I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
frist
I too am uncomfortable with stifling protests. In the end, that is what differentiates us from "them." To limit protests seems to me to limit the right of the people to assemble for a redress of grievances. I would like nothing better than to see protests of reasonable, but contrary, points of view at both conventions. But by relegating people to "free speech zones" we are limiting the people's ability to speak: and that is simply unacceptable
amen, brother. the best way to protest Bush is to vote him out of office.
Giant puppets and I-hate-Bush signs will provide a great visual aid for those wishing to show America how "out of the mainstream" the liberals are.
Not to be too obvious here or anything, but the right of the people to assemble is spelled out in the First Amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What I would like to see New Yorkers and all others wanting to protest is just get out of or stay out of town.
Turning our backs on this absurd convention would be the best response.
I agree with dirtgirl. And I wish they'd ditch the "hey hey, ho ho" crap too. Maybe that was fresh 'n' exciting back in 1972, but nowadays it's just sad.
The good news is that the Republican "protest warriors" will undoubtedly make complete asses of themselves as well -- and that'll be campaign-commercial gold for the Democrats!
Deary, deary me. How sad you are, to think that marching to show your support for a cause or anger against someone makes you 'out of the mainstream'.
American indoctrination at its finest.
I love protests. I've got pictures of my dad at Civil Rights marches and at Dr. King's funeral. I have pictures of myself and my dad at several of the Viet Nam protests, and pictures of my son protesting Gulf I. Most recently, I've got pictures of my coven at the March for Women's Lives. So maybe it's just a family tradition thing with me.
However, I think the Viet Nam protests and the Civil Rights marches were very important in turning this country around and getting it headed in the correct direction. And the right to assemble and to petition the government is built into our Constitution, just as surely as the right to vote; I don't think the founders put those rights in as an afterthought.
I don't like the Orwellian-named "Free Speech Zones," although it's not clear to me how much of this is coming from the Democrats and how much of it is coming from the police, Secret Service, etc. I think protesting the platforms being adopted by the parties at their conventions does make sense. But I agree with dirtgirl -- if you never pick up a sign and march for even one block in your entire life, you can do a world of good by voting Bush out of office on Nov. 2nd.
Considering the tactics that Citizens for a Sound Economy use in supporting Nader, it wouldn't surprise me to see "stooge" protesters parading around paid for by the spinflippers.
I think public protest is crucial. I think that just because mainstream media didn't cover the anti-war protests like it should have, doesn't mean we should just forget protesting. We need to forget mainstream media, and work to get the word out in other ways.
Look, the 'thugs have been doing everything they can to eliminate a woman's right to choose. They've made it impossible to get an abortion in 89% of counties in the U.S. A show of solidarity like the Women's March on Washington did indeed show isolated women across the U.S. that there are others who are of like mind and who care about them, even though they feel surrounded by the enemy.
I know there will be lots of anti-Bush people at the RNC, but who is planning on protesting at the DNC? And did the Dems want the "free-speech zone" or did Mitt Romney and his Tabernacle Choir? I understand why they don't want people with signs and burning effigies right in front of the Fleet...someone with mischief in mind could too easily blend in. But why not just offer Boston Common to protesters instead of penning them in a dirt lot? People planning on protesting this week, whatever it is they're protesting, should just not show up and leave the 1st Amendment Gulag empty while they peacfully assemble somewhere else.
Kind or OT, but this touches on something I was just pondering a few days ago:
The loss of public spaces. There are no town squares anymore to get up on your "soapbox" and speak out. Town commons have been replaced by privately owned malls on many acred parking lots (also privately owned). Corporations don't just own our media - they own our "commons". You can't wear a T shirt with a message that may offend a Spencer's Gift shopper. You can't do anything that may "disturb" Baby Gaps profit margin inside their protected little "everything is merry here at the mall" environment.
Free speech zones aside - protesters and anyone else with somthing to say have already been marginalized. And we went along with it.
And, therefore, perhaps protesting in these cases serves another purpose - to try to reassert the right of protest itself.
That's the most important part. How did we get to the point where you can be ejected from a public place becase of a t-shirt you're wearing?
Dissent is a fundamental American right.
What DOES one wear to a protest nowadays? I mean with the teargas and the pepper spray, it's just so hard to find clothing that protects you AND says you don't shop at Abercombie or make a lot of $.
People should be careful what they protest for, they did in Chicago in 1968 and got Nixon, Agnew and Kissinger. Don't for a second think that any protests in Boston won't be amplified by the whores in our media.
You know with wall to wall stories about how horrible the security and logistics around the Democratic convention will be, not only for Boston and its suburbs but for the entire New England reigon it makes me afraid that New York is being entirely too lax about security surrounding the Georgus heist it's being subjected to later this summer. Bet we don't hear about how New Yorkers are being inconvienienced and pissed off by that.
Apparently I'm not the first to think of a Protest-pen boycott.
Mentioned in the article is the safety issue, which I hadn't thought of. If a group of peace demonstrators fills the pen, and someone heaves a molotov cocktail inside, how do they all get out without trampling each other?
I think it wrong to pen up the protesters- it goes against the democratic (big and little D) principle that we are the government and not just props to discard when they aren't needed. It's understandable from a sales-pitch perspective, because Kerry needs to show the Russerts, Broders etc(and the .009% of regular people who watch the convention) he isn't some wild eyed radical. Maybe it's an effort to keep infiltrators (like the GOP "protesters" in Florida) out.
If Kerry's elected I wonder if he will keep protesters at bay the way Bush has...he might, once those kind of precedents are begun they aren't often rolled back.
Until the mass media begins to accurately cover the issues the role of the protestor is one of the few actions that really get people's attention.
I agree with the previous commentor new methods are in order. The media can simply ignore the numbers distort the message and focus on the dysfunctional.
The Broadcast and cable companies are built on the use of public resources and we should demand more in return. And expect better from the FCC in terms of representing the public not the industries they allegedly regulate.
Magnum -- wow, you caught me. I am indoctrinated and brainwashed and also think saying dirty words about the president is anti-american & unworthy of a Slim Fast spokesperson.
Biblio -- "free speech zones" aren't an invention of Romney or the Democrats. It's a Secret Service invention that they use wherever the president goes. The secret service is in charge of national security special events (something Richard Clarke invented back in 1996 for the Atlanta olympics), and they get to make the rules. I don't think the cities or the parties particularly like the intrusions on free speech, not to mention traffic & commerce that are being imposed on them.
What DOES one wear to a protest nowadays
Tomato Observer, what are you talking about? In which 89% of U.S. counties is it "impossible" to get an abortion?
Reposting what I wrote below, to this more pertinent thread:
Hold your horsies. We've read right here, in fact, that Mass. Republican governor Mitt Romney has thrown every roadblock in the way of the Democratic Convention in Boston, since planss were first made to hold it there. Attempts to move it to someplace more generally problematic and out of the city, burdensome regulations (SO nice to be able to throw THAT old line at these bastards!), etc.
Can you really be sure that these weren't really the state's "security" measures, designed specifically as a "Look! SEE? The Democrats are just as appallingly restrictive as BUSH!" image sabotage by Romney? Meant only for that quick hit piece about it on CNN and the SCLM?
What DOES one wear to a protest nowadays
Hecate
Shoes you can run in and a bandanna you can hold over your face first aid kit is also reccomended.
Hecate should also be accompanied by owls and howling dogs. Imagine the effect that would have.
Free speech zones.
No-fly zones.
ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) - Police detained a family after airport authorities mistakenly reported their small plane had violated a no-fly zone near President Bush's Crawford ranch. In the confusion, the pilot they were seeking drove away.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 9, 2003
The Department of Homeland Security announced that the Republican National Convention to be held in the summer of 2004 in New York City will be designated a National Special Security Event. Previously, the Department announced the designation of the Democratic National Convention site in Boston as a National Special Security Event. When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead federal agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan and Federal resources are deployed to maintain the level of security needed for the event and the area.
I agree that protesting conventions isn't the most productive form of political action...in general. But I think you need to take into account the fact that the Republicans chose NYC and timed the convention very explicitly (and crassly) in order to get as much mileage as possible out of the 9/11 connection. (Whether they're kicking themselves for that decision now is anybody's guess.) I think that in itself is going to spur a lot of people to get out and make noise. It's certainly all the motivation I need.
Also, given the consensus in the media that this year's conventions are going to be particularly uneventful, there's a good chance for significant coverage of protests.
I love the idea of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers out in the streets to "welcome" the Repubs, just a few miles from Ground Zero.
And finally, if anybody thinks this year's protests are going to consist of puppets, tie-dye and "hey hey, ho ho," I advise them to check out billionairesforbush.com. There's more creativity out there than you think.
Damn! Holoscan ate my comment!
I was trying to say that I wore my Hermes "Liberte" scarf to the March for Women's Lives and got so much grief from my son and daughter-in-law who marched with us. When I went to my first march, which was against the Viet Nam war, I wore jeans, and a peasant top, and wire-rimmed glasses.
Modern marches are so different from the old days, before the pre-march organization on the web, before cell phones allowed people to find each other in a crowd, before Blackberries let you e-mail pictures of the event to your friends back home.
Only one thing hasn't changed: we're still having to march for women's rights.
I'm sorry, the number is 87%; 87% of counties in the US do not have abortion providers.
I've been warned at various times not to attend protests that weren't safe. When my daughter was an infant, I took her to Gulf War I protests pretty regularly, but when I called Planned Parenthood about taking her to a pro-choice protest, I was warned against it. They woman sounded genuinely disappointed, but said she couldn't guarantee her safety int he face of Operation Rescue (back when they were a force).
At the NYC protest in February 2003, they kept pushing people uptown, trying to keep the crowd to one street, or possibly away from the protest altogether. But people rushed barricades and got in anyway, and the overflow of people trying to get in shut down most of Manhattan that day. Didn't see anything about that in the press, of course. Perhaps they were trying out the free-speech zone principle there. But what will they do if it overflows?
I still like the idea of the owls at least. The dogs might come in handy too.
That link above goes to the State of Iowa, but there is national data there. Iowa only has 8 abortion providers for the whole state. There's a lot of distance to travel to get an abortion. When I lived in East Texas, women in my town would have to travel 100 miles to Houston if they wanted an abortion.
It is important for isolated women to know that there are other women supporting their right to choose. I work for a university, and it's not unheard of for young women who become pregnant to attempt suicide, even in this day and age when you'd think if you lived on a coast that they felt sure they have options.
EPT,
I love it! Hecate is three-headed, so I might have to work on that aspect of it.
I love the smell of tear gas in the morning.
The thug hatefest should be scrubbed.
Who wants to see assholes rubbed?
We've heard it before
From these fucking whores.
Let's hope their "message" is flubbed.
I'm not sure, Atrios. Seems like protests in NYC could have some significant impact. I don't know for good or bad ("Hate fest!" and everything done re: the Wellstone memorial), but it seems entirely possible that *something* will come of it.
When did protesting injustice become "politically incorrect" (or, as you seem to imply) stupid??
I've done a rotation in my grave.
