December 19, 2012
Christmas in Prison
Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran Have Not Been Charged with Any Crime, and Yet They Have Been Locked Up for Three Months and Counting
Brian Taylor
Tools
The visiting room of the SeaTac Federal Detention Center is bleak. Prison is supposed to be bleak, but it's difficult to appreciate how bleak it is until you've walked inside—past the grim security checkpoint, the sallow-faced chaplain with the giant keys hanging from his pants, the many heavy doors that slam shut behind you like a metal thunderclap, the off-white walls and institutional lighting that seem to suck the color out of everyone's hair and clothes, the frosted-over windows to block any view of the outside world, and into the visiting room with its plastic chairs arranged in sets of four with a guard sitting in a high booth, presiding over the room like a bored judge.
And the waiting. Lots and lots of waiting.
Stranger Personals
The large visiting room, with many doors leading off to other places, also serves as a transit point in the prison. Men (and the occasional woman) wearing prison khakis sit, staring into the middle distance with flat expressions, waiting until a guard, sometimes wearing latex gloves, opens a door and barks out names. Then the inmates get up, sometimes eagerly and sometimes hesitantly, and walk into some other chamber of the federal fortress.
Amid all the bleakness, inmate Katherine Olejnik seems surprisingly smiley and optimistic. She is one of two inmates I've come to visit—the other is Matt Duran—who have been sitting in this prison for around three months. (Duran a few days more than that, Olejnik a few days less.)
They haven't been accused of a crime. They haven't even been arrested for a crime. They're here because they refused to answer questions for a federal prosecutor, in front of a grand jury, about people they may (or may not) know: who those people are, who those people hang out with, and what political opinions those people hold.
Supposedly, that federal prosecutor is interested in the smashup in Seattle on May Day and finding the demonstrators who broke the windows of a federal courthouse. But Olejnik says the prosecutor only asked her four questions about May Day, which she answered truthfully: Was she in Seattle on May Day? (No.) Where was she? (Working at her waitress/bartending job in Olympia.) Had she been in Seattle a week before or a week after May Day? (No.) Had anybody talked to her about May Day? (No. In fact, she says she learned most of what she knows about the smashup while she was in court.)
That was all he asked about the May Day vandalism.
Then, she says, the prosecutor began rattling off names and showing photographs of people, asking about their social contacts and political opinions. Olejnik guesses he asked "at least 50 questions" in that vein, compared to the four about May Day. That's when she shut down, refused to answer, was found in contempt of court, and was sent to SeaTac FDC.
She doesn't regret it. "I truly believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want politically," Olejnik says, sitting in a chair beside me in her prison khakis. "And it's none of the government's business."
As far as she can tell, she's not in prison because she couldn't help with a vandalism investigation. She's there because she refused, on principle, to help the federal government draw a social map of radicals and leftists in the Northwest.
Grand juries are secret—prosecutors are the only attorneys allowed in the room—but people who've been subpoenaed to appear before them are allowed to talk afterward about what happened. The two attorneys for Olejnik and Duran, who sit with us during the interviews in the SeaTac FDC, vaguely say the versions of events described by their clients are consistent with what they read in the transcripts. The US Attorney's Office has repeatedly said it cannot comment on anything related to a grand jury, because grand juries are secret. So we have to rely on Duran and Olejnik and their attorneys' vague corroboration.
I have to interview Duran separately, because the guards don't want him and Olejnik—close friends and roommates at the time they got the subpoenas—to see each other. (They say they passed each other once in the visiting area and waved at each other, and the guards grumbled about that.) How, I ask Duran, would you explain why you're here to people on the outside?
"Not everyone will understand," Duran says in a soft voice. "You have to be in a different state of mind to be willing to go to jail to protect someone you basically have no knowledge of." He talks about his years as a young student in the Army ROTC, when veterans would come and talk about serving their country because they felt a sense of duty. Not answering questions about other people, he says, "is the duty I can perform."
Duran, like Olejnik, believes that when the FBI comes knocking, handing out subpoenas, legally compelling them to tell a federal prosecutor about their fellow citizens' private lives and political beliefs, they have a duty to object. And, like Bartleby the Scrivener, their most powerful tool of protest against a force like the federal government is to simply and politely say: "I would prefer not to." (It's worth remembering that Bartleby's quiet, stubborn "I would prefer not to" eventually lands him in prison.)
And that's why they're spending the holidays in prison.
Both Duran and Olejnik say other inmates, and even the guards, are baffled about them—and especially why they're there. The two grand-jury refusers are fairly normal people with fairly normal jobs. Until the incarceration, Olejnik worked as a bartender and waitress at King Solomon's Reef, a diner in Olympia. Duran worked for a computer-security company and was pleasantly surprised when his employer said the company would hold his job for him, as long as he wasn't charged with anything. (Having a criminal on the computer-security payroll might be bad for business.) "I didn't expect them to understand what was going on," he says, then chuckles softly. "But even I don't understand what's going on!"
More to the point, they haven't actually been charged with anything, and they have no idea how long they'll be there. Technically, they can leave whenever they decide to cooperate with the federal prosecutor, but both say they're firmly resolved against that.
"It's not even an option in my mind," Olejnik says. "They've already made me walk away from my job, my family, my home—there's nothing they could legally do to make me give them information." Or, as Duran puts it: "Everyone's here because they did something. But I'm here because I'm still doing it."
Duran says he's explained his situation to inquisitive prisoners and guards, and it usually comes down to the same exchange: "So you're just here because you wouldn't talk?" "Yeah." "That's messed up."
The FDC bureaucracy doesn't seem to know what to do with them either. They haven't been accused and they haven't been sentenced, so they're stuck in the pretrial units, where the prisoners don't have access to the usual prison programs: education classes to work on GEDs, kitchen or janitorial jobs, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous (which is a heavy burden on some of the prisoners), or regular exercise equipment. If the SeaTac detention center is a boring limbo, its pretrial units are a limbo within limbo.
Olejnik says she and her fellow pretrial inmates are "super-jealous" of the Zumba dance-aerobics classes that the other prisoners get. Her unit exercises in "the yard," which isn't really a yard, but a large cell with a metal grate 20 feet high on one wall that allows in some fresh air. You can sometimes see a sliver of the moon, she says, or feel the rain coming in. That's as close as it gets to being outside. (Duran says in his unit, a plane flying past the grate in the yard is the highlight of the day.) For their workouts, the women mostly run in circles around the cell, or do what yoga or Pilates moves other prisoners can remember. And they get to play volleyball.
The first question in the women's unit, Olejnik says, isn't what a prisoner is in for—it's whether she has children. If the answer is yes, the second question is always whether she has custody of the kids. "Since it's a pretrial unit," Olejnik says, "most people still have custody of their children and are working incredibly hard to keep it. You get 300 phone minutes a month—for people who can afford it." If someone gets stuck in solitary confinement (called the Special Housing Until, aka "the SHU"), Olejnik says, she gets one phone call a month. She's seen women in solitary spending their monthly phone call helping kids with homework—trying to be as motherly as possible under the circumstances.
Both Duran and Olejnik were put in solitary confinement as soon as they arrived, without much explanation. (Both of their attorneys, who have represented other inmates at the SeaTac FDC, say starting the prisoners off in solitary confinement isn't typical in their experience.) Olejnik says she wasn't told she could ask for a cup or a spork, so she spent her week in the SHU drinking water out of her hands. She depicts the SHU as "intense psychological torture" that's difficult to describe—you don't know what's going on, you can't talk to anyone, and the lights come on and off without your control. "I was only in for a week," she says, and can't imagine what it would be like to be in there for months. Then, one day, she was let out into her unit.
Both Duran and Olejnik wonder if they were immediately shoved into solitary in the hopes that it would freak them out and convince them to answer the grand jury's questions. If so, it didn't work.
"We do each other's hair a lot," Olejnik says of the women's unit. The prisoners pull their chairs out of their cells, and fuss over each other with a blow dryer and curling and straightening irons (they aren't allowed to have scissors), trying to replicate the casual beauty-salon conversations they had in the outside world. When we talk in the visiting room, Olejnik's hair looks like it spent some quality time with the straightening iron.
The prisoners also fuss over Olejnik's mail. Both she and Duran get a lot of mail from all over the world, several letters a day, sometimes from anarchist supporters and sometimes from strangers who say they've never been involved with political activism but feel like this grand jury situation is beyond the pale. (The outpouring of support was a surprise—both say they did what they thought they had to do, went to prison, and fully expected to be forgotten.) The other prisoners don't get so much mail. Olejnik pulls all hers into a pile, and the women read it together, sometimes aloud, smelling the paper for any scent from the outside world—a flower pressed in the pages, cologne, incense—and help Olejnik work through her return letters.
Olejnik also shares the books people send her. She helped one prisoner read the first volume of the Harry Potter series. Olejnik and the prisoner would read every night, going paragraph by paragraph, sounding out the big words and discussing what happened in each passage. "She got to the point of reading a whole page on her own," Olejnik says. When they finished, the other prisoner told Olejnik that was the first book she'd ever read. "She called her mom to tell her," Olejnik says. "And her mom cried."
Olejnik says having your period in prison "really sucks." The commissary, apparently, isn't carrying tampons these days, and strip-searches while you're on your period are deeply humiliating. "People on their period," she says, "mostly stay in their rooms all day."
But the prisoners laugh sometimes, teasing and joking. "And I have so little to complain about compared to other people in here," Olejnik says. "That's not to say I don't have bad times. We all cry in here. But I try to keep those days to a minimum."
While Olejnik is robust and incongruously cheerful in the bleakness of the visiting room, Duran is more subdued. He's slight and bookish, wears glasses, and tries to keep his head down. His unit sounds tenser, with more jealousy and prisoners quick to take offense. "It's like a microcosm of the real world," he says, but magnified by the confinement. "Race politics, class politics—one cellie [cellmate] was mad at the other for being really rich. He didn't pay something like a million dollars in back taxes." In most conversations, he says, "I try to stay as neutral as possible."
His mail, unlike Olejnik's, is not a community event. He says some of his fellow prisoners joke, "Hey, save some mail for us," but it's starting to overflow in his locker. He can afford the postage to forward it on to friends for safekeeping, because fundraising efforts for the grand-jury refusers help pay his commissary bills. "But," he says, "I don't want to flaunt my wealth in front of the others." Mail to prisoners is a big deal, he says. "It can make or break a prisoner's day." One guy has been depressed for weeks because some books he was supposed to get around Thanksgiving haven't arrived yet.
Despite the tensions, Duran says the fact that he's there because he refused to talk has given him some currency, even across the usual racial lines. "A lot of people in my unit are there because somebody snitched on them," he says. "One guy I hang out with was in a group of people charged with conspiracy." Conspiracy is a common charge to loop in bunches of people who have a peripheral relationship to the central crime. "They all said they wouldn't snitch. He's here now because he's the only one who wouldn't snitch!"
But because Duran is Latino and speaks Spanish, he's a de facto member of the Latino clique. They measured his thin biceps when he first came in, which—to their chagrin—measured only 13 inches around. Now they call him "El Trece" (Spanish for 13) and hector him to work out more, like doing pull-ups when he'd rather be reading. He thanks me during our long interview for saving him from the afternoon workout. "I'm really sore from yesterday," he says, smiling slightly while rubbing his arm.
Conversation among his fellow prisoners centers on four topics: their cases, how bad the food is, how cold the prison is, and, as Duran puts it, "I did this thing once five years ago, and it was cool."
"It is," he says, "extremely monotonous."
Duran says he's in a protective custody unit for people who aren't supposed to be in the general population—that includes snitches, alleged cartel affiliates, high-profile prisoners with well-publicized cases (his situation, so he's told), and sex criminals. Duran's face goes dark. "I really," he says slowly, looking down, "don't want to be associated with those people."
Prisoners who've done time in that unit, he says, usually don't mention it on the outside, even to other people who've done time at the SeaTac FDC. It's not a reputable unit, even among fellow prisoners. Duran says that for him, it's just "study, keep your head down, do your time."
Still, he seems as resolved as Olejnik to refuse to capitulate. Does doing his time feel different than somebody who has a concrete sentence? "Yes," he says. "I'm not gonna be here for 10 years, but I don't know how long I'm gonna be here... could be a day, could be six months, could be two years, could be longer." But, as he said earlier, he feels he's doing his duty. "Even most of the inmates I talk to say: 'Why don't you lie? Why don't you put the rap on somebody else?'" Duran says. "I don't want to be part of the process that puts anyone here. Here is really bad... The government wants me here out of pure frustration—for an entity with worlds of power, they don't want resistance at any point."
He says sticking to his guns means he has "a more satisfying life... I'm here because I'm doing something."
Duran and Olejnik are in prison for civil contempt of court, which is supposed to be a coercive measure—to get them to change their minds—and not punitive. It's as if the government has sent them into a corner, telling them to come back when they're ready to start answering those questions about other people and their politics. Both Duran and Olejnik say that's bullshit. As Duran puts it: "In prison, it's all punitive." They could be in detention for civil contempt until this grand jury dissolves in 2014.
Or they could be released if either the federal prosecutor or Judge Richard A. Jones—who presided over their civil contempt hearings—files a motion to end their incarceration. Olejnik's attorney says it's highly unlikely the prosecutor will take this step. He is, she says, "pretty resolute that this is a path he should be pursuing." But the ultimate authority rests with Judge Jones. Why has he favored the prosecutor in this case and not Duran and Olejnik? It's hard to say. (Judge Jones did not respond to a request for comment.)
But even if the government and Judge Jones force them to run down that clock, they could be further charged with criminal contempt of court, meaning even more time. Limbo within limbo. (A third grand-jury refuser named Maddy Pfeiffer, 23, will soon join Duran and Olejnik. At a contempt hearing last Friday, Judge Jones ordered Pfeiffer to report to the SeaTac FDC at 9 a.m. on December 26.)
