Author Naomi Wolf arrested for obeying the law instead of an unlawful order

[sjw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73eRqA4-Yic

[Selene]

Shayne:

Thanks.

After fighting back my repeated nausea over the repeated visual and audio of Keith, it is not surprising to see what happened to Naomi.

I am still not clear why she was on that sidewalk, but I will search the net later.

What I have always liked about her approach is that she is consistent. For example, she is in sync with the Tea party movement as the following article shockingly discovered.

It’s not just her message. She speaks their language, referring to the Founding Fathers and American Revolution as models, admitting to a profound sense of fear, warning of tyranny, fascism, Nazism and martial law.

When Glenn Beck warns of these things we laugh. When Wolf draws those same connections, we listen.

How can both sides be speaking the same language, yet see things so differently? Or are we just not listening to each other? I telephoned Wolf to ask her what it means when your book ends up bolstering policies you oppose.

This is a quality interview.

http://www.alternet.org/news/146184/naomi_wolf_thinks_the_tea_parties_help_fight_fascism_--

_is_she_on_to_something_or_in_fantasy_land__

One question that I did have when I listened to her video was her identification of the "park" as a public park. Zuccotti Park is private.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

What I have always liked about her approach is that she is consistent.

I have never been as impressed with Naomi Wolf as some libertarians seem to be. She is a very mixed bag, as we would expect from someone who claims to be pro-individual freedom, on the one hand, but who worked to elect Clinton and Gore, on the other hand. Consider the following comment by Wolf about Muslim women, which I took from the Wiki article:

Wolf has spoken about the dress required of women living in Muslim countries:

The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I traveled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channeling toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

What PC crap this is.

I never trust someone who identifies herself as a "progressive." This is a sound guideline that I recommend to others.

Ghs

[sjw]

None of that is relevant to this thread George. The subject here isn't Naomi, it's tyranny, and by all appearances, she's genuinely trying to fight it. If you want to make a case that she's not, she does have a book on the subject.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I never trust someone who identifies herself as a "progressive." This is a sound guideline that I recommend to others.

George,

Amen.

Glenn Beck has quoted Van Jones (from a 2005 interview) over and over: "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

That's also why he wears a coat and tie and speaks in correct English and has encouraged others to do like he does.

And that's also why many progressives say things that don't add up when you compare them against their acts and other statements.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I am all against police abuse, but I am very critical when judging anything based on first person accounts--especially from progressives.

I have looked a bit on Google (admittedly not too much), but all I can find is information based on Wolf's own account.

As of now, I simply don't have enough facts to say whether this was a legitimate case of police abuse or if there were some selective omissions and/or creative editing in her version of the tale. If it was abuse, let's see if Wolf sues the city. If this happened as she says it did, this should be a slam dunk for any pro bono activist lawyer to make his bones on.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I never trust someone who identifies herself as a "progressive." This is a sound guideline that I recommend to others.

George, Amen. Glenn Beck has quoted Van Jones (from a 2005 interview) over and over: "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." That's also why he wears a coat and tie and speaks in correct English and has encouraged others to do like he does. And that's also why many progressives say things that don't add up when you compare them against their acts and other statements. Michael

Michael,

Here is an example of Wolf's disingenuousness, taken from the interview linked earlier on this thread. Wolf said, "Obama has done things like Hitler did." Okay, so far, so good. But then we come to this:

JS: People criticize Beck’s use of that kind of language as incendiary and hyperbolic. Why is your use any different?

NW: Every time I use those analogies, I am doing it with a concrete footnoted historical context. When people like Glenn Beck throw around the word Nazi without taking that kind of care, they are engaging in demagoguery. There’s an important difference.

This self-serving evasion speaks volumes about Wolf. "Concrete footnoted historical context," my ass. Beck knows as much about history as she does.

Ghs

[Selene]

I never trust someone who identifies herself as a "progressive." This is a sound guideline that I recommend to others.

That's also why he wears a coat and tie and speaks in correct English and has encouraged others to do like he does.

And that's also why many progressives say things that don't add up when you compare them with their acts and statements.

Michael

Michael:

Precisely. Malcom X would, "preaching" from a corner in Harlem, with a black suit, white shirt and thin black tie, explain to the assembled that to "be heard in America," you need to dress properly, speak properly and think in the terms of the society you exited in.

This would usually accompany his "sermon" on black capitalism, wherein he would dress down the community for not forming it's own black banks, black enterprises and network with their own folks.