Boston Common: the oldest "Free Speech Zone" in America. Is that under lockdown for the convention? Sam Adams would be spinning in his nearby tomb.
I feel much better about things--some very good posts and I take back some of my overgeneralized comments about Democrats.
Free speech is constitutionally protected, and is important to all, whether you agree with the speech or not.
I never gave a thought to Romney's hand in the tactics used in Boston.
Tomato: Good heavens. I had no idea. Funny how our rights just slowly erode from under us. Thank you for the info. I'm not a big "fan" of abortion (contrary to ALL pro-CHOICE people who ARE! And can't WAIT TO KILL BABIES! -- do I have my screaming rhetoric right?) but I am NOT going to be the one to say, "Sorry. You can't have one, because I, a white millionaire lawmaker, know better than you and your spouse/partner/doctor/nurse practitioner what medical attention you need." GRRRRR...there is a group of people who stand on a local sidewalk with HUGE posters of aborted fetuses -- I guess that's what they are -- and I agree with their right to protest, but I avoid going past there becuase I don't want to have to explain the pictures to my little kids. Call me a coward that way. I feel like screaming at them: "If you're so "pro life," go hold babies in the NICU! Give that single mother a ride to her OB! Baby-sit that other mother's 2 kids while she goes in for her exams!"
Sorry for hijack. End of rant. And we thank you for your support.
Here is a link to a local news report on the protest pen. The video isn't great, but for those of you who haven't seen it you might be interested.
http://tinyurl.com/64gj3
This space is unquestionably dangerous. They had to cut down the number of people permitted in from 3000 to 1000 because of so few exits. It is near a low heavy beam that anyone above average height would whack if they were fleeing. You just never know what might happen in a crowd situation. This is just beyond understanding.
I agree with some of what you are saying about the protestors. I got a letter to the editor published in Newsday NYC edition basically saying the same thing. My name is Jason Gooljar if you are interested in reading it i'm sure if you do a search on newsday you can find it.
Jason Gooljar
Free speech works both ways. The conventioneers have free speech and assembly rights too. Watch closely and see who disrupts whose free speech rights first this week.
Let's don't forget that the conventioneers have property rights, too. I'm sure they paid to be where they are [It's our microphone because we paid for it, right?]. Like to see some Bushie exercise his free speech rights in my house. Ain't going to happen.
One other point. The Democrats are the party out of power federally. Therefore, there is a greater need to balance free speech rights in their favor as opposed to those of the paid thugs of the dominant political party. Think about it. You have a private meeting in your home to discuss the political situation and the Bush administration hears about it and sends federal agents down to exercise their right of assembly in front of, around and in your house. Whose free speech rights are being constitutionally impacted the most?
Finally, don't ever feel you have to be consistent. They don't. And their restraints on constitutional rights will be 10 times worse. Take a page from their book. You should have raised the issue before their convention.
I'm against protests, but everytime I demonstrate that opinion in public I wind up hating myself.
If the space is really only designed for 1000 people, I hope they have ambulances on hand--things are going to get ugly and dangerous.
Will there be a bouncer? A waiting list?
OT, but yesterday we had another murder-suicide by a soldier at Ft. Hood who had recently returned from Iraq.
Two deaths that won't wind up in the official count.
Protesting anything in the USA should be sacrosanct but it isn't.
Protesters are either mistreated by police or harassed by opposition that doesn't want the protest message to get out.
But probably the worst thing that has happened has been the corporate owned mass media, which has marginalized protests to the realm of the insignificant.
In today's media climate it's doubtful the Civil rights movement would have succeeded or the termination of the Vietnam war.
A blog entry oblvious to the civil rights movement. And the Vietnam War.
Political conventions aren't appropriate targets? Absolutely absurd. Protesting them is like "protesting polling places"? Even more absurd because it's unheard of and suggests that challenging offical opinion equals challenging the electoral process.
The arguement that our public places aren't as good as European public places is both bizarre and weak. Not to mention this poor arguement does not speak to the offical and contrived marginizaltion of the Boston and New York protest areas. An elitest view of free speech. Frightening.
For serious protest marches, I always recommend a really heavy, Liberty silk scarf as basic gear - as a tear gas filter the silk is superb, very strong in the event you need to tie something, and confuses those around you as to your social station. Adding in a standard issue first aid kit is always wise as well. Frye boots always worked for me - good support, resistent to damage from hooves. Several, discreetly stored copies of the local ACLU lawyers Action Line, along with a phone card or two.
I'd also suggest to Hecate that she take this little girl with her, just to add piquancy. And, that the pen be filled as quickly as possible so that it explodes.
We need to let protest occur with due process observed. Engage these protesters with honest dialogue.
Not being allowed to voice dissent=not allowing nader to run. No good reason for it.
Protest Congress or Governors/State Capitals...that is where the polciy is made.
By the way, Kossaks, Atri-eagles...it would be nice if you took cams and got any pics of troublecauser's faces. Taile em, see if they stop by the RNC war room for directions.
Expect a beer hall Putsch , or a similar attempt.
The only way things will get ugly and dangerous is if 'thugs and wingers show up.
Look. Worrying about what protests could make people think (i.e. "it'll just make us look like out of the mainstream liberals" etc) is about as silly as worrying about picking a presidential candidate based on who will give the Republicans the least amount of ammunition.
People who want to attack the Democrats will attack the Democrats. If it's not the protesters, it'll be something else. I personally think Bush should tell the right-wing Christians to stay home if he doesn't want to be associated with lunatics, but you don't see him acquiescing to those demands, do you?
Rather than saying the protesters should stay home, we need to find a better way to respond to attacks instead of trying to offend the least amount of people possible. Because last time I checked, that strategy sucked out loud.
A.
let's just have a safe convention.
see you on thursday.
Protesters have a right to protest and the Democratic party has a right (if not a duty) to conduct it's business and select a credible alternative to the miserable failure, Bushboy.
Both goals can be accomplished without either side having it's rights abrogated, although both may have to endure some inconveniences.
Compromise is the lubricant for peaceful society.
Having said that, I'm sure there will be protestors who will refuse to any limitations of their right to make a scene and they should be dealt with as humanely and appropriately as possible.
T.O.,
I wish I could agree with you on the ugly/dangerous thing. But I think the bulk of protesters in Boston will be Naderites, frankly, and I don't see that going well. I fully support their right to be there, and I wish there would be enough space for everyone to have their say without getting in each other's faces--the subtlety of our various positions being clear enough on a board like this. But I just think the stress, compression, and upset will explode somehow, and the razor wire seems like a really nasty variable in the process.
we need to find a better way to respond to attacks instead of trying to offend the least amount of people possible. Because last time I checked, that strategy sucked out loud
What Athenae said!
A blog entry oblvious to the civil rights movement. And the Vietnam War.
Political conventions aren't appropriate targets? Absolutely absurd. Protesting them is like "protesting polling places"? Even more absurd because it's unheard of and suggests that challenging offical opinion equals challenging the electoral process.
The arguement that our public places aren't as good as European public places is both bizarre and weak. Not to mention this poor arguement does not speak to the offical and contrived marginizaltion of the Boston and New York protest areas. An elitest view of free speech. Frightening.
The importance of protests at the conventions is not to let GOPers shout at Dems, or Dems to shout at GOPers, but rather to voice the concerns not represented by either of the major parties.
This year, the key issue is peace. A majority of Americans are now against our Iraq misadventure. Neither major party ticket is. Kerry's folks made sure that the Democratic platform would not criticize the war on Iraq, and that there would be no floor fight over this issue. And we all know where the GOP stands on this issue.
One of the chief dysfunctions of our political system is that the leadership of the two major parties (with the media carefully following them) can define key issues like this out of existence.
It's thus imperative for those of us who believe that we need to get out of Iraq now to show up both in Boston and in NYC and make our voices heard.
Yes, we need to be careful about how we do this. The twin possibilities of our being ignored, or of our protest resulting in some sort of backlash are very real. But to say that protesting will be tricky does not make that protest any less necessary.
The disconnect between public opinion and the actions of this administration -- or a likely Kerry administration -- still exists, Atrios. So get out into the streets (but please behave yourselves)!
''Nobody is being required to use the demonstration zone," said Mary Jo Harris, legal counsel for the Boston Police Department, who oversaw the design of the area. ''The demonstration zone is provided merely for those people who wish to be able to express themselves directly to the delegates."
Mwaaaahhh ha ha ha!
Anyone who's seen this zone up close knows how hilarious that is.
It's pretty much totally hidden. Razorwire, netting, 3-deep chainlink fence, pylons, buildings, media vans, and a fair amount of distance from the FC.
By the way, I, um, really don't think that anyone should worry about anarchists attacking delegates. They tend to not be into violence against people, or at least people who aren't already in riot gear. It's pretty safe to ignore the propaganda the police routinely distribute to the media about kids hoping to throw "urine filled balloons" at bystanders... it's never happened and I'd be pretty shocked if it ever did.
Freepers, Operation Rescuers, and white nationalists, on the other hand: watch out for those ones.
NYMary, I dunno. I guess I don't know too many Naderites anymore.
I really hope all the protesters avoid the zone. It looks very dangerous. I was once at a Grateful Dead concert that threatened to get out of hand like that. A Dead concert! But, you put too many people in too small a space, when it's hot out and there aren't enough bathrooms, and tempers flare no matter who the players are.
I'm just thinking back to Florida, when the belligerent thugs intimidated the Supreme Court.
No Law Abridging the Freedom to Assemble!
There it is.
P.S. I am not the Harold above
OT: Grr. One of the (normally) BEST St. Pete Times columnists pens this, headlined "Touch screen opponents are great at ignoring facts." Anyone else feel like raising Howard Troxler's consciousness a bit? His e-mail link is under his pic.
Speaking of protests
Lee Hamilton on Punkinhed's show-
polling in Egypt says 100% of Egyptians hate us.
And yet according to some lame polls more people still think Bush would do a better job at fighting terrorism.
A box of rocks would do a better job than Bush.
Athenae: If you're not considering how protests will affect people's thinking, why are you protesting? Is it just a social event?
Just curious:
So what do you suggest be said to people in NYC? "Sorry that Bush ignored the threat that led to 9/11. Sorry he didn't follow through on his promises of financial support. Sorry he has screwed you out of any real homeland security funding. Just vote, even though, under the electoral college, your vote doesn't have any impact."
?
Can someone please explain to me what's going on?
The right to protest is a fundamental constitutional right for all Americans. It is basic, important, and never silly. If Supreme Court justices are appointed who protect this fundamental right, free speech zones like the ugly one set up in Boston will be declared unconstitutional. The right to protest is meaningless if the places where protest is allowed are too small, dangerous, and marginalized.
The Florida thing was staged, no? Not that this wouldn't be....
And I was once crushed in a crowd press between A Flock of Seagulls and The Go-go's (the fans, not the bands)--how humiliating would it have been to go that way? But it was only a couple of years after The Who in Cincinnati, so I took it seriously. But I don't think it's my claustrophobia alone that makes me fear this setup. Hopefully, you're right, though.
(And OT--I am also get a mom who gets dragged out of bed early on the weekends to make breakfast. Blogging helps me to pretend that the Wiggles aren't on.)