As a Thanksgiving treat this year, Duran says, the prisoners got a can of soda, an extra helping of food, and the chance to watch a movie: Spider-Man.
I didn't ask him what he thought they'd get for Christmas. 
4
Not really any different from tax protesters or others who think they are immune from the civic responsibilities that apply to the rest of us. They are just a bit more appealing of a demographic than middle aged rich guys.
They are not heroes, nor victims, they are just idiots who believe silly things. The ability to compel testimony is critical to a functional judicial system and a functional judicial system is key to a functional society. They're made up nonsense does not change that, nor does it render them exempt.
They can sit in jail until they grow the fuck up and do what they are supposed to.
They are not heroes, nor victims, they are just idiots who believe silly things. The ability to compel testimony is critical to a functional judicial system and a functional judicial system is key to a functional society. They're made up nonsense does not change that, nor does it render them exempt.
They can sit in jail until they grow the fuck up and do what they are supposed to.
6
And that's the way it's supposed to work. You can't refuse to testify to a grand jury. You just can't. If you want to do away with grand juries, you're going to have to amend the Constitution.
The only person keeping Matt Duran in jail is Matt Duran. Ditto for Olejnik.
The only person keeping Matt Duran in jail is Matt Duran. Ditto for Olejnik.
8
Is there evidence that they've been treated significantly differently than others who have refused to testify to a grand jury? If not, is there evidence that this case is significantly different from what usually happens with a grand jury and is an abuse of process?
If not, then the argument here is with the grand jury process in general, and it seems like a reasonable argument could be made there, as all other common law jurisdictions (and about half the states) have abolished the grand jury system.
If not, then the argument here is with the grand jury process in general, and it seems like a reasonable argument could be made there, as all other common law jurisdictions (and about half the states) have abolished the grand jury system.
9
FNARF... you are such an incredibly big idiot.
"You can't refuse to testify to a grand jury. You just can't." Actually, you can. If you haven't noticed, a bunch of people are doing it.
"The only person keeping Matt Duran in jail is Matt Duran." And, you know, like, hundreds of armed guards, a few thousand pounds of concrete, and a mess of barbed wire. But yea, sure, lets just say Matt locked HIMSELF in there.
"You can't refuse to testify to a grand jury. You just can't." Actually, you can. If you haven't noticed, a bunch of people are doing it.
"The only person keeping Matt Duran in jail is Matt Duran." And, you know, like, hundreds of armed guards, a few thousand pounds of concrete, and a mess of barbed wire. But yea, sure, lets just say Matt locked HIMSELF in there.
11
The ability to compel testimony only works if prosecutors are limited to compelling testimony related to the crime the grand jury is investigating. This prosecutor wants to ask questions about unrelated things, many of which aren't criminal at all. So fuck him, and good for these kids for keeping their mouths shut.
12
Actually, Grand Juries worldwide are thought of as oppressive, draconian, vile processes that are mostly banned because of how awful/stupid they are.
15
And yes, again, awesome story, Brendan. You're the reason the stranger is worth following from time to time. Keep it up.
16
@ 9, you can't refuse to testify before a grand jury without legal consequence. @ 6 is correct.
Before anyone takes this as an automatically noble thing to do, one should know about Greg Anderson. He was Barry Bonds' trainer - the guy who allegedly hooked up Bonds with the steroids that helped him shatter those home run records. Anderson spent YEARS in jail rather than comply and give testimony. He's probably the biggest reason why Bonds was acquitted on all serious charges. Lord knows whether he did it out of loyalty to Barry (they were high school buddies) or if Bonds is going to set him up, but he didn't keep quiet over any politically righteous cause.
Before anyone takes this as an automatically noble thing to do, one should know about Greg Anderson. He was Barry Bonds' trainer - the guy who allegedly hooked up Bonds with the steroids that helped him shatter those home run records. Anderson spent YEARS in jail rather than comply and give testimony. He's probably the biggest reason why Bonds was acquitted on all serious charges. Lord knows whether he did it out of loyalty to Barry (they were high school buddies) or if Bonds is going to set him up, but he didn't keep quiet over any politically righteous cause.
17
@13 No it does not.
If that were the case then there would have been no need to explicitly create a right to not be compelled to testify against yourself.
You are completely free to make up whatever rights you want, but the rest of us need not concern ourselves with them nor are they relevant from a legal perspective.
If that were the case then there would have been no need to explicitly create a right to not be compelled to testify against yourself.
You are completely free to make up whatever rights you want, but the rest of us need not concern ourselves with them nor are they relevant from a legal perspective.
18
@16 - Pointing out that there are legal consequences to breaking the law (if you get caught) isn't what liberals like FNARF or giffy are getting at when they say things like "you can't refuse to testify."
What they're really saying is that we shouldn't refuse to testify, because we're supposed to have some masochistic sense of duty or loyalty to the prison system, even if that means snitching on people for their political beliefs.
I don't know what relevance Anderson's case has to this grand jury, except that it shows that Grand Jury resistance can work - if it is true, like you said, that Anderson's refusal to testify got Bonds acquitted.
What they're really saying is that we shouldn't refuse to testify, because we're supposed to have some masochistic sense of duty or loyalty to the prison system, even if that means snitching on people for their political beliefs.
I don't know what relevance Anderson's case has to this grand jury, except that it shows that Grand Jury resistance can work - if it is true, like you said, that Anderson's refusal to testify got Bonds acquitted.
19
Being compelled to testify as to one's likely personal knowledge of a specific crime or conspiracy strikes me as one thing; being coerced into acting as a general background informant on one's possible acquaintances strikes me as quite another. DOJ's methods may be more above-board than Stasi's and Securitate's, but its goal in these civil contempt proceedings seems much the same.
21
They have only themselves to blame. There is no constitutional right to stiff-arm a grand jury. They want to be martyrs? Fine. Let the martyrdom begin. Their choice.
22
I AM COMMENTING BECAUSE OF THE ARTISTIC DRAWING WHICH ACCOMPANIES THIS ARTICLE.
IN THE DRAWING, Matt Duran HAS A BROAD NOSE AND THICK LIPS. I THOUGHT Mr. Duran WAS NEGRO. WHEN DID ARTISTS START DRAWING CAUCASIAN MALES WITH THICK LIPS AND BROAD NOSES?
HAS POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS BECOME SO FUCKED THAT CAUCASIANS ARE AFRAID TO OFFEND NEGROES IN ANY WAY?
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
IN THE DRAWING, Matt Duran HAS A BROAD NOSE AND THICK LIPS. I THOUGHT Mr. Duran WAS NEGRO. WHEN DID ARTISTS START DRAWING CAUCASIAN MALES WITH THICK LIPS AND BROAD NOSES?
HAS POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS BECOME SO FUCKED THAT CAUCASIANS ARE AFRAID TO OFFEND NEGROES IN ANY WAY?
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
23
"What they're really saying is that we shouldn't refuse to testify, because we're supposed to have some masochistic sense of duty or loyalty to the prison system, even if that means snitching on people for their political beliefs."
You live in a society that provides you with things and in return you have a few responsibilities. Like testifying. Or serving on a jury.
Knock yourself out playing revolutionary, but don't expect the rest of us to give a shit about you when you are locked up.
You live in a society that provides you with things and in return you have a few responsibilities. Like testifying. Or serving on a jury.
Knock yourself out playing revolutionary, but don't expect the rest of us to give a shit about you when you are locked up.
24
I wonder if anyone has sat these stupid kids down and told them what happens to people who try to fuck with the federal government's prosecutors.
That set of realities has nothing to do with who's president, and everything to do with the federal government as an institution. The federal prosecutorial establishment is thinly spread. They tend to take only the cases that they have to, and that they think they'll win, which is why their conviction rate is more than 95%.
Sentences for federal crimes tend to be long, and while there's time off for good behavior there is no parole, so they'll serve 85% (on average) of the stated sentence length.
As for that grand jury, guess what? If they keep fucking with the prosecutors, at the end of the current grand jury's term, the prosecutors can convene another one and start the clock all over again.
I do hope the realities have been laid out before these idiots. You can often screw around with state and local authorities and get away with it, but you tug on the eagle tail feathers at your peril. The feds do not play games.
That set of realities has nothing to do with who's president, and everything to do with the federal government as an institution. The federal prosecutorial establishment is thinly spread. They tend to take only the cases that they have to, and that they think they'll win, which is why their conviction rate is more than 95%.
Sentences for federal crimes tend to be long, and while there's time off for good behavior there is no parole, so they'll serve 85% (on average) of the stated sentence length.
As for that grand jury, guess what? If they keep fucking with the prosecutors, at the end of the current grand jury's term, the prosecutors can convene another one and start the clock all over again.
I do hope the realities have been laid out before these idiots. You can often screw around with state and local authorities and get away with it, but you tug on the eagle tail feathers at your peril. The feds do not play games.
25
"Not everyone will understand," Duran says in a soft voice. "You have to be in a different state of mind to be willing to go to jail to protect someone you basically have no knowledge of."
That's true. You have to be pretty stupid and delusional.
26
@23: "You live in a society that provides you with things and in return you have a few responsibilities. Like testifying. Or serving on a jury."
Leaving aside the issue of our "responsibilities" to the state (which regardless of whether or not they actually exist outside of your fucked up worldview, don't mean anything if I - like thousands of other people in this city - choose to ignore them) I'd point out that we also live amongst an amazing group of people who provide us with other things, like protecting us from political repression and arbitrary government investigations. They do this by not cooperating with the Grand Jury. What do I owe them?
Leaving aside the issue of our "responsibilities" to the state (which regardless of whether or not they actually exist outside of your fucked up worldview, don't mean anything if I - like thousands of other people in this city - choose to ignore them) I'd point out that we also live amongst an amazing group of people who provide us with other things, like protecting us from political repression and arbitrary government investigations. They do this by not cooperating with the Grand Jury. What do I owe them?
27
I am so glad we are spending millions on this grand jury to figure out who broke a window. Bravo Feds, Bravo. On another note, somebody tagged my doorway at my office. I demand a grand jury.
28
A question for all of you commenters heaping sanctimonious bile on Duran and Olejnik for refusing to answer questions about their colleagues' political affiliations, and doing time to prove the courage of their convictions:
What do you think about the House on Un-American Activities? Were the people who stood up to McCarthy and refused to answer questions about their colleagues' political and social affiliations "stupid" and "delusional" "idiots" who just didn't realize that's "the way it's supposed to work."
I always thought of them as American heroes. But perhaps I was misguided. Enlighten me, please.
What do you think about the House on Un-American Activities? Were the people who stood up to McCarthy and refused to answer questions about their colleagues' political and social affiliations "stupid" and "delusional" "idiots" who just didn't realize that's "the way it's supposed to work."
I always thought of them as American heroes. But perhaps I was misguided. Enlighten me, please.
29
#28, the difference is that we're talking about a gang of punks who want to cause chaos in downtown Seattle. These aren't large issues. They are small ones.
That's what makes Olejnik and Duran so tragic. Either some self-justifying, washed-up, backward-looking former '60s radical is pulling their strings for the sake of nostalgia and ego, or they managed to bullshit their own selves by not stopping to step outside their little frame of reference and do a reality check.
It's impossible to say what is driving them. But it's just tragic that these kids are going to really and truly fuck themselves over like this. And for what? Because they won't tell a federal grand jury, in essence, who the hard-core planners are?
To wrap them in the robes of the resistance to Joe McCarthy is not just laughable, it's unconscionable. Some lives are going to be seriously ruined here. Someone needs to tell these dumb kids to back the fuck down before they really get hurt. The federal government is not going to let them off the hook.
That's what makes Olejnik and Duran so tragic. Either some self-justifying, washed-up, backward-looking former '60s radical is pulling their strings for the sake of nostalgia and ego, or they managed to bullshit their own selves by not stopping to step outside their little frame of reference and do a reality check.
It's impossible to say what is driving them. But it's just tragic that these kids are going to really and truly fuck themselves over like this. And for what? Because they won't tell a federal grand jury, in essence, who the hard-core planners are?
To wrap them in the robes of the resistance to Joe McCarthy is not just laughable, it's unconscionable. Some lives are going to be seriously ruined here. Someone needs to tell these dumb kids to back the fuck down before they really get hurt. The federal government is not going to let them off the hook.
30
Mister G your viewpoint is as delusional as it is offensive, and runs counter to the American concept of freedom as well as basic sensibility about human rights, "granted" by a government or no. both you and spiffy giffy should realize that your twisted views are not widely shared by your fellow citizens, particularly those that value liberty and justice.
32
@28, if only the internet existed in those times! Then Fnarf could bravely type internet comments about how the judicial system was the cornerstone of civilization and nobody has any right to refuse to participate and really, when you think about it, don't dissidents deserve their punishment because they're doing it to themselves?!
33
Mister G @21, 24, & 29, your embarrassing insistence that people wouldn't resist grand juries or take an ethical stand if they 'really' understood the punishments involved says a lot more about you than them. They aren't asking for pity or sympathy and clearly understand that oppressive power is maintained by using these juries to violate its own rules. And they show a lot more courage than someone who just continually votes for Democratic candidates and hopes for the best.
35
why would anyone who wasn't a right-wing extremist be a passionate defender of grand juries? It's not as if the justice system OR life as we know it depends on them.
And why is it impossible for some people here to accept that these two might actually be making this stand out of sincere conviction? Or that they could, in fact, be right?
It's not as if they're protecting mass murderers. All we're talking about is some fairly trivial property damage.
Some people here are waayy to paranoid about challenges to the status quo or resistance to authority. No authority, anywhere, deserves unquestioning obedience, and no institution in this country is either infallible or sacred.
And why is it impossible for some people here to accept that these two might actually be making this stand out of sincere conviction? Or that they could, in fact, be right?
It's not as if they're protecting mass murderers. All we're talking about is some fairly trivial property damage.