Have you noticed how Barack dresses so similarly to the Reverend Farrakhan's folks?

George:

I agree as to anyone who identifies themselves as advocating as a "progressive." I remember clearly that "her thighness," Hillary balked at being identified as the pejorative term "liberal" in 2008 and explained that she was a

progressive which sounds so much more intellectual and advanced!

As to he "PC" statement about Islam and women's garb, I can see your point, but it also harkens back to the family image of the "proper civil society" where women were to be prudently dressed in public.

It seems to mesh with the way women dressed in our own colonial times, at least in the centers of civil society.

I also surmise that for many women, it allows a comfort zone of propriety that has an attractiveness to it. I saw this in the Christian fundamentalist communities wherein Mennonite women were properly covered in public, but

quite different with their husbands.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

None of that is relevant to this thread George. The subject here isn't Naomi, it's tyranny, and by all appearances, she's genuinely trying to fight it. If you want to make a case that she's not, she does have a book on the subject. Shayne

I am not impressed by people who oppose one kind of tyranny because they wish to impose another kind of tyrannny. History is full of such hypocrites.

I have seen numerous interviews with Wolf, and I have read quite a bit of her stuff on the Net. I have no interest in reading her book.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Shayne,

I am all against police abuse, but I am very critical when judging anything based on first person accounts--especially from progressives.

I have looked a bit on Google (admittedly not too much), but all I can find is information based on Wolf's own account.

As of now, I simply don't have enough facts to say whether this was a legitimate case of police abuse or if there were some selective omissions and/or creative editing in her version of the tale. If it was abuse, let's see if Wolf sues the city. If this happened as she says it did, this should be a slam dunk for any pro bono activist lawyer to make his bones on.

Michael

According to the Wiki article on Wolf, she "was held in custody for an hour." This wasn't the impression I got from the interview with Olbermann.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George: I agree as to anyone who identifies themselves as advocating as a "progressive." I remember clearly that "her thighness," Hillary balked at being identified as the pejorative term "liberal" in 2008 and explained that she was a progressive which sounds so much more intellectual and advanced! As to he "PC" statement about Islam and women's garb, I can see your point, but it also harkens back to the family image of the "proper civil society" where women were to be prudently dressed in public. It seems to mesh with the way women dressed in our own colonial times, at least in the centers of civil society. I also surmise that for many women, it allows a comfort zone of propriety that has an attractiveness to it. I saw this in the Christian fundamentalist communities wherein Mennonite women were properly covered in public, but quite different with their husbands. Adam

Wolf poses as a defender of the U.S. Constitution. This alone is reason to question her sincerity. Are we to believe that she takes seriously the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8? Or the "forgotten" 9th Amendment? How about the 2nd Amendment? (I should note that I don't know Wolf's position on the latter, but my guess is that she parrots the typical leftist refrain about militias. I could be wrong, however.)

As with all progressives, whenever Wolf says "Constitution," she typically means the 1st Amendment and little else. Her praise of the Tea Party strikes me as little more than a political and/or commercial tactic.

On the Muslim issue: If the issue of dress really involves religion and culture alone, and if it is not repressive, then it should be voluntary, and the only sanctions should be social sanctions, such as ostracism. We are talking about coercive laws here -- laws for which disobedient Muslim women can be beaten (or worse).

This distinction is virtually self-evident to libertarians. The fact that Wolf glosses over the bright line between the social sphere of voluntary behavior and the governmental sphere of coercive laws exhibits the typical progressive mind-set. Progressives see nothing wrong with using force (or the threat of force), so long as the purpose for which coercion is used is one they happen to like. And this, more than anything else, is what makes progressives so despicable and dangerous, however much they may blather on about civil rights.

Ghs

[sjw]

This self-serving evasion speaks volumes about Wolf. "Concrete footnoted historical context," my ass. Beck knows as much about history as she does.

Ghs

I agree with that criticism, but her evasion is easily explained from subtle psychological issues, not as a bald-faced lie. I've seen you George engage in far worse evasions than that on OL.

