Rocks Thrown Through Mayor McGinn's Home Windows


Oh come on, this is just light-hearted political protesting.

Just ask your associate Mr. Kiley.

Once again, I have to question why a fairly populist mayor is the target of these paid hooligans.

@1 - I question your reading comprehension. This is not what Brandon's article was about, nor was Brandon endorsing any kind of behavior.
I hope his two young daughters slept through it and didn't get the crap scared out often. Is traumatizing the mayors family supposed to accomplish something?
"of them". Not "often". Damn autocorrect.
@3 I question your ability to read between the lines. The long justification, even with the "but I don't approve" bullshit at the end, was an endorsement.
@3 - Yeah, it's important to read the things they're not writing. That's where you really get their real meaning.
well, that was counterproductive.
Doing this to McGinn's home is like beating up the retarted kid on the schoolbus. The easiest target. Sure, the guy is a dipshit, but he's an elected official trying to do his best to serve the liquer lobby and NBA, in addition to keeping the rest of us safe in the city.
You don't ever see these anarchists targeting billionaire hedgefund managers and CEO's. They might get their ass shot off.
It's strange, but the mobs roaming the streets of Medina last night somehow didn't make the news. Weird.
@3: My post had nothing to do with Brendon endorsing smashing windows, but his justification for why smashing windows can be a genuine political statement, and an acceptable form of conscientious protesting.

I am sorry, but not everyone is so dumb to read almost 2,000 words about why something illegal and immoral is actually ok, and assume it is all undone by one line of "but I don't endorse it" safety-word bullshit.

I bet you are the type of person who will insult and deprecate a person, but then say "just kidding" or "i'm just saying" at the end and assume that this means nothing you said earlier counts any longer.
@1, @3, etc. NO THAT IS NOT WHAT KILEY'S PIECE WAS ABOUT. It was specifically regarding/defending large, corporate storefronts, not individuals' homes.
What's the big deal? A little harmless property damage. To think that some less intelligent than you or I would conflate this with violence is laughable, right Brendan?
Prolly a suburban driver road-rageing over preceived inconvenient parking
@12, that is EXACTLY what Kiley's piece was about: property damage is an effective and justified way of taking it to the MAN, man. And this is the MAYOR -- talk about the man, man! It doesn't get any more THE MAN than that. Kiley's piece was a philosophical justification of terrorism, and here we have some more of it. Just property damage, right? You're not conflating windows with PEOPLE, are you? Because there's never any terrified people behind those windows, right?

Purely from a marketing perspective, yesterday's attacks, and this one on the mayor's house, were the best thing that ever happened to the SPD. It's popular to say the "anarchists" are paid agents of the police, but surely Kiley isn't? He's doing their work for them, though.
Clearly time to demolish McGinn's home and replace it with a six story mixed use condo, where he can buy a top floor unit. Many of us assumed he'd done this in his first year in office.
@12: Nowhere in Brendon's post did he make a distinction between private homes and businesses as targets for vandalism. You invented this out of whole cloth to make your tenous position more rational. If I am wrong about this, please point in the article where this distinction is clearly made, because I must have missed it.

He uses businesses in these particular examples because those were the targets yesterday, but nowhere does he say that private homes could not be applied to his acceptable window smashing rules.

The only distinction he makes is between actual players in the fiasco (world banks) and innocent bystanders (mom and pops). It seems to me that as an elected official, the mayor's house would fit into his scheme, as the mayor is clearly a major player in the economic and political life of the city.
"There is an enormous moral distinction between smashing a mayor's window and smashing a person. Lumping the two under the umbrella of "violence" is linguistically lazy and politically irresponsible."

Oh, yeah, I changed one word there.
What kind of society wants to live like this? I hope they catch the bastards that did this.
Wow. Ballsy.
Jesus fuck. Assholes. ASSHOLES. All smashy fuckwads stop NOW. There were CHILDREN ASLEEP IN THAT HOUSE YOU FUCKS.
The people who did this now have something in common with the Klansmen of the 60s.
Brilliant move. Break the windows of arguably one of country's more progressive mayors, and scare the shit out of his wife and kids. That'll get the public on your side.
fuck this bullshit, pansy assed unclefuckers !
Fucking hell. The more I think about this the more upset I get.
@22 they have ALWAYS been akin to Klansmen, as well as any other fear-driven hate/terrorist group that uses hysteria and violence to target a blanket group on the actions of a few.
Hey gurldogg, are these vandals your people or aren't they? Lets see if you have any balls here.
@26, are you talking about cops, or property-destroying anarchists? It's hard to tell.
In their 40's? WTF?