Some people here are waayy to paranoid about challenges to the status quo or resistance to authority. No authority, anywhere, deserves unquestioning obedience, and no institution in this country is either infallible or sacred.
37
To those of you defending this as necessary for having a functional justice system: Are you aware that the United States is one of the only countries left than still has grand juries? What makes you think they are necessary?
38
@29 Are you kidding? People in the 1950s (heck! people now) thought/think communists are harbingers of the end of the world. Leftists with "dangerous" views who must be ferreted out and punished are at the heart of this both then and now.
Plus, if you've paid attention you know that the government WAY overreacts in its surveillance of leftist radicals - who, as you fucking admit, are in the grand scheme of things an unimportant "gang of punks" - while ignoring armed right wing, white supremacist radicals. Of which there are tons more since Obama got elected! Refusing to cooperate with this is one of the only ways that normal people can practically throw a monkey wrench in the system.
Also, if these folks want to sacrifice themselves for their cause, what's it to the rest of you? What's all this faux concern for these "dumb kids fucking up their lives"? If y'all are going to be judgmental don't pretend you give a shit about whether they rot in jail.
Plus, if you've paid attention you know that the government WAY overreacts in its surveillance of leftist radicals - who, as you fucking admit, are in the grand scheme of things an unimportant "gang of punks" - while ignoring armed right wing, white supremacist radicals. Of which there are tons more since Obama got elected! Refusing to cooperate with this is one of the only ways that normal people can practically throw a monkey wrench in the system.
Also, if these folks want to sacrifice themselves for their cause, what's it to the rest of you? What's all this faux concern for these "dumb kids fucking up their lives"? If y'all are going to be judgmental don't pretend you give a shit about whether they rot in jail.
40
Okay, fine. Let the young idiots rot. It's on their heads, and those of whomever is encouraging this charade.
42
They were subpoenaed to speak to a grand jury, and it's their legal duty to give information which will not incriminate themselves. They should be locked up for contempt for refusing to answer questions about people they may know that are possible domestic terrorists. They are stupid to give up their lives, families, jobs, etc. to protect "people they don't know".
43
Reading this and not knowing the details of the case my first reaction is that it parallels the Mccarthy hearings where people were compelled to name names. I would want to know more to know what the prosecutor's ostensible justification is but on it's face with the angle of the story the prosecutor on this seems to be a real ass----.
44
@4: "The ability to compel testimony is critical to a functional judicial system and a functional judicial system is key to a functional society."
Really? Canada abolished grand juries in 1984. The United Kingdom abolished grand juries in 1933. New Zealand in 1961.
Really? Canada abolished grand juries in 1984. The United Kingdom abolished grand juries in 1933. New Zealand in 1961.
45
Heads need to roll. Someone in authority should step in and stop this now. I can't do anything. Why are you telling this to me?
46
I'm seeing the underlying argument in these comments that forcing someone to inform on another's political ideology in this case is different from the Red Scare, because these people are presumably anarchists and their ideas are thus dangerous and without merit. I'd like to point out that for my money the two best living leftist thinkers, Noam Chomsky and David Graeber, are both anarchists. George Orwell had anarchist leanings (read Homage to Catalonia, about his experience serving in an anarchist military unit during the Spanish Civil War).
Should the fact that I love these authors put me at increased risk of imprisonment? Does the government have any right to know what my political beliefs are? How could it possibly be a good idea to allow our legal system to decide what political ideologies are dangerous, and which are safe?
Should the fact that I love these authors put me at increased risk of imprisonment? Does the government have any right to know what my political beliefs are? How could it possibly be a good idea to allow our legal system to decide what political ideologies are dangerous, and which are safe?
48
@47 Except the pain is caused by violence inflicted through a state that we, presumably, control. It's our job to stop the pain.
49
From the looks of things, it appears that the feds regard the May Day people as being in league, one way or another, with the eco-terrorists who have bombed animal research labs and subdivisions in the Pacific NW.
If I'm right about that, then Olejnik, Duran, and anyone else they are tangled up with will find themselves in a whirlwind of trouble for a very long time. Think: sequential grand juries and multiple contempt proceedings. You see, the feds have been seriously pursuing the "Animal Liberation Front" and their spinoffs and friends for more than a decade. Several of the naive fools who took part in their actions are now doing hard time.
Their supporters here can get as mad as they want, but if that's how the feds see these May Day people, then this will be a slow and steady steamroller and it will utterly crush whoever gets in the way.
If someone(s) want martyrdom, they're going to get it. From reading the comments, I still don't think most of you game-playing, pseudo-radical posers have the faintest notion of just what these kids are dealing with.
If I'm right about that, then Olejnik, Duran, and anyone else they are tangled up with will find themselves in a whirlwind of trouble for a very long time. Think: sequential grand juries and multiple contempt proceedings. You see, the feds have been seriously pursuing the "Animal Liberation Front" and their spinoffs and friends for more than a decade. Several of the naive fools who took part in their actions are now doing hard time.
Their supporters here can get as mad as they want, but if that's how the feds see these May Day people, then this will be a slow and steady steamroller and it will utterly crush whoever gets in the way.
If someone(s) want martyrdom, they're going to get it. From reading the comments, I still don't think most of you game-playing, pseudo-radical posers have the faintest notion of just what these kids are dealing with.
51
Heh, @ 49, Mister G, you'd probably be surprised at how much we have in common. You see, I'm old-school around here and have always considered property destruction to be a poor tactic. Your comments prove my point(s) nicely. I'm STILL pissed off at the "diversity of tactics" crap and probably always will be. But are you really comfortable with calling anyone and everyone before a Federal Grand Jury based only on associations and caused by law enforcements inability to fucking control a protest? Do tell. NAH, don't bother. I'm troubled by this and I'm OK with that fact. Merry Christmas, Mister G.
52
Thanks Brendan for keeping up with this story and letting us know of the injustices happening in our name. Olejnik, Duran are American heroes, I believe history will judge them as such. In the meantime, I hope they keep their spirits up and know there a lot of us supporting them.
53
"any prosecutor who wanted to, could indict a ham sandwich" - Judge Sol Wachtler
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y-cT_Wu… jury ham sandwich quote
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y-cT_Wu… jury ham sandwich quote
54
Mister G, obviously these terrorists have more in common with al-Qaeda than they do with the ALF. The ALF is clearly in league with the Kyrgystani mafia, duhhhhh. The connections that the feds are drawing are obvious, aren't they? How come everyone can't see them?
"From reading the comments, I still don't think most of you game-playing, pseudo-radical posers have the faintest notion of just what these kids are dealing with."
Mister G, diviner of wisdom and knower of all things. Don't dare question His judgment, children!
"From reading the comments, I still don't think most of you game-playing, pseudo-radical posers have the faintest notion of just what these kids are dealing with."
Mister G, diviner of wisdom and knower of all things. Don't dare question His judgment, children!
55
Right, that is all sorts of fucked up.
Fnarf: stfu. You are hardly that dumb that you think protesting a problem within a system means wanting to do away with the whole system. How the hell do you solve computer problems?
That something is wrong when ideals and thoughts are ment as something on its own suspicious can't POSSIBLY be what you whine about (if not, try Iran).
So if the system is flawed - and this is one of the flaws, that it opens up the possibility for political courts that judges thoughts and ideals, then perhaps you guys should change the system? Like tweak it?
Or is this another case where a magical past justifies a problematic current situation?
Fnarf: stfu. You are hardly that dumb that you think protesting a problem within a system means wanting to do away with the whole system. How the hell do you solve computer problems?
That something is wrong when ideals and thoughts are ment as something on its own suspicious can't POSSIBLY be what you whine about (if not, try Iran).
So if the system is flawed - and this is one of the flaws, that it opens up the possibility for political courts that judges thoughts and ideals, then perhaps you guys should change the system? Like tweak it?
Or is this another case where a magical past justifies a problematic current situation?
56
To all of the fascist idiots out there who only find fault against Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran go piss in the wind: I have been a State Attorney and I have also been victimized by the State after I went into private practice via the use of a Grand Jury, because as we all know, a DA can indict a ham sandwich.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/200…
So next time instead of allowing the government to go on a goddamn fishing exposition I might advise them to plead the Fifth and walk the fuck out and challenge that rat bastard prosecutor to make a case against them independently or STFU.
Now then.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/200…
So next time instead of allowing the government to go on a goddamn fishing exposition I might advise them to plead the Fifth and walk the fuck out and challenge that rat bastard prosecutor to make a case against them independently or STFU.
Now then.
59
@56: I believe they were granted personal immunity, effectively removing their right to plead the fifth, as it was an impossibility to incriminate themselves.
My question is: why not just answer "no" to everything (or whatever answer would give the state no information)?
My question is: why not just answer "no" to everything (or whatever answer would give the state no information)?
60
For those of you that think this is a little issue please read into it more.
It all really comes down to the government wanting to silence this small group of people before it gets any bigger. What these two are standing for is important! They are saying that they will not stand for a which hunt on people who believe and work towards a different form of government. The sad thing is that everyone thinks this is just about some broken windows by some punks. That's really just the cover story, this is really about silencing, scarring, and tormenting a community of people to stop protesting and speaking out against the injustice happening right under your nose.
Whether you agree with their reasoning or political beliefs is mute. What you should be aware of is the hundreds of thousands being spent to push this agenda. Which should send a huge red flag of something much bigger happening . So after this rant all I ask is that you really start to pay more attention to whats happening in this country and dig deeper. Don't just watch Fox News. If you love your country so much at least get to know it better, and really be willing to understand the policies of this case.
It all really comes down to the government wanting to silence this small group of people before it gets any bigger. What these two are standing for is important! They are saying that they will not stand for a which hunt on people who believe and work towards a different form of government. The sad thing is that everyone thinks this is just about some broken windows by some punks. That's really just the cover story, this is really about silencing, scarring, and tormenting a community of people to stop protesting and speaking out against the injustice happening right under your nose.
Whether you agree with their reasoning or political beliefs is mute. What you should be aware of is the hundreds of thousands being spent to push this agenda. Which should send a huge red flag of something much bigger happening . So after this rant all I ask is that you really start to pay more attention to whats happening in this country and dig deeper. Don't just watch Fox News. If you love your country so much at least get to know it better, and really be willing to understand the policies of this case.
61
For those of you that think this is a little issue please read into it more.
It all really comes down to the government wanting to silence this small group of people before it gets any bigger. What these two are standing for is important! They are saying that they will not stand for a which hunt on people who believe and work towards a different form of government. The sad thing is that everyone thinks this is just about some broken windows by some punks. That's really just the cover story, this is really about silencing, scarring, and tormenting a community of people to stop protesting and speaking out against the injustice happening right under your nose.
Whether you agree with their reasoning or political beliefs is mute. What you should be aware of is the hundreds of thousands being spent to push this agenda. Which should send a huge red flag of something much bigger happening . So after this rant all I ask is that you really start to pay more attention to whats happening in this country and dig deeper. Don't just watch Fox News. If you love your country so much at least get to know it better, and really be willing to understand the policies of this case.
It all really comes down to the government wanting to silence this small group of people before it gets any bigger. What these two are standing for is important! They are saying that they will not stand for a which hunt on people who believe and work towards a different form of government. The sad thing is that everyone thinks this is just about some broken windows by some punks. That's really just the cover story, this is really about silencing, scarring, and tormenting a community of people to stop protesting and speaking out against the injustice happening right under your nose.
Whether you agree with their reasoning or political beliefs is mute. What you should be aware of is the hundreds of thousands being spent to push this agenda. Which should send a huge red flag of something much bigger happening . So after this rant all I ask is that you really start to pay more attention to whats happening in this country and dig deeper. Don't just watch Fox News. If you love your country so much at least get to know it better, and really be willing to understand the policies of this case.
63
Speaking of "fishing expeditions," if you don't want to be a party to a fishing expedition, then don't become a fish. The minute Olejnik and Duran became part of the violent May Day action, they became fish. Their choice, their problem, their jail time, their tough luck.
64
#59, I think we can reasonably presume that, Olejnik and Duran's refusals notwithstanding, others in their group have cooperated and still more of them will do so. Therefore, if these two were to answer "no" to all questions, thereby lying, the testimony of others would establish that. Do you really think it's that easy to wriggle off the hook? I sure don't.
If Olejnik and Duran were to adopt the foolish strategy of giving false answers to a grand jury in a criminal case, they'd have themselves a perjury problem, and maybe a conspiracy problem. Contempt is bad enough, but perjury and conspiracy are felonies with hard time attached. So, if their intent is to take this brave (and stupid) stand against the federal inquiry, at least they're not dumb enough to fake their cooperation and then tell lies to the grand jury.
Some of the commenters here are even dumber than they are. Same for the others in the federal lockup who advised them to lie. But then, your average criminal, even at the federal level, isn't exactly a genius, nor is the average "progressive" Stranger commenter.
If Olejnik and Duran were to adopt the foolish strategy of giving false answers to a grand jury in a criminal case, they'd have themselves a perjury problem, and maybe a conspiracy problem. Contempt is bad enough, but perjury and conspiracy are felonies with hard time attached. So, if their intent is to take this brave (and stupid) stand against the federal inquiry, at least they're not dumb enough to fake their cooperation and then tell lies to the grand jury.
Some of the commenters here are even dumber than they are. Same for the others in the federal lockup who advised them to lie. But then, your average criminal, even at the federal level, isn't exactly a genius, nor is the average "progressive" Stranger commenter.
65
@64,
I often agree with you, but you're just dead wrong on this one. Blind obedience to authority doesn't become you at all.
Roy Cohn would be proud.
I often agree with you, but you're just dead wrong on this one. Blind obedience to authority doesn't become you at all.
Roy Cohn would be proud.
66
It's not "blind obedience" to anything.