I wholeheartedly agree with Steve on this one. A party convention in itself is hardly a controversial event. But given the history of this administration, the choice of New York City is remarkably craven. This president will have visited NYC twice (to my memory) in his first term. The first time, he came to stand on a pile of rubble and assume some of the glory of the heroes working at Ground Zero. The second time, he'll be trying to do the same all over again.
When it comes to 9/11, the Preznit will say, "we are all New Yorkers," just as Le Monde said, "we are all Americans," in the days after the attacks. But on every other issue, the WH and the Right-Wing attack pack will insult us with characterizations such as "the Northeastern elite," "out of the American mainstream," and of course, "downright unAmerican."
Atrios, there is good reason for us to protest the convention. There would be good cause to protest the Preznit's very presence in our fair city. The Republicans might want to hide their true colors (DeLay, Hastert, and Santorum), but we will be there to show him and his supporters nationwide that WE, in fact, are the real New Yorkers. This is our home and damn him for trying to exploit our tragedy for his narrow political gain.
But I think the bulk of protesters in Boston will be Naderites
What the fuck planet do you live on?
The bulk of protesters will be comprised of (a) people who are going to vote Kerry but still want to voice, say, opposition to war and the domestic security state; (b) people who don't live in swing states and will vote Green or some kind of progressive third party (this doesn't count Nader) in order to build support for those organizations; and (c) people who are ideologically opposed to "voting for their masters" and whatnot.
Wherever they're coming from, Nader's poll numbers are not coming from street activists or career progressives. I was at the Boston Social Forum conference this weekend and I don't think a single Naderite approached me.
I'm sure there will be a handful of Nader fans there. There'll be all kinds of wingers. But don't confuse progressive criticism of the Dems with "Naderism."
You protest to put information out there and make your views known. What others do with that information is their own business. But because of you and your voice, they have the information.
I don't protest to "make" people think any one thing. I protest to make sure people know there are other views out there.
A.
My kids are so OVER the Wiggles. I am one of those terrible parents who doesn't even screen what the hell my kids watch. That's how it took me about a dozen showings of Beethoven (the movie about the dog) to figure out it was a winger advertisement for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And I still let them watch the damn thing. That dog is so cute!
way OT:
Went to see bourne last night (pretty good) and am was pretty floored to see the extent of commercials before movies and even BEFORE previews! Doors opened 20 minutes before the "start time" of 9:30. The run full 30-second commercials for 18 minutes then start the "previews" for another 10 minutes before the actual movie that was supposed to begin at 9:30 started at 9:40ish. Of the many commercials, one that ran perhaps FOUR fucking times was the one for "The Grid" "Our Government's SEXIEST anti-terror team is out to protect YOU from the bad guys" who coincidentally were all brown people. Then you had 2 commercials for "The Army: An Army of One"
Fear and control being forced on a captive audience.
Newsday describes the New Iraq:
The Intelligence Service has its own secret prison. Criminals wear uniforms and collect police salaries. Senior security officials hand out jobs to family members. Investigators charged with being watchdogs over the police say they have little or no power. They report to the interior minister rather than to justice itself. The police arrest the innocent, beat them, and imprison them without charge; and in at least one case, police shot dead an innocent bystander.
This is not Saddam Hussein's corrupt police state. This is the new Iraq run by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the man the international community is hoping will shepherd Iraqi democracy into being early next year. There are so many corrupt, violent and useless police officers in the new Iraqi police force that, according to a senior American adviser to the Iraqi police, the U.S. government is about to pay off 30,000 police officers at a cost of $60 million to the American taxpayer.
Jeebus, Holden. Our tax dollars at work: going down a black hole of corporate corruption and embezzlement, and helping to build up a new dictatorship! Yay us!
"What the fuck planet do you live on?"
Last time I checked, this one. But I'm sorry if you find my opinion, clearly expressed as such, offensive. I too wish Kerry were a more progressive Democrat. But he's not stupid, and hardly needs to be reminded that this war is incredibly unpopular.
The problem I anticipate in Boston is that people who interpret minor differences in the political spectrum as opportunities to say things like "What the fuck planet do you live on?" are likely to get real nasty, real fast.
Whoudda thunk it? The Dems do for real what everyone imagines that the Republicans do.
If you're trying to put information out, you need to consider how you're doing it, and how effective that communication will be when filtered through the media. Preaching to the choir may energize the folks on your side, but it doesn't get information out to new people. Not all protest is equally effective, and it's not a surrender of principles to recognize that fact.
Alice Marshall,
They're not mutually exclusive activities.
In my opinion, the best way to protest is to have a general strike -- even for a few hours.
Marches are still good and right to have them should not be abridged.
I plan to wear red every day of the thug convention--if I am in town.
Not that it works, but I believe the reason to protest at a convention is to influence the delegates, (1) to address your issues in the party platform, and (2) to select your candidates.
Publicity would be another reason, since it is expected that there will be a lot of press at each convention.
Atrios, does that answer your question of why conventions are appropriate targets for protest?
I wasn't saying "what the fuck planet do you live on" as anger over disagreeing with your opinion--I have no idea what your opinion is.
It was more of a headshaking disbelief thing, about where are you people see all these phantom Naderites.
I should have made more effort to convey that tone; many different things come through as yelling in text.
Seriously though, where are these Naderite throngs?
Holden,
Keep it up! I appreciate the way you've stayed on this story about how we've "liberated" Iraq and replaced an "evil dictator" who "killed his own people."
Sure wouldn't know it from reading the WaPo, NYT, or watching TV. Look! Sandy Berger's socks!
Re keeping protesters penned in New York -- last week a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that police *cannot* restrict demonstrators through the use of fences.
In another development I'm still trying to figure out -- United for Peace and Justice had been trying to get a permit for a big rally in Central Park on August 29. But the city of New York refused the Central Park location, and instead insisted on a march route that goes past Madison Square Garden and ends near Ground Zero. To which I say, what's the catch?
Details here.
Atrios, you may have laryngitis, but there is nothing wrong with the nimbleness of your fingers on a computer keyboard -- that was a LONG post!
I don't protest to "make" people think any one thing. I protest to make sure people know there are other views out there.
Exactly, I remember how heartening it was to me to see the massive anti-war protests worldwide. With the SCLM beaming the administration lies over and over again and all of the bullshit about a coalition of the willing, it was so encouraging to see the images of people all over the planet voicing their outrage at this illegal, immoral war in Iraq.
Also on a local level, we went out to the town square for a demonstration where hundreds of like-minded folks carried signs and made speeches. It gives a perspective that gets lost if you're relying on CNN for your analysis. Protest reminds us that we're not alone.
How can protesting an event which contains party representatives from all over the country be silly or unproductive?
Also, need I mention that all major media covers the event? What better place to attempt to make a statement?
Where else does a person have a better place to be heard? Certainly not on your local street corner, protesting the cars as they drive by on a normal business day in Somewhere, Somestate, U.S.A.
I was at the protest on Bush's inauguration day. It felt great to be around similar minded people from all over the country. The media may have ignored us, the Bush administration may have tried to trivialize us, the event itself may not MEAN anything, but we still made a stand and it FELT GREAT.
You should have felt the thunder as Bush's limo passed, and the entire crowd booed in unision and shouted "fuck you, thief."
It may not have done anything, but I'm a better person for at least speaking my mind, and it made me feel a great deal better.
Cheers!
I think we probably don't have enough protests in this country and that's led to people like Bush being electable. Too many people are afraid to voice their opinion on an issue, or to have differing opinions on issues, because they're afraid of being alone on the issue.
We've become a nation of sheep. How else can you explain so many people voting against their own interests and supporting the evil bastard republicans?
Anyway, I'll be there in NYC protesting against the evil bastards, and especially against the evil bastard-in-chief, and those who choose to sit at home because they're more comfortable keeping their liberal views in the closet, or limited to the anonymity of the internet, may do so.
I'm gonna start checking the minority box on forms. I'm straight, white, male, in my 40s, and when people ask me if I'm a Democrat or a Republican, I reply "I'm a LIBERAL Democrat." I'm truly a minority.
But don't confuse progressive criticism of the Dems with "Naderism."
There's a time and place for everything. In ordinary times, there is room for all kinds of ideas/arguements on the left. These are not ordinary times.
The strength of the repukes is the ability to stay on message. That's why the third of the electorate that are card-carrying repukes have been able to gain control of the government - because they stick together come hell or high water.
If the left (Dems, Greens, Naderites, etc.) are to further any principles, it will have to be done from the inside. That means retaking the government. There will be plenty of time for criticism of the Dems if and when the Dems regain control.
mj, Sorry for overreacting. I teach at the college level, where Nader's quite popular. I voted for the man myself in 2K, living in a safe state and really wanting to see the Greens get 5%. But there certainly have been enough folks here on Atrios's site who rail about Nader being the only way to send the Dems a message--"cost them the WH again! That'll teach 'em!"--to give one pause. I hope you're right and that this is really about subtleties in the platform... though I still think the razor wire doesn't really bode well.
Isn't it one of life's little ironies that the Eschatonians can get so exercised about free speech when they think an opportunity to bash the President will be missed, but are never able to reach the same concern when a poster such as myself is critical of their "facts" or their hateful tone.
"....to petition the Government for a redress...."Im still waiting for my redress,to go with my pink satin pumps.
Hi, Atrios! Thanks for your post! You should so totally not protest our Dad's convention. Protesting takes time away from fun and interesting activities like going to Neiman Marcus, drinking soy lattes, and doing jello shooters! And, at a march, someone could, like, completely step on your Manolos, which is like, totally not cool. So, instead of going to protests, you should vote for our resolute Dad!
I disagree.
Protests are a subset of public expression of political/cultural views. The more public events the better, but they should be tailored for various purposes, from gigantic protests, a la 2/15/02 to small gatherings to discuss some aspect of public policy.
With everything in between: concerts, picnics, field outings, etc.
After all, participating in your country's politics should not only be worthwhile and an obligation. It should be a blast.
Daily Show on Free Speech.
MattB | Email | Homepage | 07.25.04 - 11:32 am | #
Fuck'n hilarious!
Warthog, ya big dumb jerk. The discussion here is about protests at the conventions, first up is the one in Boston. Bush is not going to be the focus there.
And at least we have facts. What do you have, besides repub talking points and lots of spin?
Frankly I'm tired of protests. I just want to kick some Republican ass.
Hey, war-thog:
This is not a public space. It's private property.
So fuck off.
Hi, Warthog! Thanks for your post!
You should totally vote for our resolute Dad, who is every bit as big a baby about anyone disagreeing with him as you are! Our Dad came to a few of our soccer games and the coach had to totally like eject him because someone disagreed with our Dad about whether or not it's ok to drink at kids' soccer games! And our resolute Dad so does not like anyone to disagree with him. Or to leave bongs under their beds, but that's a different story. And no one can say that our Dad is not a resolute Dad. So, Warthog, we hope that you'll vote for our Dad.
Protesting and voting are two entirely different sets of rights. They are independent of one another. To say that the best way to protest Bush is to vote him out is not incorrect, but beside the point.
