's repudiation has NOTHING to do with the fact that he is quite clearly a member of the 1%.  Recall that cool half million dollar tab he had running with Tiffany's?

Without addressing, of course, the fallacy in the statement that Occupy Wall Street is engaging in class warfare (you can't, after all, start a war that has already been declared on YOU), I think it's important that we stop and really recall how ludicrous his assertion is that this is pitting Americans against each other.

Divisive?  Maybe Newt should recall a few details from his own checkered past!  Including, for instance, his unpublicized financing of anti-gay groups determined to pit straight Americans against gay ones:

ThinkProgress previously reported on $200,000 that Gingrich funneled from an anonymous donor to the anti-marriage equality group Iowa for Freedom, which was also being funded by AFA Action, the political arm of the virulently anti-gay American Family Association. The Associated Press revealed yesterday that one of the cogs in Gingrich’s vast network of business enterprises and front groups, ReAL Action, provided $125,000 to AFA Action. The Des Moines Register reported this morning that ReAL Action also contributed $25,000 to yet another Iowa anti-LGBT group, the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The American Family Association is, of course, an officially Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group.

In fact, his anti-gay policies were denounced as divisive by activist Nick Espinosa, who glitterbombed Gingrich at a Minnesota anti-gay group's event last spring:

"Feel the rainbow, Newt. Stop the hate. Stop anti-gay politics. It's dividing our country and it's not fixing our economy," the protester said, as he yanked out a box and dumped the sparkles on Gingrich, who sat next to wife, Callista.

So what part of the OWS movement do you think really troubles him more: our "dividing" of this country?  Or the fact that we want to get rid of tax cuts that benefit him (and his Tiffany's tab)?

To Protect And To Serve Who, Exactly?

Bank Divestment Day passed on November 5th, but people are continuing to withdraw their funds from big banks in order to put their money in credit unions and community banks.  In the Seattle area, local credit union BECU has seen an incredible 280% increase in new membership since the beginning of Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests.

Some, unfortunately, were not able to close their accounts on the fifth.  Alexander Williamson, a dedicated supporter of Occupy Seattle, banked with Chase and wanted to make his statement about financial institutions who received bailout money.  When he went to his branch and attempted to close his account, they stalled him by saying he had to wait to ensure that no charges from Netflix were pending.

Finally, on the 14th of November, he went into a Chase location in Edmonds, Washington and attempted to close his account for a final time.  Since there was no money in the account (he had been transferring his banking slowly), the bank teller informed him that he owed a $19.99 low-balance fee-- one of the many ludicrous charges currently scaring customers away from big banks.

Alex refused to pay and refused to leave until they closed his account.  So, naturally, they called the police and attempted to have him arrested for trespassing.

I just closed an account with no money in it... and they wanted to charge me a 19.99 low funds/inactivity fee.  I refused to pay it... and they wouldn't close it... So I refused to leave.  But I was very calm and polite, with no signs or shouting.

Two police officers arrived, forced him to leave the building, and while one officer spoke with Williamson, the other spoke with the bank manager.  They determined that he was not currently breaking any laws, and let him go without detainment.

The thing is, his goal was not to cause a scene nor make any sort of statement.  He merely refused to pay a spurious and unfair fee, and received the attention of the police for his efforts.

I just went in to make a low key closure... Not trying to make a scene or even protest really. It just pissed me off so much that I kind of ended up doing that.

After the incident, Williamson finally called Chase directly and complained about the service, earning an apology from customer service, who professed to not being aware about any low balance/inactivity fees that were appropriate for his situation.

When he asked the police officer why he was being removed from the bank, he got a simple response: "We cant have you disrupting people's banking, you need to leave right now, or we'll take you in."

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: is this really what we are paying the police to do?  Who was protected?  Who was served?  And why did Williamson have to risk arrest for protesting unfair banking practices?