The kids either manipulated themselves, or were manipulated by others, into committing crimes. Once you do that, you can expect to be treated differently than the rest of us.
This isn't a case of otherwise law-abiding people being hauled in to be asked about what meeting they attended in college 25 years earlier. To equate this grand jury with HUAC is an exercise in hyperbole, paranoia, and ignorance.
Yeah, yeah. Only the National Rifle Association can be hyperbolic, paranoiac, and stupid. "Progressives" can never be just as idiotic as the wingnuts, because by definition, anything a "progressive" says or does is right and good.
Do you realize how pathetic these people are?
The kids either manipulated themselves, or were manipulated by others, into committing crimes. Once you do that, you can expect to be treated differently than the rest of us.
This isn't a case of otherwise law-abiding people being hauled in to be asked about what meeting they attended in college 25 years earlier. To equate this grand jury with HUAC is an exercise in hyperbole, paranoia, and ignorance.
Yeah, yeah. Only the National Rifle Association can be hyperbolic, paranoiac, and stupid. "Progressives" can never be just as idiotic as the wingnuts, because by definition, anything a "progressive" says or does is right and good.
Do you realize how pathetic these people are?
68
Au contraire - your argument is pretty much exactly the same as saying "J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy are gonna come down on you like a ton of bricks if you don't get up in front of HUAC and name names." It may be factual, but it sure as hell ain't right. These kids have guts for standing up to this star chamber-like process - a whole lot more guts than I've seen from your anonymous internet name-calling spiel (by the way, in case you didn't know - the worst kept secret on the internets is that Mr. X is/I am Matt Fox, just to put the person calling you out on the record).
BTW - you might try reading the actual story - neither of the two political detainees in question (and make no mistake, that's what they are - a few broken windows does not make a bunch of ragtag anarchists the next Al Queda) have actually been accused of anything.
There are people out there doing lots of actual crimes who have gone all clam under the BS "no snitching" code - but break a few windows (stupidly, in my view) in the name of fighting capitalism and you're looking at a year and a half in jail for not ratting out a couple of vandals? That doesn't seem politically motivated to you?
Hyperbole my ass.
BTW - you might try reading the actual story - neither of the two political detainees in question (and make no mistake, that's what they are - a few broken windows does not make a bunch of ragtag anarchists the next Al Queda) have actually been accused of anything.
There are people out there doing lots of actual crimes who have gone all clam under the BS "no snitching" code - but break a few windows (stupidly, in my view) in the name of fighting capitalism and you're looking at a year and a half in jail for not ratting out a couple of vandals? That doesn't seem politically motivated to you?
Hyperbole my ass.
69
...but that said, I have to give you props on your comment on Knute Berger's Crosscut piece "Seattle Soul Searching" - it was a real tour de force both in form and content. Seriously - I enjoyed the hell out it (albeit in a somewhat depressing way - I think your dystopian vision/critique of the future faux "progressive" Seattle is right on the money).
70
They did nothing criminal, and they are refusing to answer questions that are unrelated to crimes. If you haven't heard - and apparently prosecutors have yet to hear - association is not a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._Un…
A grand jury is supposed to be a shield used to protect citizens from the power of the state. The state has to indict before it can prosecute. An indictment is "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime." By jailing these two for something they didn't say in front of a grand jury, without charging them with ANYTHING, the government has perverted justice and turned the Grand Jury principle on its head.
A grand jury is supposed to be a shield used to protect citizens from the power of the state. The state has to indict before it can prosecute. An indictment is "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime." By jailing these two for something they didn't say in front of a grand jury, without charging them with ANYTHING, the government has perverted justice and turned the Grand Jury principle on its head.
71
They did nothing criminal, and they are refusing to answer questions that are unrelated to crimes. If you haven't heard - and apparently prosecutors have yet to hear - association is not a crime. See Yates v. U.S.
A grand jury is supposed to be a shield used to protect citizens from the power of the state. The state has to indict before it can prosecute. An indictment is "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime." By jailing these two for something they didn't say in front of a grand jury, without charging them with ANYTHING, the government has perverted justice and turned the Grand Jury principle on its head.
A grand jury is supposed to be a shield used to protect citizens from the power of the state. The state has to indict before it can prosecute. An indictment is "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime." By jailing these two for something they didn't say in front of a grand jury, without charging them with ANYTHING, the government has perverted justice and turned the Grand Jury principle on its head.
73
So I'd like to know how, exactly, some commentors are presuming that these two are anarchists and/or criminals, because they refused to answer vague questions about people they may or may not know, or may be tangentially acquainted with, and about events that they weren't even involved in? They both have (well, one of them still has it) jobs, were not involved in the events in question, and felt that they were being strong-armed into giving testimony about events they had no knowledge of? Sorry, but they're being screwed regardless of whether or not they're legally compelled to answer whatever inane questions the grand jury deems fit to ask. They don't view themselves as heroes or revolutionaries, just regular, normal folks who don't want to be coerced into helping the government screw others.
75
Some motherfuckers here need to do a solitary 30 days in the Hole with nothing but a stack of Kafka for company...
-NSA cellphone intercept transcript-
(Redacted per Directorate guidelines)
"Yeah,it's the 21st century and we got more domestic databases to build and citizen dossiers to fill. We really should finally dispense with all this messy business of privacy, free speech, free association and all that nonsense. It just gets in the way of real law and order and slows down the process of tracking down the vast and pervasive domestic terrorist conspiracy.
After all, there's a war on and the country's crawling with terrorists-some of them are beyond a reasonable doubt among your co-workers, friends, and family. We need to keep their intel files up to date. Like all those weirdos at your Christmas parties, for starters. Better to leave these things to those who know best how to interrogate and extract information.
Who better to leave this vital job to than our unelected federal prosecutors,with their Patriot Act superpowers(tm)? They should all be given unlimited powers of rendition and detention without charge(relax it's merely detention, like being naughty at school you know, not really imprisonment; because after all, no one has been charged or sentenced). How else are we gonna root out all these dangerous saboteurs and enemy sympathizers if we can't grill all their friends and acquaintances at will??"
-end transcript-
Anyone who thinks this type of incarceration is OK in the USA is a natural-born finking, snitching rat authoritarian apologist. We wish you all a Merry Xmas to each and every one- on your cattle-car ride to the gulag...
-NSA cellphone intercept transcript-
(Redacted per Directorate guidelines)
"Yeah,it's the 21st century and we got more domestic databases to build and citizen dossiers to fill. We really should finally dispense with all this messy business of privacy, free speech, free association and all that nonsense. It just gets in the way of real law and order and slows down the process of tracking down the vast and pervasive domestic terrorist conspiracy.
After all, there's a war on and the country's crawling with terrorists-some of them are beyond a reasonable doubt among your co-workers, friends, and family. We need to keep their intel files up to date. Like all those weirdos at your Christmas parties, for starters. Better to leave these things to those who know best how to interrogate and extract information.
Who better to leave this vital job to than our unelected federal prosecutors,with their Patriot Act superpowers(tm)? They should all be given unlimited powers of rendition and detention without charge(relax it's merely detention, like being naughty at school you know, not really imprisonment; because after all, no one has been charged or sentenced). How else are we gonna root out all these dangerous saboteurs and enemy sympathizers if we can't grill all their friends and acquaintances at will??"
-end transcript-
Anyone who thinks this type of incarceration is OK in the USA is a natural-born finking, snitching rat authoritarian apologist. We wish you all a Merry Xmas to each and every one- on your cattle-car ride to the gulag...
76
As usual, neocon swineherds, giffy, and fnarf, show their true neocon slimey colors.
The Refuseniks
In the old Soviet Union, refuseniks were packed off to a brutal and short-lived existence in the gulag. (Doubtful if much has changed under Putin.)
In totalitarian China, refuseniks are disappeared to labor camps in the countryside where, if they are in reasonable health, their organs are harvested for China's highly lucrative global organ-selling business, keeping all those members of the Transnational Capitalist Class alive beyond their due dates (David Rockefeller still alive? Koch brothers still thriving?).
These two brave souls live in the Corporate Fascist State called America, where if you are an official mass murderer or have stolen billions, hundreds of billions or trillions, you'll never see the inside of a jail, but if you are valiant and honorable, you are most definitely screwed!
Thankfully, due to the superlative journalism of Brendan Kiley, they will get some attention, and not be completely buried away from public view.
Those who should truly be in jail are the top executives at JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and BankofAmerica --- the super-crooks, colossal thieves, money launderers, financial fraudsters, etc., etc., etc.
But we know that will never happen without a bloody revolution!
(Sad to say, though, how many Americans alive today know who Eugene Debs was, and what purpose did all that jail time that brave man was put away for ever accomplish? Still, these two, Mr. D. and Ms. O, should be duly honored.)
http://www.epi.org/publication/failure-b…
More...
The Refuseniks
In the old Soviet Union, refuseniks were packed off to a brutal and short-lived existence in the gulag. (Doubtful if much has changed under Putin.)
In totalitarian China, refuseniks are disappeared to labor camps in the countryside where, if they are in reasonable health, their organs are harvested for China's highly lucrative global organ-selling business, keeping all those members of the Transnational Capitalist Class alive beyond their due dates (David Rockefeller still alive? Koch brothers still thriving?).
These two brave souls live in the Corporate Fascist State called America, where if you are an official mass murderer or have stolen billions, hundreds of billions or trillions, you'll never see the inside of a jail, but if you are valiant and honorable, you are most definitely screwed!
Thankfully, due to the superlative journalism of Brendan Kiley, they will get some attention, and not be completely buried away from public view.
Those who should truly be in jail are the top executives at JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and BankofAmerica --- the super-crooks, colossal thieves, money launderers, financial fraudsters, etc., etc., etc.
But we know that will never happen without a bloody revolution!
(Sad to say, though, how many Americans alive today know who Eugene Debs was, and what purpose did all that jail time that brave man was put away for ever accomplish? Still, these two, Mr. D. and Ms. O, should be duly honored.)
http://www.epi.org/publication/failure-b…
77
Germany 1933 - USA 2012 - 2013.......Our civil liberties are being stripped from us while we sleep.
The third reich was to last a thousand years and was supposed to be infallible. All empires fall and so will this one. You (Mr. G. et al) are truly delusional if you think everyone can be bullied. By the way this government is the biggest bully of all. Welcome to the fourth reich.
Another tip to these followers who chose blind obedience to authority - the feds or otherwise-
Mussolini would have recruited people like you in Italy and quite possibly they would have received the same consequences he did from his fellow citizens. One can only hope....
The third reich was to last a thousand years and was supposed to be infallible. All empires fall and so will this one. You (Mr. G. et al) are truly delusional if you think everyone can be bullied. By the way this government is the biggest bully of all. Welcome to the fourth reich.
Another tip to these followers who chose blind obedience to authority - the feds or otherwise-
Mussolini would have recruited people like you in Italy and quite possibly they would have received the same consequences he did from his fellow citizens. One can only hope....
79
#74, your hostility towards and dismissiveness of these brave young people is totally unjustified,
No instrument of the state has any right to question U.S. citizens about the political views. Also, there are no political views(other than Naziism) that are inherently illegitimate in a democratic society.
There were no REAL crimes committed by anyone. Minor property damage is a trivial offense, and does not threaten the survival of civilization as we know it. It might not be a method I would use, but it's not as if anyone was physically harmed.
What is it about these two that so threatens you, Mister G?
Where did you ever get the idea that the survival of our country depends on, of all things, obedience to the grand jury system(a system that is no longer used in any OTHER country in the English-speaking world, btw?)
Why do you believe that we owe it to America to betray our friends and allies by informing on them?
And what, exactly, do you think would happen if these two were to succeed in defying the grand jury system?
Something about this really spooks you...but there's no reason it should.
And there's no reason we should feel unquestioning loyalty to ANY system...in a decent world, we owe loyalty only to our fellow members of the human race.
And frankly, I think that's what Jesus would say about this as well.
No instrument of the state has any right to question U.S. citizens about the political views. Also, there are no political views(other than Naziism) that are inherently illegitimate in a democratic society.
There were no REAL crimes committed by anyone. Minor property damage is a trivial offense, and does not threaten the survival of civilization as we know it. It might not be a method I would use, but it's not as if anyone was physically harmed.
What is it about these two that so threatens you, Mister G?
Where did you ever get the idea that the survival of our country depends on, of all things, obedience to the grand jury system(a system that is no longer used in any OTHER country in the English-speaking world, btw?)
Why do you believe that we owe it to America to betray our friends and allies by informing on them?
And what, exactly, do you think would happen if these two were to succeed in defying the grand jury system?
Something about this really spooks you...but there's no reason it should.
And there's no reason we should feel unquestioning loyalty to ANY system...in a decent world, we owe loyalty only to our fellow members of the human race.
And frankly, I think that's what Jesus would say about this as well.
80
Also, although it shouldn't have to be said, "anarchist" and "terrorist" are NOT synonymous terms. Most people who self-identiry as anarchists are, in fact, committed to nonviolence, to passive resistance, and envision a world not of chaotic nihilism(also known as the fictional world of your typical Jean-Claude Van Damme film)but of voluntary human cooperation.
An anarchist society may not be realistic now(possibly not ever)but it's totally unfair to equate support for such a society with support for mayhem or of approval for terrorism.
Can we all please just accept that, already?
Anarchism is anarchism...terrorism is terrorism...neither is the other.
An anarchist society may not be realistic now(possibly not ever)but it's totally unfair to equate support for such a society with support for mayhem or of approval for terrorism.
Can we all please just accept that, already?
Anarchism is anarchism...terrorism is terrorism...neither is the other.
81
Finally, you do realize, don't you, Mister G, that if these two cooperated with the grand jury, that it would be impossible for them to ever work for meaningful social change at any point for the rest of their lives, don't you?
Everyone who ccoperated with HUAC spent the rest of their lives as, essentially, conservatives. None ever marched for civil rights or against the war in Vietnam OR agains the Contra War or for same-sex marriage.