Shayne

[Selene]

George: I agree as to anyone who identifies themselves as advocating as a "progressive." I remember clearly that "her thighness," Hillary balked at being identified as the pejorative term "liberal" in 2008 and explained that she was a progressive which sounds so much more intellectual and advanced! As to he "PC" statement about Islam and women's garb, I can see your point, but it also harkens back to the family image of the "proper civil society" where women were to be prudently dressed in public. It seems to mesh with the way women dressed in our own colonial times, at least in the centers of civil society. I also surmise that for many women, it allows a comfort zone of propriety that has an attractiveness to it. I saw this in the Christian fundamentalist communities wherein Mennonite women were properly covered in public, but quite different with their husbands. Adam

Wolf poses as a defender of the U.S. Constitution. This alone is reason to question her sincerity. Are we to believe that she takes seriously the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8? Or the "forgotten" 9th Amendment? How about the 2nd Amendment? (I should note that I don't know Wolf's position on the latter, but my guess is that she parrots the typical leftist refrain about militias. I could be wrong, however.)

As with all progressives, whenever Wolf says "Constitution," she typically means the 1st Amendment and little else. Her praise of the Tea Party strikes me as little more than a political and/or commercial tactic.

On the Muslim issue: If the issue of dress really involves religion and culture alone, and if it is not repressive, then it should be voluntary, and the only sanctions should be social sanctions, such as ostracism. We are talking about coercive laws here -- laws for which disobedient Muslim women can be beaten (or worse).

This distinction is virtually self-evident to libertarians. The fact that Wolf glosses over the bright line between the social sphere of voluntary behavior and the governmental sphere of coercive laws exhibits the typical progressive mind-set. Progressives see nothing wrong with using force (or the threat of force), so long as the purpose for which coercion is used is one they happen to like. And this, more than anything else, is what makes progressives so despicable and dangerous, however much they may blather on about civil rights.

Ghs

George:

Understood.

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

My early comment about her "consistency" concerned her statements on the Tea party.

I am not as familiar with her work as others.

I found her interview with Kieth a bit rambling. She also seemed to identify Zuccotti Park as a "public" park, which, of course, it is not. It is quite unique in that it is a "private" park and part of it's incorporating document states that the public shall have "access" to it 24 hours a day.

However, this means that the public can traverse the "park," since it is a concrete "park." Setting up camp is not within the underlying documents of the "park."

I found her to be quite disingenuous in her references in the Kieth interview, and , of course, did not expect that moron to press her on her statement.

Here is her statement about her "arrest:"

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/7975-focus-naomi-wolf--how-i-was-arrested-at-occupy-wall-street

She panders with many cliches in this account, including the conclusion:

Just that, unfortunately, my partner and I became exhibit A in a process that I have been warning Americans about since 2007: first they come for the "other" - the "terrorist", the brown person, the Muslim, the outsider; then they come for you - while you are standing on a sidewalk in evening dress, obeying the law.

Finally, as to the voluntary nature of the Muslim dress, it is clear that it is certainly not voluntary in Saudi Arabia and other Islamist states.

However, here in the US, I have run into a plethora of American women who have "voluntarily" converted to Islam and adopted the dress "voluntarily."

I have engaged in extensive conversations and discussions with many of these women, and they embrace the dress, and the security of being protected, apparently, with a fully voluntary mind.

Adam

[sjw]

None of that is relevant to this thread George. The subject here isn't Naomi, it's tyranny, and by all appearances, she's genuinely trying to fight it. If you want to make a case that she's not, she does have a book on the subject. Shayne

I am not impressed by people who oppose one kind of tyranny because they wish to impose another kind of tyrannny. History is full of such hypocrites.

I have seen numerous interviews with Wolf, and I have read quite a bit of her stuff on the Net. I have no interest in reading her book.

Ghs

There's a time and a place for focusing on her hypocrisy. How would you like it if I pointed out your hypocrisies every time your name was mentioned? Your attacks on her just aren't relevant to this event.

Shayne

[Jonathan]

On the Muslim issue: If the issue of dress really involves religion and culture alone, and if it is not repressive, then it should be voluntary, and the only sanctions should be social sanctions, such as ostracism. We are talking about coercive laws here -- laws for which disobedient Muslim women can be beaten (or worse).

This distinction is virtually self-evident to libertarians...

Wolf's views on Muslim women in Muslim nations remind me of idiot leftist journalists' comments on visiting the Soviet Union back in the 70s. They'd be led on a staged tour by Soviet officials in which they were shown how great communism was, and they'd be given chances to speak with any citizen they wanted, including interviewing them privately without officials or armed guards present, and, what do you know, all of the citizens reported that communism was great, and they loved it and had no complaints whatsoever! It was paradise!!!