Video: SPD Laughing, Joking While Pepper Spraying Compliant Protesters

On November 15th, the Seattle Police Department pepper sprayed innocent protesters who had already complied with a lawful order to get on the sidewalk.  One person filming engaged in conversation with an officer who laughed and joked about what was going on.  Watch (warning, graphic footage of police brutality and extreme assholism):

OneAngryCultist: The Spirit of Occupy - Witness Under Fire

Tuesday was a day in which I witnessed first-hand the Occupy community of Seattle undergo a rebirth, a baptism of sorts, as well as possibly one of the most atrocious acts of brutality against demonstrators during which many non-violent demonstrators were indiscriminately pepper-sprayed including a blind woman, a priest, a non-denominational chaplain, a pregnant woman as well as friends and acquaintances caught in the cross-fires.

Although I was blocked off from being able one of those caught in the fray due to an ill-timed restroom break, when I was able to catch up to the group the first thing I saw was people corralled between Battery and Wall Street on Third Avenue and the first person I met coming out of that was Reverend Rich Lang of University Methodist Temple in the University District; the same man I had been walking alongside earlier as an individual clergy person representing my own gnostic, religious tradition of Thelema. His face was red and tears were coming from his eyes and he was still determined. It was later that I would find out exactly what happened, but seeing his dedication and witness made a very clear impact on me.

The next morning, I woke up and read the following missive that he had written in response to the events that transpired that day, A Pastoral Lament For My Country:

“I praise the courage and compassion, the discipline and the decency of the Occupy Movement. Out of the rag-tag mob came help, grabbing my hands, leading me (I was blind by then) to the wall and administering care and concern for my well being. The protesters were assembled around all the wounded, and maintained the discipline of nonviolence (granted the nonviolence was in behavior but not language). And they were not afraid. The spraying had been a baptism sealing them into the security of knowing that their prophecy of repentance was indeed the Spirit-Word through them --- it is as if they did not prophecy their very bones would melt within them. Against the wall in increasing pain and burning I realized I was in the midst of church.”

Reverend Rich is but one of the chaplains and religious who were pepper-sprayed that day, the other being Tsukina Blessing, amidst many others of varying religious and non-religious stripes gathered as a community to demonstrate against this country’s grave social and economic inequalities. In the course of that baptism by pepper-spray, Occupy ceased being a group of rag-tag demonstrators and transformed into an ekklesía - a community of believers – indeed, a church.

Although some may object to my overt use of religious language in describing Occupy, the fact is that we are all here in faith that we can restore some level of sanity to this country that has for too long strayed away from its true course and which we are all determined to bear witness to and restore to the brightness and wholeness that is capable of being – in Christian terms, “a city on the hill” for all to see and share in its blessings. In Occupy I have seen proof that in this movement there are many mansions to be found in every tent and every committee meeting and there is room at every table. This is what America can look like and what we are all fighting for.

Rev. Rich and Tsukina are true spiritual warriors, among the many participating in Occupy across the country. They are inspirations of endeavor and I admire them and all clergy, chaplains and participants in Occupy. Their demonstration of peace under fire is something, I think, all occupiers can learn from and put into practice and something that will make the movement succeed and prosper even more.

Sex, Drugs, And Occupation

This week has seen a sharp increase in police action against the Occupy Wall Street movement, with the destruction of the Denver camp successfully carried out and a near 24-hour standoff with Portland police meaning that two significant and large Occupations are now scrambling to find new space or reoccupy their old one.  Denver and Portland aren't alone; a vague sense of unease has overtaken the Occupy Seattle encampment at Seattle Central Community College and a discussion group formed after last night's General Assembly in order to discuss tactics should authorities find a legal pretext for evicting us from our space.

The justifications for these actions are many, but the major push to end Occupations seems to be inspired by concerns of health and safety among campers.  Mayor Sam Adams, who previously seemed very motivated to accommodate Occupy Portland, issued orders to clear the camp due to what he characterized as criminal behavior and drug use in the tents at the two parks occupied by protesters.  Thousands of people arrived on-scene to support demonstrators, but after a long 18-hour standoff Occupy Portland decided to make a tactical withdrawal and are now preparing to regroup.