If you work with a prosecutor on political crimes, you've joined the Right.
Maybe that doesn't matter for you, because you're obviously a right-wing person at heart(it's impossible to support "law and order" and social justice, since the law is always biased against the people).
Is it possible that these two reminds you of every ideal you've ever abandoned, all the unqueestioning obedience you've pledged to, for a life of bland, poetry-free material comfort?
Just a thought.
Everyone who ccoperated with HUAC spent the rest of their lives as, essentially, conservatives. None ever marched for civil rights or against the war in Vietnam OR agains the Contra War or for same-sex marriage.
If you work with a prosecutor on political crimes, you've joined the Right.
Maybe that doesn't matter for you, because you're obviously a right-wing person at heart(it's impossible to support "law and order" and social justice, since the law is always biased against the people).
Is it possible that these two reminds you of every ideal you've ever abandoned, all the unqueestioning obedience you've pledged to, for a life of bland, poetry-free material comfort?
Just a thought.
82
These two morons are not protecting freedom fighters or even "true" Anarchists, they are protecting a bunch of twenty-something hoods who planned and participated in pointless property damage. These two can stay out of the way in lock-up as long as they want.
83
Howdy Sarah Palin, aka AlaskanbutnotSeanParnell.
1. They don't threaten me. I actually feel sorry for them. I consider them misguided kids who have been terribly misled. The mentality isn't much different than, say, joining the Hare Krishnas. I always wonder what happened to those people who used to accost me in airports in the 1980s rather than doing something useful or productive with their lives. I wonder what these kids will be doing in 25 years, after having thrown so much away.
2. The grand jury system is what we've got. If there had been a movement to end it before this, I might take the arguments on that point seriously. But in this context, it's opportunistic and not serious.
3. If you're trying to make me feel guilty, you've failed. I do feel sorry for the jailed kids, though. So unnecessary. You hate to see someone commit such spectacular self-sabotage for something so trivial. Makes me wonder why they feel they have so little to preserve that they'd willingly destroy themselves for nothing at all. I'm not so forgiving toward the sanctimonious fakers like you who are egging them on from the comfortable sidelines. While they ruin their lives for nothing, you and yours will do just fine, thank you. At least I'm telling the truth, harsh as it is. You're bullshitting here, for the sake of your ego. If you're urging ethical self-examination, take a look in the mirror, if you dare.
1. They don't threaten me. I actually feel sorry for them. I consider them misguided kids who have been terribly misled. The mentality isn't much different than, say, joining the Hare Krishnas. I always wonder what happened to those people who used to accost me in airports in the 1980s rather than doing something useful or productive with their lives. I wonder what these kids will be doing in 25 years, after having thrown so much away.
2. The grand jury system is what we've got. If there had been a movement to end it before this, I might take the arguments on that point seriously. But in this context, it's opportunistic and not serious.
3. If you're trying to make me feel guilty, you've failed. I do feel sorry for the jailed kids, though. So unnecessary. You hate to see someone commit such spectacular self-sabotage for something so trivial. Makes me wonder why they feel they have so little to preserve that they'd willingly destroy themselves for nothing at all. I'm not so forgiving toward the sanctimonious fakers like you who are egging them on from the comfortable sidelines. While they ruin their lives for nothing, you and yours will do just fine, thank you. At least I'm telling the truth, harsh as it is. You're bullshitting here, for the sake of your ego. If you're urging ethical self-examination, take a look in the mirror, if you dare.
84
To everyone being contrary just to feel smart, good job. Mining information about people's political beliefs is a totally legit use of the justice system, and it really is as simple as "Fuck them, they are wrong because they broke the law."
86
#83...like "joining the Hare Krishnas"? Really?
And why is it that you see this as self-sabotage rather than a legitimate stand on principle? I get it that you want us all to blindly obey our leaders, but why can't you accept that there might actually be some validity to their refusal to answer unjust and illegitimate questions(NO prosecutor has any right to ask about anyone's political opinions...political opinions are supposed to be irrelevant to the criminal justice system.
It is simply impossible to work for meaningful social change WITHOUT actually defying state authority. You can't fully obey the law and still work for a better world.
Have you, yourself, ever taken a principled stand on ANYTHING? Have you ever, in your entire life, defended any OTHER proposition besides "authority MUST be obeyed without question"? If not, how dare you judge people who are putting themselves at heroic risk for their principles.
And really...all that happened was a few windows were broken-something that is trivial and harmless in the grand scheme of things. Why is THAT such an outrage to you? Windows can be replaced. The human spirit, once destroyed, can't be.
And yes, we "have" the grand jury system. But in the 1850's, we had the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you have been insisting that THAT had to be obeyed because "it's what we have"?
Would you have insisted that laws against union organizing be obeyed when they existed because they were "what we had"?
Would you have insisted that the Jim Crow laws be obeyed because THEY were "what we have"?
Would you have insisted that people refuse to help draft resisters get to Canada in the 1960's because the Selective Service Act was "what we have"?
Why do you take such an automatic position of servility to the most repressive institutions of our society?
When has it ever made this a better country for people to obey laws simply because the laws were on the books? When has that attitude ever helped anyone but the privileged,the bigoted, the arrogant, and the warmongering?
It's simple...if these kids answered the grand jury's questions, they would have to abandon any and all work for social change for the rest of their lives. They would have to become unquestioning defenders of the status quo. They would have to totally LOSE their souls and themselves.
Why demand something so brutal of them? And why defend authority when you KNOW that authority is being unreasonable and unjust?
More...
And why is it that you see this as self-sabotage rather than a legitimate stand on principle? I get it that you want us all to blindly obey our leaders, but why can't you accept that there might actually be some validity to their refusal to answer unjust and illegitimate questions(NO prosecutor has any right to ask about anyone's political opinions...political opinions are supposed to be irrelevant to the criminal justice system.
It is simply impossible to work for meaningful social change WITHOUT actually defying state authority. You can't fully obey the law and still work for a better world.
Have you, yourself, ever taken a principled stand on ANYTHING? Have you ever, in your entire life, defended any OTHER proposition besides "authority MUST be obeyed without question"? If not, how dare you judge people who are putting themselves at heroic risk for their principles.
And really...all that happened was a few windows were broken-something that is trivial and harmless in the grand scheme of things. Why is THAT such an outrage to you? Windows can be replaced. The human spirit, once destroyed, can't be.
And yes, we "have" the grand jury system. But in the 1850's, we had the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you have been insisting that THAT had to be obeyed because "it's what we have"?
Would you have insisted that laws against union organizing be obeyed when they existed because they were "what we had"?
Would you have insisted that the Jim Crow laws be obeyed because THEY were "what we have"?
Would you have insisted that people refuse to help draft resisters get to Canada in the 1960's because the Selective Service Act was "what we have"?
Why do you take such an automatic position of servility to the most repressive institutions of our society?
When has it ever made this a better country for people to obey laws simply because the laws were on the books? When has that attitude ever helped anyone but the privileged,the bigoted, the arrogant, and the warmongering?
It's simple...if these kids answered the grand jury's questions, they would have to abandon any and all work for social change for the rest of their lives. They would have to become unquestioning defenders of the status quo. They would have to totally LOSE their souls and themselves.
Why demand something so brutal of them? And why defend authority when you KNOW that authority is being unreasonable and unjust?
87
And those of us who are in solidarity with these brave dissidents are not "egging them on"-it's insulting to them that you keep acting as if there couldn't possibly be a valid reason for them to take the stance they've taken, OR that they might actually have chosen to do this with clear minds and of their own free will.
If they did what you wanted and testified, they would be lost as human beings. They could never BE activists again...can't you see that?
You CAN'T cooperate with the system even once and still be able to challenge it at other times.
You can't cooperate with a grand jury in a political trial and still hold ANY progressive views. Once you've cooperated, you've joined the Right until you die. It really is that simple.
If they did what you wanted and testified, they would be lost as human beings. They could never BE activists again...can't you see that?
You CAN'T cooperate with the system even once and still be able to challenge it at other times.
You can't cooperate with a grand jury in a political trial and still hold ANY progressive views. Once you've cooperated, you've joined the Right until you die. It really is that simple.
88
Also, I AM Alaskan, but I'm as far from Sarah Palin as possible. She doesn't even LIVE in Alaska anymore(none of us up here are actually sure where the hell she is, and few of us want to know).
Not sure why you'd liken me to Caribou Barbie.
Not sure why you'd liken me to Caribou Barbie.
89
#88, I say you and Sarah Baby are flip sides of the same coin. As far as I've ever managed to notice on my trips there, Alaska has a beautiful landscape but the people are Hooterville North. It's impossible to over-insult Alaska and Alaskans.
1. Utterly convinced you're right, and better.
2. Unwilling to even acknowledge a different way of looking at an issue. Instead, anyone who disagrees is "bad" in some way.
3. See everything in strictly black-and-white terms. Hero or traitor, as opposed to what life's really like, i.e., most people are a mixed bag, and do some really stupid things, and are endlessly capable of self-delusion.
4. Show no depth of inquiry or real sense for history. It's all in the now.
So tell me, did you bounce around four or five fourth-rate semi-univerities before getting the easiest diploma the final one of 'em would grant, just like Sarah? Or did you drop out because you're not as cute?
1. Utterly convinced you're right, and better.
2. Unwilling to even acknowledge a different way of looking at an issue. Instead, anyone who disagrees is "bad" in some way.
3. See everything in strictly black-and-white terms. Hero or traitor, as opposed to what life's really like, i.e., most people are a mixed bag, and do some really stupid things, and are endlessly capable of self-delusion.
4. Show no depth of inquiry or real sense for history. It's all in the now.
So tell me, did you bounce around four or five fourth-rate semi-univerities before getting the easiest diploma the final one of 'em would grant, just like Sarah? Or did you drop out because you're not as cute?
90
To add:
See, I don't think these kids are bad guys. I doubt they're the hard core. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't see at present any evidence that would support a view that they're at the center of some monkey-wrench gang.
Rather, I view them as misguided fools. Whether they've been manipulated by others, or have bullshitted themselves, is impossible to say. The Stranger's superficial story never actually dealt with their ideology, such as it might be, or their activities. So we, the readers, know little to nothing about why they were called into the grand jury to begin with, or what their "principles," other than not wanting to rat anyone out, really are.
Therefore, I actually take the most charitable view that a non-supporter could: that they've blundered their foolish way into it. That kind of crap happens all the time with self-styled radicals, especially on the left. (The right wingnut radicals tend to be much harder core, and more dangerous. Many of their plots are of the kind we never learn about, and they can be very nasty indeed.)
So, while I realize you regard me as a goose stepping Nazi, and won't even bother to think about what I've written here (if you've even read this far), in reality I feel sorry for them, and wish they'd climb off the ledge, answer the questions, and go home.
If they don't, then they get to pay the price of civil disobedience. In this case, I think it'll be a pretty stiff price. From what I can surmise, the feds are damned deadly serious here. Like I say, I don't think about these particular people, but about the possibility of a deeper and much more malevolent anarchist network than anyone realizes.
Funny thing about such networks is that, at some point, at the hard core, "left" and "right" tend to merge, and/or become rather meaningless. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really doubt the feds are putting this much juice into it just to find out what books some hipster posers are reading. Once more, I'd be surprised if the subjects of this story are part of any hard core. I take them for being naive kids caught up in something a whole lot bigger than themselves. They really need to do a 180, and their fake "progressive" Seattle rah-rah crowd ought to take a breather for a second and ask themselves whether those lives are worth throwing away for some newly discovered, legally groundless "principle" that The Stranger and the rest will forget within a few months.
More...
See, I don't think these kids are bad guys. I doubt they're the hard core. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't see at present any evidence that would support a view that they're at the center of some monkey-wrench gang.
Rather, I view them as misguided fools. Whether they've been manipulated by others, or have bullshitted themselves, is impossible to say. The Stranger's superficial story never actually dealt with their ideology, such as it might be, or their activities. So we, the readers, know little to nothing about why they were called into the grand jury to begin with, or what their "principles," other than not wanting to rat anyone out, really are.
Therefore, I actually take the most charitable view that a non-supporter could: that they've blundered their foolish way into it. That kind of crap happens all the time with self-styled radicals, especially on the left. (The right wingnut radicals tend to be much harder core, and more dangerous. Many of their plots are of the kind we never learn about, and they can be very nasty indeed.)
So, while I realize you regard me as a goose stepping Nazi, and won't even bother to think about what I've written here (if you've even read this far), in reality I feel sorry for them, and wish they'd climb off the ledge, answer the questions, and go home.
If they don't, then they get to pay the price of civil disobedience. In this case, I think it'll be a pretty stiff price. From what I can surmise, the feds are damned deadly serious here. Like I say, I don't think about these particular people, but about the possibility of a deeper and much more malevolent anarchist network than anyone realizes.
Funny thing about such networks is that, at some point, at the hard core, "left" and "right" tend to merge, and/or become rather meaningless. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really doubt the feds are putting this much juice into it just to find out what books some hipster posers are reading. Once more, I'd be surprised if the subjects of this story are part of any hard core. I take them for being naive kids caught up in something a whole lot bigger than themselves. They really need to do a 180, and their fake "progressive" Seattle rah-rah crowd ought to take a breather for a second and ask themselves whether those lives are worth throwing away for some newly discovered, legally groundless "principle" that The Stranger and the rest will forget within a few months.
91
I did, in fact, think about what you've posted...it's just that there isn't THAT much to think about it...every post you've made on this subject is nothing but a variant on the theme of "the law is the law".
As to not being able to hear different views...I'm amazed that you don't see the projection in your own post there. You have this weirdly absolute view that cooperating with the prosecutor, who is clearly acting in an illegitimate manner, is an obligation. You may not be a "goose-stepping Nazi"(nothing I've said about you actually comes close to that phraseology)but you do seem to think that authority is infallible.