J

[sjw]

George's knee-jerk ostracizing reaction to this reminds me of ARI's approach to so many things over the years. If someone said something wrong, then everything about them is suspect. George takes this to an extreme in being suspicious about an illegal arrest, where the backdrop is increasing tyranny that should make one think that illegal arrests are not uncommon.

The opposite approach is at least as distasteful: always looking for common ground and never criticizing. And yet these are the the two prevailing approaches in the political realm. It is unsurprising that a rational approach is the minority view. What is perhaps surprising is that George wouldn't use a rational approach himself.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

George's knee-jerk ostracizing reaction to this reminds me of ARI's approach to so many things over the years. If someone said something wrong, then everything about them is suspect. George takes this to an extreme in being suspicious about an illegal arrest, where the backdrop is increasing tyranny that should make one think that illegal arrests are not uncommon.

The opposite approach is at least as distasteful: always looking for common ground and never criticizing. And yet these are the the two prevailing approaches in the political realm. It is unsurprising that a rational approach is the minority view. What is perhaps surprising is that George wouldn't use a rational approach himself.

Shayne

If George is a hypocrite, it's hypocrisy for freedom. If Naomi is a hypocrite, it's hypocrisy for fascism, which is all progressivism really is although I suspect most progressives don't know it. Regardless, you cannot talk progressives out of their tribal mindset. You cannot make them advocates for freedom using reason. They need to be exposed, not converted.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

On the video she makes some good points. Her basic political fallacy therein is embracing democracy as opposed to representative government. I think she's being opportunistic qua liberty, just using it as a talking point but not really anchored in it intellectually or culturally.

--Brant

[sjw]

I have no idea what "hypocrisy for freedom" means. Reason and freedom are corollaries; to be a hypocrite is to be unreasonable and that can only undercut freedom.

Shayne

[sjw]

Here is some of Naomi's anti-fascist work:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Perhaps instead of ad hominem attacks on Naomi, someone might want to actually see what she says and review it.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps they think it's not important to help to Americans identify the fact that their government is sliding toward fascism.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

None of that is relevant to this thread George. The subject here isn't Naomi, it's tyranny, and by all appearances, she's genuinely trying to fight it. If you want to make a case that she's not, she does have a book on the subject. Shayne

I am not impressed by people who oppose one kind of tyranny because they wish to impose another kind of tyrannny. History is full of such hypocrites. I have seen numerous interviews with Wolf, and I have read quite a bit of her stuff on the Net. I have no interest in reading her book. Ghs

There's a time and a place for focusing on her hypocrisy. How would you like it if I pointed out your hypocrisies every time your name was mentioned? Your attacks on her just aren't relevant to this event. Shayne

Wolf was unjustly detained by the cops for a whole hour! Oh, my God! Stop the Presses! The Rubicon has been crossed! Proof positive that we are living in a tyrannical state! Let's have ten more threads on this monstrous atrocity!

Get a grip, you moron.

Ghs

[sjw]

Wolf was unjustly detained by the cops for a whole hour! Oh, my God! Stop the Presses! The Rubicon has been crossed! Proof positive that we are living in a tyrannical state! Let's have ten more threads on this monstrous atrocity!

Well, I think George just answered my question for Brant.

Is George a shill or just stupid? Or perhaps this is just his "try to make Shayne appear small" bit. It should not need to be spelled out to a man with George's background why it's a good idea to fight tyranny at the earliest stages, or why it is tyrannical to be be arrested and threatened with your picture and fingerprints to be put into a Federal database if you don't start behaving as they demand.

Shayne

[sjw]

Who would ever have thought that George was just a useful idiot for fascism.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Wolf was unjustly detained by the cops for a whole hour! Oh, my God! Stop the Presses! The Rubicon has been crossed! Proof positive that we are living in a tyrannical state! Let's have ten more threads on this monstrous atrocity!

Well, I think George just answered my question for Brant. Is George a shill or just stupid? Or perhaps this is just his "try to make Shayne appear small" bit. It should not need to be spelled out to a man with George's background why it's a good idea to fight tyranny at the earliest stages, or why it is tyrannical to be be arrested and threatened with your picture and fingerprints to be put into a Federal database if you don't start behaving as they demand. Shayne

Did it take a one-hour detention of a hypocritical progressive for you to understand that the U.S. is well on the way to tyranny? Apparently so.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We still only know what Wolf was detained for from her own account.

A little more due diligence here would be extremely helpful in judging this thing.

What if she was really at fault over something?

Is anyone else telling this story, or is it repetitions of what she said it was?

Michael