Actions like this, in the face of the largest populist movement in American history, are costly and ineffective.  Occupy Portland isn't going away; on the contrary, police action motivates people to get involved.  I spoke with Janet, the coordinator of Occupy The Roads, an RV tour of the country, and she related to me the story of her involvement.  While vacationing in Detroit, she was unaware of the movement and uninspired to take part until she watched police action on TV.  She then rented a car and drove to Occupy Wall Street, where she immediately began assisting protesters in their activities.  One can certainly use this story to illustrate: police action will not end Occupations.  In Oakland, extreme tactics were used against activists.  They failed.  There is still an Occupy Oakland.

So why do we waste money and resources on ineffective crackdowns?

The debate is centered on drug use and safety, and city governments appear to be willing to abrogate American's right to peaceably assemble in order to regulate crime and substance abuse.  This is doomed to fail and is a symptom of a broken system.  Why?

Because the drug use will still happen, just not where the police can pinpoint it.


I have said for weeks now that one of the great strengths of our movement is our ability to help the homeless.  Our providing of safe space to sleep and clean water and food to consume has brought in unprecedented numbers.  Some have denigrated our camps as homeless shelters; I proudly accept that nomination.  The homeless need to be fed and clothed and we're doing it.  Homeless people need food to eat and healthy activity to participate in and we're providing it.  The homeless are the quintessential example of why we need change in this country.  We can neither turn them away nor discriminate against them!  They are the direst in need among the 99%.

Unfortunately, drug use is disproportionately active among homeless populations.  We know this.  Where there is homelessness, there is despair, and many have become addicted to drugs and commit crimes to feed their habits.

So I'll admit it: There is drug use in occupations.  What is the solution?  Is it tearing down our tents and demonizing our movement?  Absolutely not.

Let's re-think the model of how we deal with these issues.  Criminal behavior and drug use (and yes, I believe they are two different things) require more thoughtful solutions than forcing the homeless to sleep on the street again.  To be frank, if they overdose in our camps (which operate on an alcohol/drug free guideline that is enforced as often as possible), they at least are surrounded by people who can provide first aid and summon authorities.  This is not the case, necessarily, when the homeless are forced to use drugs in alleyways and public restrooms.  So how can city governments address these issues?

1.  Stop making the police our enemy.  Unsafe situations occur when enforcement of safety is impossible.  We have neither the desire nor ability to become police.  Stop tearing down our tents, and we are far more likely to summon the proper authorities in order to stay safe.  As it is, Occupiers fear allowing the police free access to our encampments because thus far, our brothers and sisters in the police force have been inappropriately used to infringe on our right to assemble.  Make them our friends again, and less crime will happen in Occupations.

2.  Stop denigrating us as criminals.  The mainstream media (MSM) and local governments are quick to paint Occupations as hotbeds of criminal activity.  The truth is, crime happens everywhere.  Every apartment building has criminals, every street corner has drug users.  Just because meth is rampant in Seattle does not mean the entirety of our population is tweaking.  Drug use occurs, but it is not rampant.  The vast majority of Occupiers are not there to use drugs, but to protest.  Stop the negative propaganda and find ways to work with Occupiers!

3.  Send us social workers!  Organizers would welcome drug and alcohol counselors to assist us in helping people addicted to substances.  To be honest, the people who need help should have been helped already.  The only reason we have drug users in Occupations is because local governments have failed to effectively address the problem of drug abuse.  Send us social workers, treatment counselors, give us resources!  You should have been doing this already!  At least we are providing a model where it would be easier to give those resources to the people that need them the most.


Lastly, have compassion.  The reason our movement exists is because people are troubled.  They are unhappy.  They need help.  We are providing a forum for discussion and a method for people to address those problems, but we need assistance in many aspects.

To summarize: if you fear crime and drug use in our encampments, make it possible to address crime and drug use.  By tearing down these tents you are not only making things worse for those of us who do not use drugs, you are only scattering those that do.  You aren't helping.  So please start.