You also seem to think that the grand jury system is the one thing that stands between us and chaos. Would you kindly say why?
And why do you disgregard the fact that, if they answered those questions, they could never be activists for social justice and social change again? That they would be obligated to become unquestioning and total supporters of the status quo?
Why SHOULD they give up their ability to act for change? Why should they check their souls at the door of life?
And what, really, did the May Day people do that so inflames you? This was just about a few broken windows. Why does it even matter that those windows were broken?
Finally, I only went to two colleges...a decade and a half apart(life intervened, as it does for many). Why is it that you can't accept that I might simply disagree with you?
I don't think I'm superior to you...or to anyone else...I simply reject your notion of blind obedience to the state. Not sure why you can't tolerate that-or why, of all the institutions we have in this country, the freaking GRAND JURY SYSTEM is more important to you than anyone else? Why is obeying a life-hating prosecutor more important to you than freedom of speech and freedom of association?
You sound like the "good cop" in an interrogation situation...the one who won't let up with the faux-sympathetic condescension until those he disagrees with cave in. Sad.
More...
As to not being able to hear different views...I'm amazed that you don't see the projection in your own post there. You have this weirdly absolute view that cooperating with the prosecutor, who is clearly acting in an illegitimate manner, is an obligation. You may not be a "goose-stepping Nazi"(nothing I've said about you actually comes close to that phraseology)but you do seem to think that authority is infallible.
You also seem to think that the grand jury system is the one thing that stands between us and chaos. Would you kindly say why?
And why do you disgregard the fact that, if they answered those questions, they could never be activists for social justice and social change again? That they would be obligated to become unquestioning and total supporters of the status quo?
Why SHOULD they give up their ability to act for change? Why should they check their souls at the door of life?
And what, really, did the May Day people do that so inflames you? This was just about a few broken windows. Why does it even matter that those windows were broken?
Finally, I only went to two colleges...a decade and a half apart(life intervened, as it does for many). Why is it that you can't accept that I might simply disagree with you?
I don't think I'm superior to you...or to anyone else...I simply reject your notion of blind obedience to the state. Not sure why you can't tolerate that-or why, of all the institutions we have in this country, the freaking GRAND JURY SYSTEM is more important to you than anyone else? Why is obeying a life-hating prosecutor more important to you than freedom of speech and freedom of association?
You sound like the "good cop" in an interrogation situation...the one who won't let up with the faux-sympathetic condescension until those he disagrees with cave in. Sad.
92
Why ARE you so obsessed with seeing these brave kids cave in, anyway? You make it sound like they owe it to the whole country to surrender their consciences and betray their friends. Why is that? Would any good be done to anyone but the wealthiest of the wealthy if they did?
And what, exactly, would be lost if these kids were allowed to prevail on this? Is it that big of a deal that a few people would get away with breaking a few trivial windows?
And can anything good happen in a society where obedience to the state is the highest value?
And what, exactly, would be lost if these kids were allowed to prevail on this? Is it that big of a deal that a few people would get away with breaking a few trivial windows?
And can anything good happen in a society where obedience to the state is the highest value?
94
You also seem to think that the grand jury system is the one thing that stands between us and chaos. Would you kindly say why?
I never wrote that, nor did I imply it. They don't do much of a job teaching reading up in Hooterville North, do they?
And why do you disgregard the fact that, if they answered those questions, they could never be activists for social justice and social change again? That they would be obligated to become unquestioning and total supporters of the status quo?
There you go again, Sarah Baby! It's all black and white, and anyone who doesn't see it your way is "bad."
you do seem to think that authority is infallible
I never wrote that, or implied it. You really need to tune out those transmissions from the CIA through the fillings in your teeth.
Not sure why you can't tolerate that-or why, of all the institutions we have in this country, the freaking GRAND JURY SYSTEM is more important to you than anyone else?
I never wrote that, nor did I imply it, Sarah Baby. Is there something in the water up in Hooterville North?
Why is obeying a life-hating prosecutor more important to you than freedom of speech and freedom of association?
No one has denied anyone freedom of speech or association, Sarah Baby!
I never wrote that, nor did I imply it. They don't do much of a job teaching reading up in Hooterville North, do they?
And why do you disgregard the fact that, if they answered those questions, they could never be activists for social justice and social change again? That they would be obligated to become unquestioning and total supporters of the status quo?
There you go again, Sarah Baby! It's all black and white, and anyone who doesn't see it your way is "bad."
you do seem to think that authority is infallible
I never wrote that, or implied it. You really need to tune out those transmissions from the CIA through the fillings in your teeth.
Not sure why you can't tolerate that-or why, of all the institutions we have in this country, the freaking GRAND JURY SYSTEM is more important to you than anyone else?
I never wrote that, nor did I imply it, Sarah Baby. Is there something in the water up in Hooterville North?
Why is obeying a life-hating prosecutor more important to you than freedom of speech and freedom of association?
No one has denied anyone freedom of speech or association, Sarah Baby!
97
And G-Man, let me just say this...
You have the right to disagree with me, I have the right to disagree with you.
It's just that I'm not obligated to DEFER to you. OK, buddy?
You have the right to disagree with me, I have the right to disagree with you.
It's just that I'm not obligated to DEFER to you. OK, buddy?
98
So, Sarah Baby can dish it out, but she can't take it. Typical "progressive." The minute someone informs them that, yes, their shit also stinks, they become oh so wounded. Are you trying to make me laugh at you, Sarah, or was it by mistake?
99
My goodness, someone should tuck in Mister G for the night. Doesn't he know that when one starts calling names, one has obviously lost the argument, as they have nothing left to add to the discussion?
100
Ah yes, #99, we have a "progressive" who objects to name calling, but only when the "progressives" are the target. Let your critics be the target of name-calling, and you're fine with it.
There's a name for you: Hypocrite.
There's a name for you: Hypocrite.
101
#100...would you mind explaining why you keep putting the word "progressive" in quotes?
Do you see the word as a euphemism for something more insidious? If so, what?
For myself, I prefer the term radical. Without quote marks. Object to it if you will, but do accept the fact that it's honestly held to.
What term would you use to describe your own place on the spectrum, btw?
You appear to believe you can unchallengeably claim to be the only honest person in this comments section. Really, if others are bullshitting, as you see it, why shouldn't we assume you are also bullshitting?
Why should we assume(as you wish us to)that your "take" on life is somehow intrinsically more "real" than anybody else's?
I make no claims at all to personal superiority, and am no hipster. Just another member of the normal human race. And I'm fully aware that mine stinks as much as anyone else's.
Do you see the word as a euphemism for something more insidious? If so, what?
For myself, I prefer the term radical. Without quote marks. Object to it if you will, but do accept the fact that it's honestly held to.
What term would you use to describe your own place on the spectrum, btw?
You appear to believe you can unchallengeably claim to be the only honest person in this comments section. Really, if others are bullshitting, as you see it, why shouldn't we assume you are also bullshitting?
Why should we assume(as you wish us to)that your "take" on life is somehow intrinsically more "real" than anybody else's?
I make no claims at all to personal superiority, and am no hipster. Just another member of the normal human race. And I'm fully aware that mine stinks as much as anyone else's.
102
A party's inability to comply with a judicial order constitutes a defense to a charge of civil contempt US v. Rylander 460 US 752, 757 103 S. Ct. 1548, 75 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1983)
All they have to do is claim the remedy available in the same bible they are asked to swear in on.
Romans 3:4 (KJV) 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
"If God says I am a liar, Judge, then I cannot possibly truthfully testify before the grand jury."
It's a judicial remedy, and even says this in the verse. I'm not a christian, but if they want to play games, their bible gives an out...
All they have to do is claim the remedy available in the same bible they are asked to swear in on.
Romans 3:4 (KJV) 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
"If God says I am a liar, Judge, then I cannot possibly truthfully testify before the grand jury."
It's a judicial remedy, and even says this in the verse. I'm not a christian, but if they want to play games, their bible gives an out...
104
When it comes to someone being able to dish it out but not being able to take it, thy name is Mister G.
When someone like the poster @99 accurately points out that you've resorted to name-calling, accusing them of name calling pretty much makes you a whiny-ass titty baby - and an anonymous one at that!
When someone like the poster @99 accurately points out that you've resorted to name-calling, accusing them of name calling pretty much makes you a whiny-ass titty baby - and an anonymous one at that!
105
VERY SIMPLE: THESE 2 PEOPLE ARE DOING WHATŚ LEGAL AND MORAL, NOT TO FALSELY INCRIMINATE PEOPLE THEY DON'T KNOW. THERE IS THE ISSUE: THEY STATED THEY WERE NOT IN THAT PLACE AND TIME (MAY DAY VANDALISM EVENTS) BUT STILL THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT X AND Y AND Z, AND PERSONAL INFORMATION AND POLITICAL VIEWS OF THESE PEOPLE THEY DID NOT KNOW. THAT IS NOT REFUSING TO TESTIFY THAT IS REFUSING TO FALSELY TESTIFY ABOUT EVENTS AND PEOPLE YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW. LEGALLY YOU AS CALLED AS WITNESS CAN AND SHOULD ONLY BE ASKED AND RESPONSE YES OR NO TO QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL EVENTS YOU WERE WITNESS TO. BUT IF YOU WERE NOT A WITNESS OF THESE EVENTS THERE IS NO MORE QUESTIONS YOU CAN AND SHOULD RESPONSE ABOUT THESE EVENTS AND LESS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES AND POLITICAL VIEWS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS TO AN SPECIFIC EVENT(S).
106
#104, my skin is as tough as a rhino hide. I'm fine with being called names. I'll just fling 'em right back. The "progressives" of Seattle can't take it when they're called a pack of corrupt hypocrites and phonies. They go batshit when anyone doesn't bow to their self-proclaimed Goodness. What really gets 'em is someone who's not intimidated by their horseshit.
107
Holy shit, now we have #105, a CAPS LOCK "progressive" whackjob. Had to happen. Come on, #105, take yer thorazine, okay?
108
By the way, #104, maybe I'm terribly wrong but I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense for someone who signs as "Mr X" to get all butthurt over someone else signing as "Mister G." You know, stones 'n glass houses and all that? Sheesh!
109
@108,
See my post @ 68 - it's no secret who Mr. X is - as opposed to the identity of Mister G, NotFan, and whatever tag it is you use to post at the Seattle Times....
Oh, and the poster @99 didn't call you any names.
See my post @ 68 - it's no secret who Mr. X is - as opposed to the identity of Mister G, NotFan, and whatever tag it is you use to post at the Seattle Times....
Oh, and the poster @99 didn't call you any names.
110
Giffy,
Your deprecation of the Grand Jury Resisters, given the facts, is BS! I'm a paralegal and understand your argument: A litigant (even the state) is entitled to every man's evidence, else any trial in search of the truth is DOA.
But here there IS no trial or I might agree, in principle, with your criticism. This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system, converting it from a shield against government excess into a sword FOR government excess. Using the Grand Jury as a fishing expedition into the private lives of a select political minority destroys the very essence of what one's day in court is supposed to preserve. The questions asked would be rejected as immaterial in any real criminal trial. What we're seeing is tantamount to the infamous 'Star Chamber' of old.
Sure, the federal prosecutor may SAY they're not really targeting political dissent, only investigating criminal acts. It's an argument we desperately want to believe, so they use it. In fact, the prosecution (typically so) is much more devious, more manipulative and calculating than acting in good faith to preserve law & order. They KNOW this strategy will have a devastating effect on the hearts, souls, and minds of the targeted group. It already has. Witness Leah Plante.
Cops and detectives actively PUNISH their targets under color of state law without/despite due process, knowing that they can arrest a 'suspect' on Friday with no possibility of court review/bail until Monday. They and prosecutors file charges knowing they won't get a conviction because the process itself is expensive, hellacious, and punitive. We're witnessing no less than the utter corruption of the federal Grand Jury system and court process.
A litigant is entitled to every man's evidence ONCE a complaint/charge has been filed. Prior to that, there ARE NO litigants! Hopefully readers will grasp that and understand the current spate of government excess for what it is.
More...
Your deprecation of the Grand Jury Resisters, given the facts, is BS! I'm a paralegal and understand your argument: A litigant (even the state) is entitled to every man's evidence, else any trial in search of the truth is DOA.
But here there IS no trial or I might agree, in principle, with your criticism. This is an abuse of the Grand Jury system, converting it from a shield against government excess into a sword FOR government excess. Using the Grand Jury as a fishing expedition into the private lives of a select political minority destroys the very essence of what one's day in court is supposed to preserve. The questions asked would be rejected as immaterial in any real criminal trial. What we're seeing is tantamount to the infamous 'Star Chamber' of old.
Sure, the federal prosecutor may SAY they're not really targeting political dissent, only investigating criminal acts. It's an argument we desperately want to believe, so they use it. In fact, the prosecution (typically so) is much more devious, more manipulative and calculating than acting in good faith to preserve law & order. They KNOW this strategy will have a devastating effect on the hearts, souls, and minds of the targeted group. It already has. Witness Leah Plante.
Cops and detectives actively PUNISH their targets under color of state law without/despite due process, knowing that they can arrest a 'suspect' on Friday with no possibility of court review/bail until Monday. They and prosecutors file charges knowing they won't get a conviction because the process itself is expensive, hellacious, and punitive. We're witnessing no less than the utter corruption of the federal Grand Jury system and court process.
A litigant is entitled to every man's evidence ONCE a complaint/charge has been filed. Prior to that, there ARE NO litigants! Hopefully readers will grasp that and understand the current spate of government excess for what it is.
111
Wow, #110, you're a paralegal! One step away from the Supreme Court, no doubt. Now could you run down to Starbucks and fetch me a tall Americano, no room? Thanks.