And I thought that 20-somethings were basically petulant man-children.

There's a lot of assumptions being made by ALL Y'ALL. Nobody has claimed credit for this act. If it was an act made by anarchists, there'll possibly be a communique coming.
I'd think that a publication that frequently endorses hate crime legislation would be able to grasp the link between property damage and psychological warfare. You don't have to be physically hurt to feel threatened or fearful. Rocks through windows, thrown paint, things burned on lawns...

Politically motivated vandalism has a lot of power and it's not about money. It's about motherfucking fear.
@30, oh goodie, a communique. Thank god.

But what if these anarchists are SO ANARCHICAL that they reject language as well?
Not cool man. Not cool.
@31 "Rocks through windows, thrown paint, things burned on lawns..."

...benefits cut, job moved to China, home lost due to medical's about motherfucking fear.
@34 The mayor's sleeping children did all that? Wow. Those are some hardcore little kids.
@ 28, what's unclear about my comment @ 22? Surely you didn't forget to go back and read that in your hasty attempt at wit, did you?
@36, my attempt at a poignant joke, kind sir.
Fracking Portland Anarchist THUGS.

Oh, btw, WW I Dazzle paint disguises your face from all facial recognition scanners, check out CV Dazzle or the CNN whatsnext blog.
@2 for the Follow The Money Trail win.

Contrary to stand-up comedy, anarchists don't issue a communiqué every time they upend a dustbin. There's a long history of letting the Action speak for itself; it used to be called "propaganda of the deed."

Also, it used to include things like assassination and bombing crowded public spaces, not just property damage, but today's neo-smashist groups seem to be a lot less interested in that sort of thing.
What a total scumbag thing to do.
I cant believe how many people (local or national) are saying this was all actions of the police.

Thugs smashing windows, cops are to blame.

Protesters provoking/taunting the police, cops are to blame.

Thugs throwing rocks at the mayors house, cops are to blame.

Global warming will destroy our planet, cops are to blame.

The agent provocateur excuse is getting really old.
I'm surprised there aren't video cameras set up outside the Mayor's home to record this kind of shit.
@ Everyone discussing anarchists.

Any consideration this could be right-wing thug retaliation against a liberal mayor? Why no description of clothes in the police report?

This shit's horrible. Stupid humans.
Oh no, the Seattle spin machine's two year's hate got McGinn's windows smashed! Let's all pretend this happened in a vacuum.

Joni Balter will be sending flowers, I'm sure.
@34 McGinn responsible for any of those things? He a 1%er?
These kids don't have the stones to go after the actual enemy they blather about in their manifestos (sounds like a new frito lay product, btw).

@44 he will soon and at our (taxpayer) expense. So, you know, thanks again for stickin it to the man.
@43: To me, it is really just a question of Occam's Razor:

When two guys smash the mayor's windows during a national worker protest day, is the simpler explanation that it is due to a far-reaching city-wide police conspiracy, or two numbnuts who wanted to break glass and play pretend revolutionaries?

I can't imagine this was protesters. It sounds like an idiot Fnarf type who wanted to make a point that the mayor isn't doing enough (ie, violating civil rights) to crack down on window smashers.

Seattle Times comments are filled with almost nothing but 40+ year old white men making the same argument about McGinn not shooting and jailing more protesters - "if you don't hate the protesters, give me your address and I'll smash your windows to see how you like it!!!!!11"
Maybe I'm the only one that saw the Anchorman straight-to-video "sequel", but my mind keeps drifting back to the Alarm Clock gang.

@49, go fuck yourself. This was you, not me.
...Furthermore, how did these two asbos thwart the security perimeter of Seattle's exclusive Greenwood neighborhood? Maybe I smell a conspiracy after all.
The War On Cars just got real.
@51 Though he does have a point ... Not the Fnarf part, but the angry Seattle Times commenter part.
Dude, I live like three blocks from the mayor. Don't be throwin' rocks in my hood, you guys.