Jeez, I just charged my airline tickets. I'm GOING, people. I'm PROTESTING, people. I'm gonna BE THERE because it will be an historic event that I simply cannot keep away from. I don't know how any decent Democrat or progressive can bear to miss it, either.
I was 11 years old when Chicago '68 happened, too young to get my head bashed in by Daley's pigs. Now I'm old enough to not know better, and I'm simply not going to miss this.
We're protesting a lot of things. Bush as the nominee. Bush as the Selected President. Bush as the corporate tool. Bush as the war-monger. Bush and his corporate party will be there, in one spot, for four days, and the opportunity to let him know how we feel hasn't been this good since his fake Inauguration.
Anybody remember the footage of the protests of that in Fahrenheit 9/11? Those people never made it to the nightly news that I ever saw. Seeing it in that movie was the first of it I even had an inkling. They made Bush & CO very nervous that day.
I plan to do my part in NYC, August 30-September 2. Are ya with me, guys? Are ya with me?
Hey Vaara, c'mon. The Dems paint Bush as a Nazi (including you and your piddly blog) for I don't know how long and it's them who close up protesters in razor wire. Outstanding!
and it's them who close up
And it's they who close up...
And from the posts up-thread, it appears that it's the Secret Service who closes up....
Their is no major party candidate - either for President or Vice President - nor is their even a plank either major party's platform, that is against the war in Iraq. Even though the majority of the country is against this war. This alone is reason for massive protests at both conventions, IMO.
There does seem to be a bit of NIMBY-ness about protests in Democratic circles. Dems think they're great when they are against Bush. They even like it when right-wing nut jobs protest against Democrats. But they don't necessarily think too much of protests against the Democratic Party when they originate from the left.
That said, I fail to see any "hatefulness" around here. No one is telling a United States Senator to go fuck himself, or filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court to keep brown kids out of college, or advocating for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians.
Nope. Don't see any hatefulness around here. I do see a free and open exchange of various opinions and ideas, but no hatefulness.
What's up with the MSNBC ad? Does Atrios REALLY need the money that badly?
Will Chris the Screamer get to guest blog?
Money must be good...
OY!
Tony B.
Kelly: Have you any proof that I've ever depicted Bush as a Nazi, on my piddly blog or anywhere else?
Thought not.
Those tactics are reserved for the Republicunts who compare Michael Moore to Leni Riefenstahl.
To protest or not to protest?
What a silly question in my mind.
Of course...protest. That's one of our most valuable and cherished rights in this nation.
The reason for protesting at the conventions? It's not to protest THE convention per se as Atrios stated, but to utilize the increased visibility the conventions afford as a vehicle for greater exposure. More people see, and thus may be effected by, these protests.
Personally, I feel that Atrios missed the point on this aspect of protesting AT the conventions.
To me, it's the (recently deteriorating) right we have in this country to publically protest that is most important here. If we don't continue to exercise this right, and fight against those who wish to take it away from us, then we're just making it easier on them to do so.
I will, however, admit to having used the N-word on my piddly blog.
*Kelly* et al, you ignored this upthread or were the words too big for you?
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 9, 2003
The Department of Homeland Security announced that the Republican National Convention to be held in the summer of 2004 in New York City will be designated a National Special Security Event. Previously, the Department announced the designation of the Democratic National Convention site in Boston as a National Special Security Event. When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead federal agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan and Federal resources are deployed to maintain the level of security needed for the event and the area.
Note--
Right now the Police and Firemen's Union is picketing outside Madison Square Garden with a giant inflatable rat and trying to discourage workers from bringing in supplies to the thug convention.
If they do not get thier contract they could go on strike soon.
Atrios--I am disappointed in you.
I wonder how many protesters in Boston take a cue from the Daily Show and carry around a kerchief or vial full of "free speech zone" dirt so they have the power of free speech wherever they go?
I am EXTREMELY offended by the systematic and widespread efforts in this country to discourage and marginalize protesters and insulate their intended audience from their message. I agree the Boston protest pen is potentially dangerous and an affront to the first amendment and to the sensibilities of freedom-loving people. I look for major Dem convention speakers to speak against this oppression in no uncertain terms. In fact I would like to hear Kerry himself comment about it onstage, perhaps in the context of a broader discussion of the need for balance between security and freedom.
Harold, what in hell are you babbling about? Did you read the same post I did?
"Security efforts which are there to discourage people from doing so are incredibly un-American. And, therefore, perhaps protesting in these cases serves another purpose - to try to reassert the right of protest itself."
Well, Atrios, it took you about 600 words of flim-flam, but you finally answered your own question. Now all you have to do is meditate on the monumental importance of your last two sentences, and try again.
AOL News has already called the election for Bush. "Bush Leads in Electoral Votes" declares one 'headline.' "Can Kerry Catch Up?" asks another.
So congratulations to Kerry & Edwards on a fine campaign. The American people, in their wisdom, have spoken. The better man won. Four more years. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
On this one, Atrios is wrong.
Oh, sure, marches need to be more disciplined.
But there are two reasons marches are important. First, for millions of people who are not on the Net, it's the only way they learn they're not alone.
Second, what's wrong with our political system is precisely that our leaders exist in little bubbles. Under carefully controlled circumstances, for a precious few hours during campaigns, they deal with commoners. In return, leaders believe the propaganda they are fed by the media.
Protestors serve the valuable function of the little boy, saying, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Mothra wrote:
Well, Atrios, it took you about 600 words of flim-flam, but you finally answered your own question. Now all you have to do is meditate on the monumental importance of your last two sentences, and try again.
Exactly!!!!!
Another OT, sorry (Sunday morning seems to be the perfect time to run around gleaning weirdness off the net), but the ACLU has a funny/horrifying piece up re. privacy here which was titled on Daypop as something like, "Pizza order gone horribly wrong."
That reminds me...I plan to protest my polling place this November.
I plan to protest if there is any indication that computer voting will be happenin'. Or, I plan to "protest" as a means to distribute information about Diebold--
And the best place to do that is AT A POLLING PLACE, when the idea is in the sheep's mind, marketing directly to the sheep walking in and voting.
I like the idea of a million people marching silently in NYC during the thug convention, carrying signs like:
BushCo, the shame of America.
GWB--America's embarrassment.
America, it's time to evolve beyond Bush Republicans.
you'll undoubtadly think this is trolling, but...
i didn't need much more convincing that democrats are, as the emporer tiberius once remarked about his senate, so eager to be slaves-- atrios seems willing to do everything the DLC says, including keeping the left in line. thinking of protesting? don't bother! its disruptive and worthless. vote kerry. atrios and robert rubin say so.
but atrios' post taken together with the comments from his dedicated band of sycophants makes it quite clear to me that there is zero possibility that change will ever come from a party movement so conventionally constructed. has it ocurred to any of them that protests are impotant precisley because they are out of the mainstream? that's how you build movements-- by calling attention to yourselves and your ideas, one person at a time if you have to. and sorry if the anti-globalization puppets make 'liberals' look too wacky. i suppose in the atrios fan club world the best kind of protest is a day spent at the comments window followed by a masturbatory romp through Air America and CNN capped off by a trip to the voting booth where once again we're supposed to cast a ballot for an ever increasingly out of touch and wall-street selected democratic war party. but i suppose atrios and his ilk consider this a pragmatic approach to political change though i would question its historical efficacy. by that score, its the movements that start on the fringes that end up changing things. which is to say that its more likley voting and not protesting that is the real worthless spectacle.
i've had enough of democrats for, i think, a lifetime. no more enabling those puppets with my vote.
S in Mich: Yeah, the free and heated exchange of ideas can easily be misinterpreted as hateful, by the naive and fearful.
And by those too nervous or whatever to want to FIGHT BACK.
It's not hateful to stand up for yourself and what you believe is right. It's the furthest thing from it. It's real love.
I am staging a one-man protest that involves sneering from the comfort of my living room at anybody with the energy and passion to take to the streets during this election season.
that should read "important". an unfortunate mistake...
"has it ocurred to any of them that protests are impotant precisley because they are out of the mainstream?"
An unfortunate typo, us out of iraq ...
...zero possibility that change will ever come...
That statement is nearly as untrue as it is bleak. I would agree with it if it were a statement about George W. Bush and his feifdom known as the Republican Party...
Otherwise, you make some good points.
A very rare instance, for some of us here, of disagreeing with Atrios. Protesting at a political convention is not random, and it is definitely not equivalent to protesting at polling places. Yes, the conventions themselves are contentless propaganda packages, but they are also the most visible symbol of the national political party in question. That is to say, if you want to protest the policies and general philosophy of the TurtleLovers Party of America, the most obvious place to do so is at their convention. Conventions are symbolic and so, to a large extent, are protests.
That said, yes, the protests in New York will be of questionable efficacy, if you are judging them by changing opinions leading up to Nov. 2. And I have no doubt that there will be agent provocateurs among the crowds in NYC. And that the media will eagerly focus on the most outlandish protestors, what with an utterly dull convention to cover and the media's own addiction to sensationalism.
So protestors should perhaps decide what it is they are trying to accomplish. Get more swing voters to vote against Bush? Probably not. Voice their objections to what this administration has been doing in the most obvious and concentrated forum? Well, yes, of course ...
Stu
.
Shame on you, Atrios. You're usually pretty good on these kinds of issues, but here you sound like Harry Knowles trying to convince himself he liked the latest Star Wars movie.
If we are not unequivocally enthusiastic about not just the right but the intrinsic value of protest - pro or con our own personal causes - then we might as well just throw in the towel on the great American experiment in participatory democracy right now.
The protest pen would have left our Founding Fathers (well, maybe with the exception of ol' John 'Alien and Sedition Act' Adams) apoplectic. That State and municipal governments - and even sovereign nations, for the love of god - kowtow to these Federal demands for 'security' is outrageous.
Whatever happened to the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots, anyway? Most of us won't even break a sweat for that tree these days.
btw, here's a bunch of people who show how thoughtful and creative dissent can and should be:
Zeitgeist Gallery
But us in iraq - why can't we make the pragmatic choice at the voting booth while still taking direct action on progressive issues? These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Vaara,
That kills you about the Dems, huh? Same old, same old. You won't be back stateside anytime soon. How do the French say -- 'Bon débarras' ??
What do we want?
Better comments!
When do we want them?
Now!
But us in iraq - why can't we make the pragmatic choice at the voting booth while still taking direct action on progressive issues? These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Very well said. The only thing I would add is that it's much easier to run the DLC out of the party on a rail than it is to create a new party from scratch.
Shorter Atrios: I fully support the right of idiots to protest machine politics in little pens where the damage they do to business-as-usual can be minimized!
Just because I'm enthusiastic about free speech doesn't mean I have to be thrilled about every use of it.
I didn't tell anyone to stay home and not protest. I didn't make snide remarks about people who choose to protest. I wasn't arguing for a "tidy" convention or to "not offend anyone." I just said I think conventions are an odd thing to protest and that, generally, one should consider the effectiveness of protesting, all things considered, for practicaal reasons.