112
p.s.: Matt Fox/Mr. X, yeah, I think I'll give my real name here so the kindly "progressive/anarchist community" can come around and toss rocks through my windows for calling them a bunch of stupid posers. Oh yeah, that's the ticket.
113
Mr. G, you're an ugly troll, an embittered also-ran who enjoys pissing on everybody out of some long buried slight.
Just like Richard Nixon.
Your points would be interesting if you could justify them, but instead you ignore opposing argument and do nothing but ad-hominem. No truth can come of that.
Truth can emerge from argument, and it's a beautiful thing, but you are subverting that process and turning everything you touch to shit. There's no point in reading you any further, though it seemed promising for a time.
Just like Richard Nixon.
Your points would be interesting if you could justify them, but instead you ignore opposing argument and do nothing but ad-hominem. No truth can come of that.
Truth can emerge from argument, and it's a beautiful thing, but you are subverting that process and turning everything you touch to shit. There's no point in reading you any further, though it seemed promising for a time.
114
Mr. G, you're an ugly troll, an embittered also-ran who enjoys pissing on everybody out of some long buried slight.
Just like Richard Nixon.
Your points would be interesting if you could justify them, but instead you ignore opposing argument and do nothing but ad-hominem. No truth can come of that.
Truth can emerge from argument, and it's a beautiful thing, but you are subverting that process and turning everything you touch to shit. There's no point in reading you any further, though it seemed promising for a time.
Just like Richard Nixon.
Your points would be interesting if you could justify them, but instead you ignore opposing argument and do nothing but ad-hominem. No truth can come of that.
Truth can emerge from argument, and it's a beautiful thing, but you are subverting that process and turning everything you touch to shit. There's no point in reading you any further, though it seemed promising for a time.
115
Alaskan (#79), While I deplore the abuse of the Grand Jury for political repression and fishing expeditions, it isn't true that the May Day street violence consisted of 'trivial' property damage or no one was hurt. Blac Bloc radicals assaulted and bloodied journalists with the same poles they smashed windows...including vehicles park on the streets. Those who vandalize property to frighten the public, threaten, attack, and assault journalists should be held accountable. Having said that, there's no evidence any of the Grand Jury Resisters were responsible for any of this. You can read related articles including the assaults on Tony Overman, a Daily Olympian photojournalist on
amicuscuria.com/wordpress
amicuscuria.com/wordpress
116
Alaskan (#79), While I deplore the abuse of the Grand Jury for political repression and fishing expeditions, it isn't true that the May Day street violence consisted of 'trivial' property damage or no one was hurt. Blac Bloc radicals assaulted and bloodied journalists with the same poles they smashed windows...including vehicles park on the streets. Those who vandalize property to frighten the public, threaten, attack, and assault journalists should be held accountable. Having said that, there's no evidence any of the Grand Jury Resisters were responsible for any of this.
You can read related articles to this and how Tony Overman, a photojournalist for the Daily Olympian was assaulted by these same elements on
amicuscuria.com/wordpress
You can read related articles to this and how Tony Overman, a photojournalist for the Daily Olympian was assaulted by these same elements on
amicuscuria.com/wordpress
117
@116, can you define "Black Bloc radicals"; that sounds like the scariest term you could come up with for a group of folks...
But that's neither here nor there. I was reading on the American Bar Association about the federal grand jury system, and they had some meaningful bits (see http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about…
"In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith."
As a systems engineer, I think this is a poor way to setup any process. Basically, it sounds like the grand jury process is available to prosecutors with an ax to grind... as well as being available prosecutors who will use it carefully and thoughtfully.
I did notice Mr. G mentioned that there has never been a movement to abolish the grand jury system in the United States. I don't know whether that's true or not... but that really isn't important. Let's start now! Let's assess the use of the grand jury in this case, and others, and look for flaws in the process. Mr. G's (and others') opinion of these two individuals is hardly relevant to assessing the usefulness and ethical implications of the grand jury process.
But that's neither here nor there. I was reading on the American Bar Association about the federal grand jury system, and they had some meaningful bits (see http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about…
"In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith."
As a systems engineer, I think this is a poor way to setup any process. Basically, it sounds like the grand jury process is available to prosecutors with an ax to grind... as well as being available prosecutors who will use it carefully and thoughtfully.
I did notice Mr. G mentioned that there has never been a movement to abolish the grand jury system in the United States. I don't know whether that's true or not... but that really isn't important. Let's start now! Let's assess the use of the grand jury in this case, and others, and look for flaws in the process. Mr. G's (and others') opinion of these two individuals is hardly relevant to assessing the usefulness and ethical implications of the grand jury process.
119
#114/115, you can say that again! Now tell me, you open minded, intelligent "progressive" shithead, what do you really think?
120
Mr. G, (re: #90)
You can read a more in depth and (hopefully) balanced investigation of 'their' core beliefs at amicuscuria.com/wordpress
I've taken the time to seek what (A)narchists believe in and found the term to be so broad (and shallow) as to defy meaningful descriptions other than they're unhappy with hierarchy, state, and authority. Most (not all) are unhappy with capitalism, corporations, private property, and even the notion of individual rights. The screeds posted on various Puget Sound (A)narchist web sites are so contradictory or vacuuous and often turgid as to shed little light on your question.
One thing, however, stands out: The Grand Jury Resisters, whether they realize it or not, have stood up for a worthy principle--not acting as a conduit for government invasion into our personal lives interfering, as it does, with out inalienable right to belief, association, peaceful assembly, and bringing just grievances to our overseers.
You can read a more in depth and (hopefully) balanced investigation of 'their' core beliefs at amicuscuria.com/wordpress
I've taken the time to seek what (A)narchists believe in and found the term to be so broad (and shallow) as to defy meaningful descriptions other than they're unhappy with hierarchy, state, and authority. Most (not all) are unhappy with capitalism, corporations, private property, and even the notion of individual rights. The screeds posted on various Puget Sound (A)narchist web sites are so contradictory or vacuuous and often turgid as to shed little light on your question.
One thing, however, stands out: The Grand Jury Resisters, whether they realize it or not, have stood up for a worthy principle--not acting as a conduit for government invasion into our personal lives interfering, as it does, with out inalienable right to belief, association, peaceful assembly, and bringing just grievances to our overseers.
121
Alaskan, (#91)
Like Mr. G, I've been reviled by (A)narchists as a 'neo-nazi' by no less than Leah Plante (the now 'suspect' one-time poster-girl for their cause) for attempting to report, in my capacity as a photojournalist, on public events involving these violently radical street elements.
The facts belie your assertion the perpetrators of Seattle's May Day street violence are being pursued for trivial acts. I do, however, agree May Day is a pretext for a much larger government hidden agenda. I'm not certain even the federal prosecutor grasps this when obeying her/his marching orders from on high.
The May Day property damage was not insubstantial. People (photojournalists) were assaulted and injured, requiring medical attention. Area (A)narchist websites have repeatedly posted 'fatwas' urging the assault, injury, stalking and harassment of photojournalists such as the Daily Olympian's Tony Overman. Citizens were victimized for nothing more than parking their vehicles on the streets, finding them smashed/destroyed upon their return.
Private property rights [f(*)ck your stuff!] are contemptuously dismissed by this crowd and they urge theft/vandalism of the property of those casually seen as being more privileged than themselves. All in all, looking for the sunshine in this group is like looking for the orange dropped in the urinal. Taken to the logical limit of their own ideology, if they had/acquired any REAL power, we'd have to kill them!
Like Mr. G, I've been reviled by (A)narchists as a 'neo-nazi' by no less than Leah Plante (the now 'suspect' one-time poster-girl for their cause) for attempting to report, in my capacity as a photojournalist, on public events involving these violently radical street elements.
The facts belie your assertion the perpetrators of Seattle's May Day street violence are being pursued for trivial acts. I do, however, agree May Day is a pretext for a much larger government hidden agenda. I'm not certain even the federal prosecutor grasps this when obeying her/his marching orders from on high.
The May Day property damage was not insubstantial. People (photojournalists) were assaulted and injured, requiring medical attention. Area (A)narchist websites have repeatedly posted 'fatwas' urging the assault, injury, stalking and harassment of photojournalists such as the Daily Olympian's Tony Overman. Citizens were victimized for nothing more than parking their vehicles on the streets, finding them smashed/destroyed upon their return.
Private property rights [f(*)ck your stuff!] are contemptuously dismissed by this crowd and they urge theft/vandalism of the property of those casually seen as being more privileged than themselves. All in all, looking for the sunshine in this group is like looking for the orange dropped in the urinal. Taken to the logical limit of their own ideology, if they had/acquired any REAL power, we'd have to kill them!
122
Good lord, a lot of you would have LOVED the McCarthy years.
Someone, neither of these two, broke a window. Yes it's vandalism and they should be arrested...but these two in jail did not do it. Were it something violent, and they did know who did it, for sure they should be held. But no, the is the government digging their heels in and demanding information from people not involved. We have a lot of actual dangerous criminals and mentally ill people who need addressing before we go locking up (on our tax dollar) people who did NOTHING.
Someone, neither of these two, broke a window. Yes it's vandalism and they should be arrested...but these two in jail did not do it. Were it something violent, and they did know who did it, for sure they should be held. But no, the is the government digging their heels in and demanding information from people not involved. We have a lot of actual dangerous criminals and mentally ill people who need addressing before we go locking up (on our tax dollar) people who did NOTHING.
123
@pinbalwyz, interesting link. Confirms my original hunch that the feds see the May Day people being hooked up with the eco-terrorists. Olejnik and Duran can rot.
124
I stand corrected on the degree of the damage and on the fact that there were some injuries.
Nonetheless, it still isn't appropriate for a prosecutor to EVER ask questions about anyone's political beliefs.
If there was damage and some injuries, the issue is that harm was done...it doesn't make it WORSE that the harm was done in the name of an ideology.
Nonetheless, it still isn't appropriate for a prosecutor to EVER ask questions about anyone's political beliefs.
If there was damage and some injuries, the issue is that harm was done...it doesn't make it WORSE that the harm was done in the name of an ideology.
125
Did anyone else catch the irony when MisterG cites "black-and-white" mentality as the reason that all Alaskans are dipshits? Because apparently he sure as hell missed it.
As an AK resident myself, I'm guessing that his experiences on his visits are the result of him stumbling out of the airport mouth-first with idiotic questions about Palin, Deadliest Catch, and dogsled races; and then believing his suspicions confirmed when no intelligent local bothers to engage him in conversation.
We see tourists pull similar shit all the time, and of course such dumb tourists are only going to interact with dumb Alaskans. The rest of us are either avoiding you or laughing at you.
That said, AK's status as a red state does indicate that more than half the population is idiotic (including Parnell and Palin), but MrG has more in common with those idiots than he realizes if the childish nonsense in his last few posts is any indication.
As an AK resident myself, I'm guessing that his experiences on his visits are the result of him stumbling out of the airport mouth-first with idiotic questions about Palin, Deadliest Catch, and dogsled races; and then believing his suspicions confirmed when no intelligent local bothers to engage him in conversation.
We see tourists pull similar shit all the time, and of course such dumb tourists are only going to interact with dumb Alaskans. The rest of us are either avoiding you or laughing at you.
That said, AK's status as a red state does indicate that more than half the population is idiotic (including Parnell and Palin), but MrG has more in common with those idiots than he realizes if the childish nonsense in his last few posts is any indication.
126
#125, I was there before anyone (including me) outside of Hooterville North had ever heard of Sarah Baby. There are two creatures impossible to embarrass: dogs and Alaskans. Who else would wear those ever so tasteful rings and watchbands with the gold flakes piled up high? Walking self-parodies all over the place. Add meth, and ain't you got fun!
128
126: If you had any reading comprehension, you would see that my post already explains your experiences with Alaskans.
Here, I'll put it even more simply for you: dumb attracts dumb, wherever you go.
Here, I'll put it even more simply for you: dumb attracts dumb, wherever you go.
130
Here, I'll put it even more simply for you: dumb attracts dumb, wherever you go.
"I know you are but what am I?" is the best you can do? Well, I guess I shouldn't expect more of people whose formal education tends to stop after the eighth grade.
"I know you are but what am I?" is the best you can do? Well, I guess I shouldn't expect more of people whose formal education tends to stop after the eighth grade.
131
You go right ahead and just keep obliviously proving my point. I'll watch.
Maybe afterwards you can share your profound insights on how Chinese people have slanty eyes and French people pronounce their "R's" funny. I can see all that there fancy post-8th-grade education wasn't wasted on YOU.
Maybe afterwards you can share your profound insights on how Chinese people have slanty eyes and French people pronounce their "R's" funny. I can see all that there fancy post-8th-grade education wasn't wasted on YOU.
132
#131, I've got no problem with the Chinese, but the average Alaskan is barely smart enough to breathe.
133
Sounds a lot like the East German Stasi system where people were incarcerated because they would not become informers.
134
#132...The other question I've been meaning to ask you, "Mister", is this:
Why do you see the discussion here as being about Seattle(or other)"progressives" or "hipsters" or whomever, rather than about the individuals being discussed in the story?
We aren't the ones in jail. They are.
So why do we, the people you disagree with here, matter so much to you, "Mister"? Are we really the point here?
Why do you see the discussion here as being about Seattle(or other)"progressives" or "hipsters" or whomever, rather than about the individuals being discussed in the story?
We aren't the ones in jail. They are.
So why do we, the people you disagree with here, matter so much to you, "Mister"? Are we really the point here?
135
#134, you're from Palin Country, so I suppose I should expect stupidity and hypocrisy.
Look at posts 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 (yours), 36, 38, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 65, 67, 68, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79 (also yours), 80 (yours), 81 (yours), 86 (yours), 87 (yours), 110, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 125, 128, 129, 131 (yours), and 133.
All of those comment talk about more than just the two individuals in the story. But of course, since most of them are from "progressives," that's perfectly okay with you.