And seriously, why are we picking on the Mayor again? He's actually been pretty decent, if maybe a little baffled by everything crazy that's gone down during his term.

I think Mayor Mikeginn is a pretty cool dude, eh riedes bikes and doesnt afraid of anything
@54, the Seattle Times comments have always been a cesspool. Not just them, but every big-city daily newspaper. That's what they're FOR. It's like pointing to YouTube comments as evidence of something.
This is outrageous. It reminds me of Omar-Tahir Garrett's assault with a bullhorn on former Mayor Paul Schell a decade or so ago (?).

Whatever, Mayor McGinn doesn't deserve it. He and his police force are to be commended for not letting the demonstrations get out of hand and for disarming the rampagers from vandalizing anymore property.

Good on both the Mayor & SPD.
@57, Garrett was crazy and wanted to be seen doing stuff; these people didn't. And NO one "deserves" having rocks thrown through their house windows.

There's no preventing this stuff, either rocks through house windows or store windows, and there's no catching people who do it.
@17: Nowhere in Brendon's post did he make a distinction between orphanages and businesses as targets for vandalism, either. Or ostrich ranches. Or moon bases. Do you think that that's because he's implicitly supporting vandalism of orphanages and ostrich ranches and hypothetical moon bases? Or is it maybe possible that he figured any reasonable reader would understand the distinction between the branch of a huge multinational corporation and a private home with people sleeping in it?
hopefully it happens every single night until diaz and o'neil are gone
@60, you are a dripping sack of dog vomit. And get this, genius: this attack, and the senseless vandalism last night, make getting rid of Diaz and O'Neil much, much harder. The SPD won this lopsided "battle against the dipshits". Big time: in the court of public opinion, it's SPD 850 not out, Swearingen and Co. 0.
@59 - Apparently, there is SO MUCH SUBTEXT that we are missing in Brandon's article. I, mean, he didn't call out pygmy marmosets as non-smashable, so clearly THEY MUST BE SMASHED.

"There's no preventing this stuff, either rocks through house windows or store windows, and there's no catching people who do it.

Well, that's not entirely true, is it?

You can quite effectively catch people who do that sort of thing simply by setting up a surveillance state; if not of the modern cameras-on-lampposts variety, then of the good old fashioned pervasive-secret-police-and-informants kind.

Either of which, needless to say, would go a long way toward preventing this sort of thing; but you can always add on stuff like walled mayoral manses, moats, official mayoral "guards" or armies, decoys, escape routes, multiple palaces, and so on.

If you've got any curiosity at all about this sort of nasty business, you can look around and find plenty of examples of what works, and what doesn't. Sure, you've got to get your head into a bit of a despot mindset, but this stuff is by no means "impossible."
@63 And one of the key ways to get a populace to buy into that brand of despotism is provide them with ready-made examples of their livelihood being threatened by thugs and economic collapse.

We've already weathered the latter, but I don't understand the fascination with black bloc tactics (and absolute refusal to even engage the media war) that will eventually give the state a tailor-made justification for enacting the very policies the smashists are deathly afraid of.

Smashing stores is stupid. Smashing windows is merely intimidation. Both are counterproductive, but the people involved in both are so intoxicated by the illusion of action that they can't see how they're feeding into the cycle.
The only distinction Brendon made was one between institutions that feed into the "system" of corporate fraud, theft, and the politicians that enable it, and those that do not. He comes out specifically mentioning multinationals opposed to "mom and pops."

No distinction is made between private homes and businesses. Since McGinn is a major politician, his house is fair game for protests, and Kiley sees smashing private property as an acceptable form of protest. The omission is important, and understanding such omissions is part of reading comprehension.

@62: Yes, writing has subtext to it, and in mocking my point, you prove how incredibly stupid you are. You can not even recognize the subtext, much less understand it. I always wonder what it is like to be a person who can read words but lacks the ability to understand what they mean.

He had ample chance in his bullshit last paragraph to exclude private homes, and he did not. Private property includes both the storefronts and dwellings, and Kiley writes that smashing private property owned by certain parties is acceptable protest.

@65 - And, yet, you are so insecure in your own reading that you feel the need to call me stupid because I disagree with you. You're so convinced that because Brandon omitted something that wasn't directly germane to the topic (destruction of corporate property as a political statement) that he was somehow endorsing it. That isn't subtext - that's reading intent where none exists, that's pretending to know a writer's mind without reference, and you made an assumption rather than questioning Brandon about WHY he didn't write about additional areas of vandalism.