And, yes, protesting a polling place over voting machines or poll atxes or literacy tests or something similar would be appropriate.
Union picketing and protesting are not the same thing.
Demogenes Aristophanes--
voting is a moral question for me, not a pragmatic one. if killing innocent people is wrong then what is voting for someone who plans to continue such brutality? if bush wins because of my vote for someone other than kerry i can live with that because i'd rather suffer-- however mildly by historical standards-- under the policies of a unjust regime than be an accomplice to that injustice. also, its not so pragmatic in the long term to keep the democratic party from splitting between the leftists and the moderates. if they split now it would really wake some people up. maybe then we'd have an alternative sooner, say in 2006, rather than never, which is how the current 'clinton redux' team seems to want it.
Kelly,
Who are you, and why do you hate me? And WTF are you talking about anyway? What exactly is it that "kills me about the Dems"?
But anyway, back to the topic at hand. I think a useful parallel can be drawn between the Dreadlocked Puppet People and the more, shall we say, colorful elements of Gay Pride parades.
In both cases, the conservative media enthusiastically seizes upon the most radical-looking participants to represent the whole. I've often suggested that the only way to legitimize gay rights as a mainstream issue would be for us homos to march while wearing gender-appropriate clothing, e.g. three-piece suits and Barbara Billingsley dresses, rather than parading our leather-framed butts and boobs down Main Street to be captured by Faux News video cameras.
But in that view I am, alas, in the minority. And thus it is also with the Dreadlocked Puppet People. Whether we like it or not, videotape is forever.
We have to remember that the media is not our friend, and act accordingly.
True, making comments on Eschaton isn't going to change anything, but neither is carrying giant puppets down the street or trashing the local Starbucks. Get out and actually do things: register voters, educate the public, get involved in political parties and move them toward your position from within. It takes more time and effort than protesting, but it's often more likely to get you what you want in the long run.
And people accusing Atrios of supporting the "free speech zones" are being positively Republican in their misrepresentation. Of course people should be able to protest. What we're discussing is what sorts of protest are or are not a good idea if you want to further your cause rather than set it back.
a worldwide anti-Bush protest during the repukelican convention would be more than appropriate and a significant message to the 'murican dumbtorette that another 4 years of Bush is wholly unacceptable.
------
This just illustrates to me that when it comes to stifling dissent the democrats are as bad or worse than the republicans.
Vaara, I understand what you're saying. But even if we dress up like the Young Republicans, we will still be painted a certain way by the corporate media.
It's worth noting that the Stonewall involved black and latino drag queens, and not the Log Cabin Republicans. (If fact, the Log Cabin Republicans wouldn't be able to exist if it weren't for Stonewall.)
KCinDC--
"neither is carrying giant puppets down the street or trashing the local Starbucks"
bull. do you think star*ucks started selling only fair trade coffee because of a voter registration drive? the anti-globalization movement not only scared the s*it out of starbucks but, i believe, made sense to them. all the while the democratic party hasn't made the global exploitation of the poor much of an issue. leftists with puppets have and i submit they have made the most difference on that score.
S in Mich: I don't think vaara is talking about Log Cabin Republicans. Most gays are not leather fetishists or drag queens. In recent months the scenes of "normal-looking" gay and lesbian couples getting married have advanced the cause of same-sex marriage farther than I'd have believed possible in such a short time.
if killing innocent people is wrong then what is voting for someone who plans to continue such brutality? if bush wins because of my vote for someone other than kerry i can live with that because i'd rather suffer-- however mildly by historical standards-- under the policies of a unjust regime
There's a little contradiction in here, don't you think? Those of us in the US may, assuming we're white and fairly well-to-do, only "suffer --however mildly," but brown people in Iraq, Iran, and heaven knows where else, in fact the very "innocent people" that your post discusses, will continue to be killed. As will poor Americans sent off to fight Bush's wars.
We're not talking about "suffering mildly" under an unjust regime. We're literally talking about life and death for thousand of people around the world. Regardless of what the party platform may or may not say, we all know that Bush will kill more people than Kerry, who, after all, has been in a war and understands what hell it really is.
Please don't stay home in November or throw your vote away. Demonstrate in Boston, NY, anywhere you want. And vote for Kerry in November.
S in Mich: I don't think vaara is talking about Log Cabin Republicans. Most gays are not leather fetishists or drag queens. In recent months the scenes of "normal-looking" gay and lesbian couples getting married have advanced the cause of same-sex marriage farther than I'd have believed possible in such a short time.
True, but did you ever wonder how "normal-looking" gays and lesbians were ever able to be out in their communities and to their families in the first place? Used to be that to be openly gay meant you received a very bad ass beating or a one-way ticket to a mental institution.
http://tinyurl.com/4qkge
You're right, S. We owe a tremendous debt to the drag queens who rioted at the Stonewall Inn.
But in 1969 there was no Faux News. Nor was there an Internet. We live in a different world that demands different tactics.
And regarding KC's comment: I was in Seattle in late November 2000. My SO inhaled tear gas on his way home from work during that fateful WTO meeting -- and so did hundreds of other ordinary Seattleites whose sympathies were severely tested because of the actions of a tiny minority of Starbucks window-smashers.
'but are never able to reach the same concern when a poster such as myself is critical of their "facts" or their hateful tone'
If you were a sensible mature Republican, you'd be welcomed here: Someone like 4-4-2 for instance, or the now missing in action Eric the C (I forget which name he changed to). "Warthog" isn't welcome here. And there is a reason for that...
Because, Warthog, you are a dishonest stupid fuck, who never addresses any of the huge gaping holes in his argument when they are pointed out, never admits when the facts are against him, and throws around hateful idiotic racist opinions as if they were facts themselves... and just generally acts like a thick prat. Which, considering that you've already admitted to being a troll, and have been caught out as just yet another sockpuppet of our usual imbalanced turd, is hardly surprising... Yet once more you delude yourself that anyone seeing your posts here is going to believe you about the "hate" thrown around here. Well you came, we saw, we laughed.
As for you Kelly: *shakes head in amazement* Give it up now. Because if you think the Democrats invented the "Free Speech Zones"... no, let's not even complete that sentance. Run away, Kelly, before someone points out just how idiotic what you've been saying above is. Seriously. You've said the stupidist thing since... well since Warthog a few moments before you, sadly. But it was unbearably stupid to hear you as well, all the same.
Atrios: "I just said I think conventions are an odd thing to protest"
Atrios, you're welcome to think as you please, but that's one of the weakest assertions I've heard you make in quite some time reading your blog. Wherefore "odd"? The national convention is the centralized, media-intensive locus of the corresponding party's entire campaign and platform. Where BETTER to register one's disapproval with that party, their candidate, and everything they've stood for over the past four years???
I've learned to compromise. I cut the butt-cheeks out of my Armani suit for the last gay pride parade
Now that I'd like to see!
That sucks, Vaara. And I don't defend those protestors who engage in violence for violence's sake. They do discredit the intended message of the protest, and most likely aren't at the demonstration for its stated aims (usually some variation of anarchists or communists or some such, trying to usurp the protest to further their own pet cause).
At the same time, their is something un-American about "free speech zones" and creeping self-censorship on the left. It seems like we'd rather switch than fight these days
Labor rights, racial equality, and gay & lesbian rights all were once very much out of the mainstream and offensive to the "sensible" majority. IMO, protest, direct action and voting were and are essential to these issues and every other progressive cause.
RNC is being protested by all types of New Yorkeers who feel it is unsavory to bring New York's tragedy into the political sphere.
The Democrats are being protested by a different sphere of people who say, you know what, why is Kerry supporting the war?
So far these are non-partisan issues, being protested by people who consider themselves independent in nature and who vote by what counts, issues.
They are not a part of either party because they are easily ignored, as the electorate is now decided by who can woo the most centrist votes.
That's playing party politics when in fact to energize the whole COUNTRY you don't divide the electorate into Democrat or Republican, but into those who want the CHANGE you describe, inclusive IDEAS, and what I think the Americans truly want, which is finding something above politics to talk about, such as ISSUES.
Protest against an issue that involves both parties, such as the WAR, and you get attacked by the Democratic party machine? That's divisive, it's lazy, and Atrios you are participating in that, or at least this discussion is.
My SO inhaled tear gas on his way home from work during that fateful WTO meeting
I don't think it was the folks w/ the puppets who unleashed the tear gas.
I live in DC; hating protestors and the inconvenience that they cause us is a native pastime here. I've mumbled bad things under my breath a few times myself when, for example, as happened Friday, the Falon Gung folks were lined up so thick outside my office that I had to go up to the circle to catch a cab. But you know, sometimes democracy is a little rough around the edges. Sorry if the "ordinary Seattleites" were inconvenienced.
It's a bit different in other countries, where public spaces are much more integrated with daily life, and protests can be much more visible and effective.
But New York City and Boston are two of the remaining places in the US where this "other country" kind of an idea could apply. Central Park for instance is a public space very much a part of the daily life of New Yorkers...
Pierre Bourdieu makes the elementary point that protests have really lost their ability to affect governance because of the invention of television. Change the media landscape and you can affect political power; protest, and you change essentially nothing. Part of the media's problem with covering protests is that they do not like the competition and do not know how to handle it.
I thought of this when we went to the antiwar protests. I was doubtful that the protests could stop the war. In retrospect though I think what I was really protesting was the media's self-imposed censorship of any anti-war voices. I was reacting to the media's stifling of simple common sense in favor of cheerleading for a dubious war to be waged by obvious lunatics.
I will bet anything that there will be far more protestors who are not as "into" politics in NYC than there will be in Boston. If I'm right, it is anger at the media's close alliance with power that really creates the conditions for mass protests composed of people from disparate social groups.
And that anger will most properly and widely find expression in NYC, not Boston.
Up with Box Turtle Love!
My turtle lover and I protested the Iraq war and the build up to same in marches through downtown of my city. We were lucky that the police were very decent. However, some drivers were real creeps.
I don't think it was the folks w/ the puppets who unleashed the tear gas.
No, of course not. But if the black-hoodie crowd hadn't gone around smashing windows (and what exactly was that supposed to accomplish, anyway?) and setting fire to newspaper boxes, chances are there wouldn't have been any tear gas in the air in the first place.
Christ Jesus in a jumpsuit, all these people accusing Atrios of being against protesting at the conventions! Do you people read the fucking posts?
Sheesh.
us in iraq, I get where you're coming from and I respect that. I don't think your contempt for the choices presented by the Dems and the Repubs is misplaced, but I do think what seems to be your disdain for voting itself is misplaced. We have to remember that one-person, one-vote is a remarkable advance considering the bulk of our social history. Every opportunity we have to vote should be used, or we're just pissing on the accomplishments of those who fought and died for that right.
That said, we can have a philosophical difference on the morality of lesser-of-two-evilism. You believe being a true believer is a better way to affect real change ... I believe more in incrementalism and am clearly more willing to make compromises for what I think is a lesser of two evils.