Do you even realize what a stupid piece of shit you really are? Nah, you don't. Neither does your cousin Sarah.
Look at posts 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 (yours), 36, 38, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 65, 67, 68, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79 (also yours), 80 (yours), 81 (yours), 86 (yours), 87 (yours), 110, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 125, 128, 129, 131 (yours), and 133.
All of those comment talk about more than just the two individuals in the story. But of course, since most of them are from "progressives," that's perfectly okay with you.
Do you even realize what a stupid piece of shit you really are? Nah, you don't. Neither does your cousin Sarah.
136
"Palin country" is the Railbelt(the area around Anchorage, and especially the Palmer/Wasilla area). I'm from Southeast Alaska...an area where Palin was NEVER popular(and an area where Palin was seldom scene, which was strange given that Juneau, her supposed job site, is located here).
I'm totally opposed to Palin, dude. And you can't hold the entire state responsible for her.
And the posts you discussed were about ideas, not about the egos and personalities of any of us. So it still wasn't cool for you to be obsessed with attacking the other posters. We aren't the point here. What is being done to these two people, and the larger ideas at play, are the point.
Besides, what did any "progressives" ever do to you? Did any of us, in practical terms, ever make your life worse in any measurable way? If so, how?
Why is personal animus such a driving factor with you?
I'm totally opposed to Palin, dude. And you can't hold the entire state responsible for her.
And the posts you discussed were about ideas, not about the egos and personalities of any of us. So it still wasn't cool for you to be obsessed with attacking the other posters. We aren't the point here. What is being done to these two people, and the larger ideas at play, are the point.
Besides, what did any "progressives" ever do to you? Did any of us, in practical terms, ever make your life worse in any measurable way? If so, how?
Why is personal animus such a driving factor with you?
137
Doesn't matter whether you're opposed (or claim to be) to your Cousin Sarah Baby. You're part of the same Clampett Family. You're just as stupid and just as hypocritical and just as righteously fucked up and just as aggressively and proudly ignorant as she is. Must be something in the water where you're from. Worst of all, your side of the Clampetts actually thinks they're smart, while Sarah's side at least knows how stupid they are.
138
p.s.: It's funny to watch "progressives" get so butthurt when someone gives them a taste of their own medicine. I mean come on, you fucking whiner, look at The Stranger. It's full of nastiness toward anyone who doesn't toe their line. Live by the sword, die by the sword, weakling.
139
Actually, no one here posted to you in the tone you've taken towards "progressives". At most, there was just some incredulity that you'd defend authoritarian actions, but it wasn't the "you're an idiot" tone that you've taken towards those who disagree with you.
140
And, once again, what exactly are you insinuating by putting the word "progressive" in quotes?
Are you saying those who disagree with you on this are secretly reactionary? That you, somehow, are the TRUE progressive? Or that the term "progressive" is a euphemism for something far more insidious and unsavory? Are you implying that we're secret CPUSA members or something? Or closeted jihadists? Just SAY whatever the hell it is you mean. Enoughalready with the "we all KNOW what I'm talking about here" tone. Nobody knows what you mean at all.
Are you saying those who disagree with you on this are secretly reactionary? That you, somehow, are the TRUE progressive? Or that the term "progressive" is a euphemism for something far more insidious and unsavory? Are you implying that we're secret CPUSA members or something? Or closeted jihadists? Just SAY whatever the hell it is you mean. Enoughalready with the "we all KNOW what I'm talking about here" tone. Nobody knows what you mean at all.
141
And, once again, what exactly are you insinuating by putting the word "progressive" in quotes?
Geez, what morons you and your Cousin Sarah Baby are. Every time I think I might have gone over the top with the insults, you show me that I haven't even begun to go far enough.
Quotation marks can be used to indicate skepticism, doubt, and irony. "Progressives" are all in favor of these things except when they are the targets, at which point they turn into disingenuous literalists who claim they don't understand what's happening. Do you even realize what a stupid hypocrite you are? I guess not. After all, you're an Alaskan, and not even your fellow "progressives" respect you.
Geez, what morons you and your Cousin Sarah Baby are. Every time I think I might have gone over the top with the insults, you show me that I haven't even begun to go far enough.
Quotation marks can be used to indicate skepticism, doubt, and irony. "Progressives" are all in favor of these things except when they are the targets, at which point they turn into disingenuous literalists who claim they don't understand what's happening. Do you even realize what a stupid hypocrite you are? I guess not. After all, you're an Alaskan, and not even your fellow "progressives" respect you.
142
OK, skepticism. What, might I ask, are you skeptical about towards progressives?
And what issues are there that you believe that "progressives" aren't progressive about when they affect their own lives?
Also, what would you describe yourself as, politically? Where would you place yourself on the spectrum, grid, or whatever?
(in some cases, actually, you might have a point, but you need to be precise about that).
And you still haven't said what exactly it is that those you refer to with the "p word" did that seems to have inspired such personal animosity from you. Did some of us do something that did you, personally, some sort of harm? That caused you to sacrifice in the name of "p word" ideas while exempting them from any sacrifices?
Just trying to understand what put this particular chip on your shoulder.
Oh, and dude, I don't really take myself all that seriously. I'm willing to admit it when I'm genuinely wrong on something, and to listen to legitimate opposing views. But those need to be framed, to be taken seriously, as "here's where your wrong and here's what might work better", not as "you're idiots and you're all full of shit". Insults aren't discussion.
And before you poing it out, I'd like to apologize for the posts when I got a bit personal towards you upthread. I was out of line. Sorry and my bad. Seriously.
And what issues are there that you believe that "progressives" aren't progressive about when they affect their own lives?
Also, what would you describe yourself as, politically? Where would you place yourself on the spectrum, grid, or whatever?
(in some cases, actually, you might have a point, but you need to be precise about that).
And you still haven't said what exactly it is that those you refer to with the "p word" did that seems to have inspired such personal animosity from you. Did some of us do something that did you, personally, some sort of harm? That caused you to sacrifice in the name of "p word" ideas while exempting them from any sacrifices?
Just trying to understand what put this particular chip on your shoulder.
Oh, and dude, I don't really take myself all that seriously. I'm willing to admit it when I'm genuinely wrong on something, and to listen to legitimate opposing views. But those need to be framed, to be taken seriously, as "here's where your wrong and here's what might work better", not as "you're idiots and you're all full of shit". Insults aren't discussion.
And before you poing it out, I'd like to apologize for the posts when I got a bit personal towards you upthread. I was out of line. Sorry and my bad. Seriously.
143
Also, I'm NOT, personally, a "progressive" in the dilettantish "hipster" mode. I work on a ferryboat and I'm a 52 year-old grandfather.
I'm actually to the LEFT of most of the people you probably think of as "progressives" in the smug, elitist sense. So don't assume you've got me pegged. Juat saying.
I'm actually to the LEFT of most of the people you probably think of as "progressives" in the smug, elitist sense. So don't assume you've got me pegged. Juat saying.
144
Okay, I'll back off the sarcasm for this post. No guarantees for subsequent ones. Seattle's local government, and much of the state government, is dominated by people who describe themselves as progressives.
In reality, they are blatantly, visibly, and outrageously corrupt. The "progressivism" and "environmentalism" in Seattle is almost entirely a hipster pose. Those who support these "progressives" are generally the sleep walking voters of Seattle, who are terribly served by all of the media outlets in the city and therefore don't see what actually happens.
That's the short story. Seattle is a good place to live but only in spite of the people who run it, and most of the eligible voters. My own politics: Pissed-off lunch bucket Democrat with declining patience for the shit that goes on here.
In reality, they are blatantly, visibly, and outrageously corrupt. The "progressivism" and "environmentalism" in Seattle is almost entirely a hipster pose. Those who support these "progressives" are generally the sleep walking voters of Seattle, who are terribly served by all of the media outlets in the city and therefore don't see what actually happens.
That's the short story. Seattle is a good place to live but only in spite of the people who run it, and most of the eligible voters. My own politics: Pissed-off lunch bucket Democrat with declining patience for the shit that goes on here.
145
Thanks for the civil and articulate response. I understand somewhat more where you're coming from on all of this.
146
I'm proud of these two ppl!! In reading a few of the comments that were quite negative & well these ppl mking such comments just are the lowest forms of life in my opinion.... I cannot fathom wtf is going on in our country right now.. We are supposed hv the right to plead the 5th.. Plus, if these two ppl were not even present & asked to provide info about something they hv no knowledge of then, they did cooperate by saying idk.. With this grand jury crap we are actually going against our own constitution i.e. the right to trial by jury.. There should be no secrecy, period!! There should be a public committee assigned w just as much authority to hv these prisoners released, until or unless an actual charge w some sort of credibility is presented.. The NDAA is in direct violation of our constitution & I believe anything or anyone that violates this trust by implementing something like this should immediately be found INVALID & those involved in comming up w such proposals & implementing anything that could or would violate our rights would be immediately be removed from their public office, forfeit any & all assets earned from the position & they should be the ones prosecuted & sent away!! Wow, I hv had jobs where I hv had complete bkgrnd cks & I couldn't comment on something I know nothing about.. There is no logic in that.. The morons on saying these 2 ppl need to grow up & answer questions they know nothing about must truly hv their anteriors lodged too far up their posteriors to see the light of day!! Astounding!!
147
MATT AND KTEEO WERE PUT BACK IN SOLITARY AT SEATAC ON THE 27TH. After not hearing from Matt for several days, his friends had his lawyer get in touch with him and they found out they were both put back in solitary on the 27th. We don't know why they were moved. PLEASE CALL SEATAC FDC AT 206-870-5700 TO DEMAND THAT MATTHEW DURAN AND KATHERINE OLEJNIK BE MOVED BACK TO GENERAL POPULATION.
148
#146, have you ever considered writing in complete sentences, with paragraphs and correct punctuation, or do anarchists consider illiteracy hip?
149
Something to consider here, Mister G- the people you are REALLY bashing as "progressives", the Seattle establishment types, are probably SUPPORTING what's being done to Matt and Katherine...people in the power structure would generally back up hardline prosecutor types and grand juries.
And the people in this comments section are actually the opponents of those establishment types that you are(rightly, in my opinion)calling out.
The anarchists, as I see it(and I'm not an anarchist, although they have some valid points on the use of voluntary social organization and mutual assistance in certain cases)are actually fighting FOR "lunchbox Democratic" types such as yourself...in other words, for the working class and against corporate power.
Just wanted to put that out there to think about.
And the people in this comments section are actually the opponents of those establishment types that you are(rightly, in my opinion)calling out.
The anarchists, as I see it(and I'm not an anarchist, although they have some valid points on the use of voluntary social organization and mutual assistance in certain cases)are actually fighting FOR "lunchbox Democratic" types such as yourself...in other words, for the working class and against corporate power.
Just wanted to put that out there to think about.
150
And by yourself, I also meant by MYSELF. We're both workers, and I think even a lot of the "hiptsters" are actually workers...you need to make a distinction between the upscale and downscale types within hipsterdom.
151
One BIG problem with this case is it is being done in the NAME of a Grand Jury but BY a Fed. Prosecutor. A lot of things done in the name of Grand Juries are not actually decided by them.. The prosecutor rolls into the room and tells the GJ this is what I am going to do.. and they tacitly agree. At least that is is what happened when I was on one. Fundamentally, this is upside down. The GJ could say, Mr. Prosecutor, we do not want to have these people in Jail and the Prosecutor would have to let them out.
152
#149/150, at best, the people sitting in jail are deluded kids. But that's probably too generous a reading, based on the anarchist websites. I don't see a single thing positive coming from them, so I'm just fine with the prosecutor throwing the book at them.
If they want out, they'll answer the goddamned questions. Otherwise, they can sit there until hell freezes over. I won't be surprised if the prosecutor convenes another grand jury when this one's term is over, and then another, and then another, and then another.
Fuck with the federal government, and this is what happens.
If they want out, they'll answer the goddamned questions. Otherwise, they can sit there until hell freezes over. I won't be surprised if the prosecutor convenes another grand jury when this one's term is over, and then another, and then another, and then another.
Fuck with the federal government, and this is what happens.
154
Mr. G(oatfucker)
Unbunch your panties and listen up, you little shit-talking pissant.
On behalf of all us hard-working, freedom loving, Palin despising Alaskans, we invite you to take a long walk on a short dock at Fishermen's Terminal and come discuss the difference between Words and Action. Either you will show some respect and apologize, or get Knocked the Fuck Out.
Hope your pussy ass job includes a dental plan.
Regards,
the Beast of Bristol Bay
Unbunch your panties and listen up, you little shit-talking pissant.
On behalf of all us hard-working, freedom loving, Palin despising Alaskans, we invite you to take a long walk on a short dock at Fishermen's Terminal and come discuss the difference between Words and Action. Either you will show some respect and apologize, or get Knocked the Fuck Out.
Hope your pussy ass job includes a dental plan.
Regards,
the Beast of Bristol Bay
155
I feel like a worse person for having read these comments. Thank you, Stranger commenters, for making me stupider. The ad hominem attacks, the non sequiturs, the broad assumptions, and the devastatingly awful lack of a memory about what happened in the US only 60 some years ago.
My favorite was the guy who assumed these people were 60's radical hippies (sure, they're what, 70 year-olds?), followed by still more who call them "kids."
I feel so privileged to be among you True Believers. Good job.
My favorite was the guy who assumed these people were 60's radical hippies (sure, they're what, 70 year-olds?), followed by still more who call them "kids."
I feel so privileged to be among you True Believers. Good job.
156
On behalf of all us hard-working, freedom loving, Palin despising Alaskans ...
... who take ourselves waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously!
... who take ourselves waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously!
158
I'm surprised an ad hominem troll gets so much action. Why not stick to the issue at hand and ignore the rest?
Also by Brendan Kiley
RSS
Twitter
Comments (158) RSS