Writing has subtext, yes, and the subtext of yours is that you can't refute what's written and so you must create arguments out of thin air.

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings by mocking your argument but your argument is incredibly poor and therefore worthy of severe mockery.
@ 66, Gorath makes stupid arguments a lot. He probably calls his opponents "stupid" preemptively.
@56 OK, how about the fact that the vandals downtown dressed all in black with concealed faces, while the vandals at the mayor's house did not conceal their faces, and even waved at McGinn's wife?
@66: Funny how my argument was so stupid that Kiley immediately addressed it (not mine personally, I know) by explicitly stating in his response today that he does see a distinction between homes and businesses.

He said this because he realized he omitted it in his initial post, and was quick to clarify his mistake.

He saw his position was untenable after what happened to McGinn, and so revised it accordingly. See, people who think out their positions revise them when presented with better arguements or new facts. I applaud Kiley for the revision of his thesis.

And Denver Matt, I am still waiting for that evidence that any nuclear accident immediately becomes a huge environmental disaster, and where you got your information about how dangerous nuclear waste is. Please describe the huge environmental disaster that took place after Three Mile Island.

Here is a lovely little section from a peer-reviewed scholarly text from physics professors at the University of Pittsburgh on the actual dangers and realities of nuclear waste and storing it. It is much more informative than what you have learned from The Simpsons. Enjoy!…

@ 69, I never said "any" accident becomes a "huge" environmental disaster. But... if you want to tell me to trust the businesses to run nuclear facilities (all kinds - energy, storage, what have you) with all the due diligence required to avoid major accidents, in contravention to all the evidence and experience that says they will cut corners and risk accident, then pull the other one.

I know this stuff CAN be handled correctly. I'm simply not fool enough to believe it will be.

"It's simple - nuclear is one energy source that has to be handled with no accidents and no mistakes. Ever. As soon as one happens, it's an environmental disaster. Full stop."
-Matt From Denver.

You really should not lie about things that are demonstrably false. Sorry if reading some facts made you have to furiously backpedal. Thanks for playing!
@ 71, what backpedal? My comment @ 70 is completely in line with the one you quote.

Let me spell it out for you.

You added the word "HUGE." Not me. You misquoted me. Nice try, jackoff.

Any time a nuclear accident happens, it contaminates the environment. I'll clarify that it has to escape containment first, which is probably the nit with which you are picking. But once it's out there, things are fucked. It may only be localized, but that is NEVER acceptable.

If you're going to dispute anything (and retain any of your nearly-all-lost credibility), you should dispute the notion that containment breaches are unacceptable. You should say why they are. Because they WILL happen, somewhere, sometime.
"I never said "any" accident becomes a "huge" environmental disaster."

"It's simple - nuclear is one energy source that has to be handled with no accidents and no mistakes. Ever. As soon as one happens, it's an environmental disaster. Full stop."

Pick nits on the superfluous adjectives if you will, but your denial is massive. Even in plain black and white you deny it. Please describe the enviromental disaster that occured after Three Mile Island.

And when I used the word "huge" I was not quoting, I was paraphrasing what you said. Quotes have quotation marks around them. They look like this: "..."
Oh, and I should let you know that Three Mile Island broke containment as you mention above, so it should be very easy for you to find data on and describe the environmental disaster that ocurred after the worst nuclear accident in American history, and likely in the top five worst nuclear disasters in world history.

How could I make it easier for you?

And yet Chernobyl did actually happen. And the unusable land (and water) left behind is the result of a disaster that was heroically contained, and not at all one that was left to simply run its course.

In terms of immediate damage, in lives or property, there are only a few electrical plants on earth, all of them hydroelectric, that could fail on a scale comparable to catastrophic nuclear power plant failure. In terms of total economic damage over time, no power-generating facility could experience maximal failure anywhere near that of a nuclear plant.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but I don't pretend it isn't more dangerous over time than any alternative (and that includes unregulated-emission coal, in a time scale of 100-1000 years, once we both account for pollution over time, and take into account any honestly estimated rate of catastrophic failure).
I wish this would have happened to Nickels after the snowpocalypse.