I believe in incrementalism because the judges appointed by a Dem or Repub administration matter in ordinary people's lives. The bureacrats installed to run various agencies matter in ordinary people's lives. As a realist and an optimist (not totally mutually exclusive) I am deeply suspicious of the idea that "it has to get worse before it can get better". I think it flies in the face of reason to assume that it's easier to make things better from a worse position than from a less worse position. I'd rather be 2 games out of first place than 5 games out of first place, in other words.
We might also consider that given the current conservative agenda of rolling back important social safety net features, a gridlocked government (Dem in the White House, Repuplican Congress) isn't such a bad thing.
I'm here for the protestor convention.
(I can say no more.)
-
vaara - you raise a valid point, and a good one. There have been incidents up here in the mountains, where eco-protesters have literally set fire to houses in more remote areas. I don't like all the development in the wild, either, but burning down peoples' houses is a method absolutely guaranteed to get you no where in the fight against it.
Maha,
I think the 'catch' with that march route is that it ultimately deposits protestors out on the West Side Highway, blocks and blocks and blocks away from MSG.
Some protest where the media is guaranteed to be. Free publicity is a valid way to get one's message out, even though there are no guarantees.
I have to agree with the post. I wholeheartedly believe in protesting things we disagree with and the right to assemble (and how it sux that it's being limited so)...
BUT, protesting the RNC quite honestly is pointless--at least in the fashion it's currently being designed.
1) The RNC won't notice. They could care less and the protesters won't be near them.
2) The media won't tell the whole story, they rarely do, and middle America looks at the protesters as being freaks and "out of touch" with "real Americans"
3) Protesters will be treated like crap by the police and the essense of the entire protest will be stiffled by the way they'll be caged and hearded through the streets--leaving protesters disgruntled, fearful and angry... not inspired or having a sense of power to create change.
4) Finally, and most importantly, the protest won't win anything, it won't accomplish any big goals.
So... should there be no protest? Not exactly. I suggest a protest of a different kind...
How about we all leave NYC for the week? Now that's a message the media would eat up and that the RNC couldn't ignore... half the city left town!!! The RNC's visit in effect would then hurt business in NYC, so the city government will feel the message loud and clear.
What about people who have to work? Who can't afford to leave town? etc?
Obviously not everyone will be able to do this, but there are two further options here.
a) Anti-RNC organizations organize trips out of the city... even if to NJ or something. Bus people out, have community members put up each other in homes, or use YMCA/YWCA's and organize group outings.
b) If people must remain in the city to work, have day and eve events in Jersey--or somewhere nearby-- where people can leave, have dinner, attend meetings & trainings on organizing for change, and meet like minded anti-RNC folks.
Protests are not bad. Not utalizing the power we have to change the way protests look (specifically one's that don't work) is.
*christuttle*
Hey, isn't it about time for the GOP to ship all protestors to "the camps"? I've been hearing about this threat in the event of Republican victory since 1964. Since you liberals have been wanting it for so long, perhaps it actually will happen this time.
Be patient, Jim. They'll get to it. This is the first administration that's set up its own gulag where it claims the law doesn't apply to its actions.
1st Amendment-use it or lose it!
I totally disagree with Atrios on this one. Any venue where the eyes of the country will be on you is a good venue. I am not going to be in Boston, but I think the boundaries of the 'free speech zone' should be from sea to shining sea. Not only that, Bush will be in New York, and him and all the Republicans should see what the city who lived through 9/11 thinks of them. The people of New York are with us, when I went to the protests last year, the bystanders, taxi drivers, people hanging out their apartment windows, everyone was cheering us on. Not only did it give us a big morale boost, so we could go home afterward and continue to fight the good fight, we showed the rest of the world that not all Americans agree with our govt's foreign policy. Believe me, the people of the world are watching us. Sitting here writing blogs to each other does not get the word out to them-hitting the streets does. Of course we should vote, and canvass, and donate money, and write letters to the media and Congress, and educate ourselves and others, also. That goes without saying.
Protesting is NOT out of the mainstream. When a million people get together and say they support choice, or civil rights, or getting rid of nuclear weapons, they are making the point that they ARE the mainstream. Now all of you who think that protesting has never made a difference in this country, go read 'A People's History of the United States'.
You don't like the Democratic platform? Not progressive enough? Well, around here, anyway, (rural Iowa) you would have had your chance to affect it. They were practically begging people for their presence and ideas at our County Convention, and going on to State. That's how our system works. It may just be some of the better progressive ideas died early on the vine from lack of support.
It was the great thing about Howard Dean- he told people the election was about them, not him. Kerry will be as good a President as we make him be- if we hang in there. Michael Stipe sang "withdrawl in disgust is not the same as apathy" but it is equally effective. Better to remember Hunter Thompson: "Politics is the art of controlling your environment". But there isn't much more I can say to those who are completely alienated from the Dems from the left than I can to a right wing troll. Do what you must.
on topic, sort of: Cedar Rapids Gazette today has an article on Iowa's delegates to the Dem convention. It's odd- some of the same stuff you read on here and don't think twice about- Bush being "a madman", "incompetent", etc, looks a bit different in the 'real world'- you know, I think a lot of people still *like* the guy. I suppose it's too much to ask for at this point, but I'd rather see Bush dismissed as just being wrong, and more time spent talking about what Kerry/Edwards would do if elected.
I haven't seen anyone claiming that protesting has never made a difference. We're saying that protests are sometimes useless or even counterproductive (if the backlash is greater than the energy they produce).
Picketing is not the same as protesting?? How so? The people protesting at the Democratic convention in Boston, as I understand it, are protesting the legitimate issue of Palestinian rights.
(I plan to vote for Kerry, but the Democrats are not above criticism. Needless to say, I deplore Palestinian terrorism.)
The democratic process has been severely compromised but voting irregularities in Florida and elsewhere as well as by the monopolistical control of the media by the forces of fascism. Thus it is appropriate to protest and picket the legitimacy &policies of the Bush regime during the thug convention or at any other time.
Yes, Martin Luther King was also advised to cancel some of his protests because of the 'backlash'.
Where would we be if he had listened to those negative voices?
Our national media has conveniently portrayed the free speech zone at the dem convention as a new thing, ignoring that throughout his term, Bush has cattled everyone out of his view. Fair and balanced.
I'm guessing that the majority of people at the dem protests will be Nader voters and GOP plants. Hmm, sorta like the rest of the year.
I don't know about Philadelphia, but New Yorkers are beside themselves with rage and indignation at the ruling regime. We had to go through the trauma of 9-11 and to lose friends and acquaintances --two on my block--two aunts and uncles in my daughters' class of 30.
Part of the responsibility is surely the negligence of the current regime.
I still have people dust from 9-11 on the shaft of my skylight.
Some kind of statement has to be made. I have not decided whether I will go to any rallies--I will not go into a pen--but something has to be done.
BUT, protesting the RNC quite honestly is pointless--at least in the fashion it's currently being designed.
A few hundred thousand people are going to show up wherever and whenever the "big march" is, and they will mostly feel a need to "be there," wherever "there" is.
As a practical matter, the best message that could be sent by the RNC protests is that hundreds of thousands of people came of their own free will to peacefully voice their opposition to this president's utterly reckless administration.
Some capital could be made out of the fact that such mass protests of "ordinary people" did not occur at the DNC.
And that will be about it for the RNC protests.
All I'm saying is that arguing about what should happen is a separate question than what is likely to happen.
Just because warnings about a backlash were wrong in one circumstance doesn't mean that they're always wrong. Many things have changed between the 1960s and today.
Backlash is a real phenomenon, and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people planning protests to think about possible negative effects (misrepresentation by the media, use of images in opponents' propaganda, etc.) and how to minimize them -- including thinking about whether a particular protest or method of protest does more harm than good.
You know, what Kerry REALLY needs to do is get in a car and drive down to the "Free Speech zone." Once there, he ought to get out and walk around back to the trunk, open it, and pull out a big old pair of bolt cutters, which he can then use to begin cutting that damned chainlink fence down.
Can you say Photo Opportunity?
I would *dare* the cops to arrest him for it.
what Kerry REALLY needs to do is get in a car and drive down to the "Free Speech zone." Once there, he ought to get out and walk around back to the trunk, open it, and pull out a big old pair of bolt cutters, which he can then use to begin cutting that damned chainlink fence down.
I would love to see it, or at least see some of the Democratic pricipals standing up in some way for the protesters.
Backlash was a real phenomenon in the 1960's too, but you don't get anywhere in this country by being afraid to use your 1st Amendment rights. Some parts of the media will misrepresent us anyway, whether we show up and protest or not. If no one comes to the RNC protest, they will say that the antiwar, anti-Bush movement has petered out.
the need to expound a message and to
have anyone react to it is as old as the protest at Concord Bridge...
The Republicans weren't afraid to use their First Amendment rights in 1992. They proudly put Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson on the stage at their convention to talk about the culture war. What did it get them? The election of Bill Clinton.
I don't think my fears are so unfounded. Sometimes speech and actions have an effect opposite from what was desired.
if the black-hoodie crowd hadn't gone around smashing windows (and what exactly was that supposed to accomplish, anyway?) and setting fire to newspaper boxes, chances are there wouldn't have been any tear gas in the air in the first place
Well if the global corporations weren't doing what they're doing and ignoring other forms of protest, chances are that the black-hoodie crowd wouldn't have been smashing windows and setting fire to newspaper boxes in the first place.
And if the police had more sensibly handled the protest, chances are that the black-hoodie crowd wouldn't have been smashing windows and setting fire to newspaper boxes in the first place.
So we should make sure we've actually identified the correct "first cause" don't you think?
God fucking damnit! Here we go again.
I was in Seattle in late November 2000. My SO inhaled tear gas on his way home from work during that fateful WTO meeting -- and so did hundreds of other ordinary Seattleites whose sympathies were severely tested because of the actions of a tiny minority of Starbucks window-smashers.
They were firing tear gas BEFORE the black bloc property-destruction action began.
BEFORE.
Many blocks away and BEFORE.
The tear gas was to disperse people doing nonviolent direct-action lockdowns in the street.
BEFORE.
(beating head against desktop)
You fucking liberals have a propensity to eat every slice of shit cake the pig media feeds you about direct action protestors. I was on the East Coast when that stuff was happening, but I remember *seeing video* of cops firing rubber bullets at the backs of running protestors, and then turning on CNN and seeing the chief of pigs lying through his snout about how no, they absolutely were not using rubber bullets.
And now here it is, five years later, and you LIVED there, and you're still repeating their "a few bad anarchist apples" bullshit. Every time a street protest comes up in the news.
The tear gas was BEFORE the organized window breaking.
BEFORE.
I shudder whenever I hear someone talk about the need for "unity". I hear Trotskyites talk about unity as well while demanding that everyone follow their own, permitted protest, while painting the anarchists and other groups who want to engage in their own forms of protest as troublemakers, even helpfully pointing them out to the police.
Sound disturbingly like some of the progressives wondering why people want to protest at the DNC.
Anarchists will be there, because they see no use in voting for their masters, as someone helpfully put in quotes up above. To help put this in perspective--once you are done voting, how much influence do you have on what your elected rulers do, compared to people with more money or connections to powerful groups?
What ever happened to solidarity, anyway, supporting the ideals of others ideologically aligned with you even when you disagree with their tactics? Do you support ideals and principles, or do you support a man hoping with crossed fingers that he will make your ideals and principles come true?
Ultimately, these rambling thoughts come back to a cliche--if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.
Hecate - I love you dearly and I love your comments. However, being destructive does not gain anyone any advantage against anyone or anything. It just fucks everything up, frankly. If the whole point is to actually make a statement that causes people to consider your POV as possibly valid, then breaking windows and other forms of vandalism just convince everyone of the exact opposite, and thus the protest is nothing more than shooting yourself in the foot.
Torches and pitchforks to the White House? I'd consider it. Breaking windows of businesses that aren't even involved in whatever it is that is being protested - dumb.
Tena--
Breaking windows of businesses that aren't even involved in whatever it is that is being protested - dumb.
From the ACME Communique, released after Seattle, describing exactly why each business was targetted with property destruction:
"Fidelity Investment (major investor in Occidental Petroleum, the bane of the U'wa tribe in Columbia)
Bank of America, US Bancorp, Key Bank and Washington Mutual Bank (financial institutions key in the expansion of corporate repression)
Old Navy, Banana Republic and the GAP (as Fisher family businesses, rapers of Northwest forest lands and sweatshop laborers)
NikeTown and Levi's (whose overpriced products are made in sweatshops)
McDonald's (slave-wage fast-food peddlers responsible for destruction of tropical rainforests for grazing land and slaughter of animals)
Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance whose products are harvested at below-poverty wages by farmers who are forced to destroy their own forests in the process)
Warner Bros. (media monopolists) ..."
That was exactly what was being protested in Seattle.
What really gets me is that this issue made the top story on CNN.com.
Where were these guys before? This idea of "free speech zones" has been standard MO for Bush speeches for some time. But the mainstream media suddenly catches on when it happens at the DNC? Where have you guys been?
Some excellent points...
especially the mention of the loss of public spaces. Doesn¨'t matter if it is tinfoil-hat theories, or just happened this way, but the result is the same...divide and conquer. It keeps down dissent when there is no place to even be public property where there actually are people gathered.
But I am WAY dissapointed in Atrios...
from all the intelligent thoughts he has written I expected this to be a no-brainer...that one of the MOST important things about demonstrations is that it lets people that aren't quite so adventurous know that other people share their unspoken doubts.
You get a person that doesn't follow politics all that much, but is really uneasy about Bush's policies. If this person never hears about others that are just citizens like him (not filmakers or media folk even) disagree strongly enough to go out and demonstrate...if that person then reads that record numbers of "non-dissident" types (union folks, elderly folks) are joining in, THAT sends a message. If that person never saw that, he might bury his own doubts.
Proof that this is important is that the government consistently undercounts attendees to demonstrations, while the demonstrators consistently inflate the numbers.
It is entirely unacceptable that we have "free speech zones", that we have a president (of ALL the people) that is deliberately trampling constitutional rights of citizens so that Bush doesn't have to see (and no one photographs) dissent. I truly cannot understand how it keeps on happening without being challenged enough to STOP them from doing it all the time. Whenever someone can get closer to the President only because they have a supportive sign, or button, or T-shirt than someone who doesn't to a tax payer paid event, is the moment the rights are being trampled.
Atrios -
What's up with dissing the unions?
(Picketing isn't protesting - since when?)
oodja--
Yeah, his picketing/protesting distinction is pretty fucked up, but it's kind of indicative of how far we've come from the days when strikes were community-catalyzing events and not simply arbitration tactics switched on and off by lawyers...
Tena,
I don't think that we actually disagree. Generally, I'm a very peaceful girl. Heck, actually, I'm a tired old woman who prefers sitting at home with her cat to any kind of violence. So it would take a lot -- like them canceling elections -- to get me so mad that I'd destroy property.
But I'm not going to get too teary-eyed because someone's SO had to breathe some tear gas, especially when it wasn't the protestors who were using the tear gas. Nor am I going to worry much about those average Seattleonian who were a little inconvenienced by the protest.
In my city, there's almost always someone protesting something and, yeah, sometimes it makes it inconvenient for the rest of us. But if the alternative is to box people up in "Free Speech Zones" so that the rest of us can feel "safe" and not be "inconvenienced," then I prefer the odd inconvenience.
However, if they ever let that fucker who drove his tractor into the tidal basin and tied up traffic for an entire friggin' week a year or so ago out of jail, well, I may reconsider my general commitment to nonviolence.
Atrios -
What's up with dissing the unions?
(Picketing isn't protesting - since when?)
Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance...)
Here's another thought though...at what point does it stop being "free speech"?
I mean, most of us probably figure that anyone that FEELS strongly enough ought to be able to go out and protest. To be honest, I don't understand how the police anywhere can stop people if they just show up at a place all with the same t-shirts protesting something....
BUT what about say a billionaire that pays thousands of people 50 bucks each to show up and "protest"...is that covered too?
mj - ok, so what did breaking windows accomplish, besides letting off steam? I mean really? Besides pissing a bunch of people off who have no idea of the connection between the windows broken and the things that were being protested?
I can see fighting the wrongs that all of these corporations engage in - but breaking windows is just a waste of time, effort and message. Fight effectively, don't fight yourselves. If you really want to make a difference, if you really want to get something done about those problems, then work at changing the situation. Breaking windows isn't doing that - it is just vandalizing for nothing; it just saps power from the movement. It works against you, and I can't see why that isn't more obvious.
if that person then reads that record numbers of "non-dissident" types (union folks, elderly folks) are joining in
Most of the discussion here has not been about protests by union folks and elderly folks. In fact, that seems to be at the root of some of the disagreement -- whether the face of the protest (both as it appears in person and as it appears in the media) is likely to be something that the target audience (whoever that is) will respond positively to.
Still, kicking organized labor when it's down (even in the public sector for 2003, as a result of State and municipal budget cuts) is not cool.
Take a page from Martin Luther King's book - protest, don't destroy things. He never espoused that kind of civil disobedience, and what he did worked. It worked. He got respect for his movement, and because of that his movement was empowered.
Keep breaking windows and you will never get any respect for your message. Without that respect, it is merely self-indulgence.
...given that protesting in this country almost by its nature marginalizes an issue by portraying it as something which is out of the mainstream, one has to ask whether the costs are greater than the benefits.
I thought the anti-war protests were highly appropriate precisely because there was a huge disconnect between public opinion before the war (with support for Bush's war, at best, garnering a slim majority of support), and the range of viewpoints presented by the media on the subject.
And I think anti-war protests "at" the Democratic National Convention (in pens at a great remove, thank you Demo Natl Committee) are highly appropriate because there is a huge disconnect between public opinion now about the war, not to speak of Democrats' opinion about the war, and the party platform.
54% think it was a mistake, 60%+ think it was not worth it...and these are recent samples of ALL opinion; among Democrats these numbers are much higher. But the platform doesn't even find it possible to criticize the war or commit to end the occupation. The candidate wants to commit MORE troops.
By not acknowledging these realities in the party platform and the campaign in any way, the party's leaders [Kerry/DNC ] make invisible a huge segment of voters and give them no other way to express their beliefs -- on the topic that is second only to the economy on voters' minds.
Those of us who are working to elect John Kerry but who want to end the U.S. occupation have to hope that it's political caution and not conviction that determines his position. If it's caution, then demonstrations are one among many ways to remind him that there is political support for a reassessment come January 2005.
Hecate: Tractor man is already free: http://xrl.us/tractor
OK, I give up.
Bring on the big puppets and the window-smashing and the silly chants and the black hoodies.
And please don't worry about how the media will react to them. Everything will be OK. The media wouldn't DREAM of using protest footage, no matter how violent or scary, as a pretext to delegitimize all opposition to the Bush régime.
They're on our side.
Right?
Take a page from Martin Luther King's book - protest, don't destroy things. He never espoused that kind of civil disobedience, and what he did worked. It worked. He got respect for his movement, and because of that his movement was empowered.
Offer no violence.
However, what would Martin be without Malcolm?
Where were these guys before? This idea of "free speech zones" has been standard MO for Bush speeches for some time.
And sure enough, as The Great Sage predicted, Faux News is screaming and shvitzing to beat the band, that "VIOLENT PROTESTS!!!" are going on "ALREADY!!" in Boston.
They had this whole "protest" theme in the can, and are out of the starting gate, a whole day in advance. Mah babies... be hep to the jive. 'Cuz here comes one big fuckin' jivestorm.
Yes, a majority of the public was (at various times) opposed to the invasion of Iraq and now thinks it was a mistake. I marched in protests before the war here in DC. I don't see the point of protesting about it now, especially at the DNC, since we have no time machines. Besides, regardless of Kerry's vote, do you really think that if Kerry (or Gore, or McCain, for that matter) had been president at that time we would have invaded Iraq?
I can't believe Atrios is really asking "Is street protest really worth the time money and energy of those involved"???
Time? Money? Energy?
What planet is he living on?
The question should be "Why haven't more people been protesting the torture of children?"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/
...r_072004A.shtml
Tractor man is already free
Arrrghhhh!
~runs after tractor man with pitch fork~
You stupid, ignorant moron with your traffic-snarling, gridlock-causing stunt!
~breaks windows and newpaper boxes while running after broken-down tractor~
And please don't worry about how the media will react to them. Everything will be OK. The media wouldn't DREAM of using protest footage, no matter how violent or scary, as a pretext to delegitimize all opposition to the Bush régime.
The media will present us according to their corporate interests, per usual. Being silent wont change that.
Protest like it was your own child being slaughtered. Else, soon it will be.
Democracy will occur in the streets.
And now we're knocking big puppets? What's this online community coming to!
Atrios, I don't think you've ever been quite so verbose in your short history online.
Please... don't be lieke every other egomaniac with public forum.
Evan
The idea that we don't need to worry about the impression protests might make because "the media and our opponents will portray us negatively regardless of what we do" is exactly parallel to the idea that the US doesn't need to worry about the effects of its foreign policy because "the terrorists don't need any excuse to hate us -- how could they be any more against us than they already are?"
Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance...)
Magnum
Mag,
You took this out of context, yet the point is very real.
Starbucks (peddlers of an addictive substance whose products are harvested at below-poverty wages by farmers who are forced to destroy their own forests in the process)
Fair trade is important. People, even the ones who pick your coffee, tend to not like the sound of their childrens sick and hungry moans.
Being strung out on exports to the point where the indigenous are denied survival is a form of genocide.
Enjoy that coffee, ask StarBucks to start using Fair Trade coffee beans.
Ever pick a coffee bean yourself?
Actually, the answer to the debate over whether we need outrageous protests or a more civil face to show to the media is: Yes.
We need both. We need those who are so angry about the current mess that they are willing to be audacious and pull things farther to the left and we need a face that doesn't scare the middle-of-the-roaders.
We need to play good-cop/bad-cop. IMHO, we've lately done way too much good cop and let the right and the media terrify us that if we do any bad cop, they'll hate us. We should think about why they're so eager for us to accept that meme, especially coming from folks who've very successfully used their more audacious types to move the debate way over to the right.
amen, brother. the best way to protest Bush is to vote him out of office.
Giant puppets and I-hate-Bush signs will provide a great visual aid for those wishing to show America how "out of the mainstream" the liberals are.
The "mainstream" is a puss & blood filled creek. Murderous oil junkies piss and drunk from it.
Sleep well.
I made the mistake of starting to read this thread when I had someplace to go. I wish I had time to read the entire thread before posting. I apologize if this is repetitious or stale.
But there are some peculiar assumptions that caught me right out of the gate:
-- I have a problem with the analogy of protesting at a political convention = protesting a polling place. I don't think that the protest is directed to the existence of the convention in and of itself. I mean, some might show up to declare the convention itself corrupt or illegal or bogus. But I think that the idea of publicly protesting at the epicenter of a political event is to piggyback onto the general focus of energy to draw attention to injustice, corruption, etc.
I always thought that the essence of political demonstration at such events was to amplify the concept that "The Whole World Is Watching," and to present messages (truths) that are obscured or ignored or trivialized by the official goings-on with the goal of getting the attention (and hopefully, sympathy) of the general public. In short, I don't see that protesters are necessarily attacking or opposing the convention itself. The convention is the flywheel.
-- OK, the "hey hey ho ho" rituals can become silly and even embarrassing. On the other hand, in the couple of dozen posts I've read, I also detect a sad and disturbing quality of acquiescence disguised as sophistication or shrewdness. It sounds as if people are ready to dismiss the idea of public assembly and protest as passé-- either because, let's face it, protesters are so easily made to look like fools, or because The Man has us by the collective balls anyway, and why should we march right into the trap?
Methinks we doth protest about protest too much...
-- Damn, I'm late-- gotta go. Read "this".
Vaara's all "let's not offend the Republicans and let's not do anything they can criticise us for."
It's like Athenae said: "last time I checked, that strategy sucked out loud."
Let me add to the voices saying NYers are really angry about the RNC - I hear it everywhere, and it doesn't help at all that the mayor wouldn't let us use Central Park to gather and let our voices be heard.
I went to a lot of protests in college but got burnt out because they didn't seem to be doing much. But I went to the anti-war march 2.15.2003 just because I wanted there to be someone "normal", and just about all I saw were "normal" people, pushed aside along the avenues and side streets because they didn't allow enough space. When I went home all I saw in the media were the crazies, and much tut-tutting about the marginalized types.
I don't know what will happen at the RNC. But I plan to protest, to hang anti-Bush signs in the windows at work, dress respectably and wear my anti-Bush pins.
The RNC needs to know they're not welcome here
Because if we sit down in our Sunday best with our hands folded and calmly explain our point of view without raising our voices and resorting to puppetry or "silly" chants, we're sure to get some good media coverage from Rupert Murdoch and Friends...
NOT.
the way protestors are going to be handled during the convention is the reason I'm not giving to the party until after the convention...
does the name Timoney mean anything to you?
Mike Switzer
aka
The Lone Nut
aka
Kid Ornery
Also, the democrats really deserve more protest. The bent over and let bush into office. They rallied behind the patriot act. They couldn't wait to profit off of both bloody wars. Fuck these people.
Hecate: It seems to me that the right usually keeps their "more audacious types" on a tight leash, and often when they slip off (as with Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond) it doesn't do their side any good. That's why the Republican convention is going to showcase people like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani, who are actually opposed to many of the goals of the national Republican party, rather than showing its real face.
I just really hate the idea of a "protest zone" being put up next to the Dem convention. We're supposed to be the ones who support the Constitution, aren't we?
What I would like to know is, who made the decision to set up this protest area? The convention organizers, or the Secret Service?
KCinDC,
If you think they keep their attack dogs tightly leashed, you must have been on vacation the other week when they debated gay marriage.
>Starbucks (peddlers of an >addictive substance...)
>Magnum
Mag,
You took this out of context, yet the point is very real.
Nah, I was just making a funny
Atrios writes: "given that protesting in this country almost by its nature marginalizes an issue by portraying it as something which is out of the mainstream, one has to ask whether the costs are greater than the benefits."
WHAT WHAT WHAT?
If protesting is out of the mainstream the more protesting we do the less out of the mainstream it will be.
Protesting outside of a convention does not equal "protesting a convention".
I live in Oregon and will not be able to attend either major party's convention but if I could I would darn sure make a respectful fuss outside of the Republican convention. At the Democratic Convention I would hold a sign saying:
Platform Writers,
Dare to be Bold: Single Payer Universal Health Care Now!
The Democrats need to learn that ideas become mainstream by having the cajones to put them out in front of the public. In 1976 school vouchers were out of the mainstream so the Rethuglicans hammered away at it for 20 years until it seemed like a less nutty idea. Today this dangerous idea has gained a lot of support unfortunately. That is how change happens for chrissakes. Americans are sick of the defensiveness of the Democratic party. The grassroots need to push this party to standup for bold ideas. We the people are the party, we need to make our voices heard.
I usually agree with you Atrios but you could not be more wrong here.
More generally, there is the question of whether bloggingis really worth the time money and energy of those involved. It's a bit different in other countries, where public spaces are much more integrated with daily life, and blogs can be much more visible and effective. But, in the US even when bloggers are allowed to operate on prime bandwidth, the fact that blogs are for the most part already on the edges of daily life, blogs and bloggers are intrinsically marginalized, even when they aren't happening behind corporate facades.
More generally, there is the question of whether bloggingis really worth the time money and energy of those involved. It's a bit different in other countries, where public spaces are much more integrated with daily life, and blogs can be much more visible and effective. But, in the US even when bloggers are allowed to operate on prime bandwidth, the fact that blogs are for the most part already on the edges of daily life, blogs and bloggers are intrinsically marginalized, even when they aren't happening behind corporate facades.
Hecate: Whether statements count as outrageous does depend on the audience. In any case, I'm not convinced that the Republicans' strategy on same-sex marriage is a winning one for them. Are you?
Attack dogs can be useful for energizing the base, but there's a very real risk of turning people in middle against you, and I don't think we can just ignore that.
I don't think it was the folks w/ the puppets who unleashed the tear gas.
No, of course not. But if the black-hoodie crowd hadn't gone around smashing windows (and what exactly was that supposed to accomplish, anyway?) and setting fire to newspaper boxes, chances are there wouldn't have been any tear gas in the air in the first place.
vaara
And chances are we would not be having this discussion.
Did you see The Corporation?
Its a good thing we are comfortable, or some of this stuff may make us upset enough to stop it.
Rather than cower in the "free speech cage," protesters should get some Diebold voting machines and dump them in Boston Harbor!!!
there's a very real risk of turning people in middle against you, and I don't think we can just ignore that.
KCinDC,
I think the right has brilliantly used wackos to pull the national debate so far to the right that it's difficult to believe. What would once have been unthinkable to even staunch Republicans is now accepted as normal. Great article in today's NYT Magazine about how they did this.
Meanwhile, any liberal who even dares to raise her hand for permission to speak is branded as shrill. You don't win this kind of war by trying to show how nice you are. They just get shriller and shriller and continue to call you shrill no matter how much you try to moderate your requests.
As Athenae's pointed out, we've tried being good little liberals for some time now, triangulating with all the right's positions and, you know, they're now in charge of all three branches of the government and have a solid lock on almost half the voters in this country. Our good cop strategy isn't working. We need a new one.
I'm a shrill liberal and I don't intend to change. We need to claim "shrill" the way that gay people claimed "fag."
And, yes, I think the gay marriage debate worked just the way that they planned for it to work. It energized their base and they'll use it to make Democrats uncomfortable this fall because the Democrats will be too afraid to come at them with both barrels blasting screaming, "What kind of bigoted morons would say the kinds of things you hate-filled sacks of shit were saying about other Americans while we're at war? How dare you attack me because I won't join you in trying to take rights away from other Americans????"
Your rights!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH and your RIGHT TO PROTEST are being challenged!
It matters not whether you're Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Green. Make YOUR elected representatives and the corporate media aware that you will NOT be silenced or ignored!
"In 1773, they risked lives to speak out"
Jimmy Breslin
http://tinyurl.com/5n5js
Tom - before you disagree, would you please go back and reread Atrios' last paragraph? You know, the one where he talks about why protest may be necessary at this time? The same one in which he says that the current attempts to shut down protest are un-American?
Do I get a different blog than some other people when I open Atrios? I can't understand why so many people read this post and still think Atrios is saying no one should protest.
Rather than cower in the "free speech cage," protesters should get some Diebold voting machines and dump them in Boston Harbor!!!
Destruction of property! How subversive!
Tena, he damned it with faint praise.
If I had the money and ability to do so, I'd go to the GOP convention in New York. I'd spend my time letting them inside know how much I was against damn near everything the modern Republican party stands for and that I was doing everything in my power to get Bush and his cronies out of office.
If I had the money and ability to do so, I'd go to the Democratic convention in Boston. I'd do my damnedest to let them know that we're tired of them playing softball with the most atrocious elements of the Republican party and tired of them bending over backwards to keep a group of hate-filled mongoloids happy, even though the wingnuts are gonna hate our guts no matter what. I'd also tell them inside the Fleet Center that this is their last shot. Stand up for the people of America, all of them, not just the ones with the most money. Tell them to grow a spine, tell them to make this a better place for all of us and to hell with politics. Tell them if they want to keep my vote, they gotta earn it.
I don't think Atrios is saying protests are useless; he just doesn't see the point in protesting the conventions. That's his right, as it's mine to disagree with him on that particular point. It's a free country, beloved; we all have the right to differing opinions.
Finally, I think the whole "free speech zones" trend is highly, highly disturbing, and I wish more people in the upper echelons of power were raising a bigger stink about it. I read somewhere that the D's zone was in front of the site, while the R's had there's around the block and basically outta sight, outta mind. Anyone else hear that, too?
And, yeah, protesting has been marginialized by the mainstream, but it serves their purpose. Don't ask questions, just shut up and buy our shit. They control the media and, unfortunately, the media controls how most people think. That needs to change. Man, does that need to change.
This president will have visited NYC twice (to my memory) in his first term. The first time, he came to stand on a pile of rubble[....]
And dead bodies. Let's not forget that he was also using a pile of dead bodies for his photo-op.
More info on the "free speech zone":
The city of Boston, and more specifically a Boston cop named Bobby Dunford is responsible for the security plans, including the free speech zone.
From the Boston Globe (http://tinyurl.com/4nqde):
"{Former Boston police commissioner Paul) Evans said that while Dunford's plan is tactically sound, he believes there will be trouble. He said he believes civil libertarians will sue over what they see as Draconian security measures that crush free speech.
"'Nobody's better prepared, but anybody who thinks this will go off without a blemish is kidding themselves,' Evans said."
Personally, I think trouble won't be limited to lawsuits. Bush/Cheney has got to be having wet dreams about protesters getting injured or killed as a result of this site.
I will not be surprised one bit if Dems turned around sometime next week and discover that somehow Bush/Cheney has reclaimed the high ground (in the eyes of the public) on free speech. Argh.
Rather than cower in the "free speech cage," protesters should get some Diebold voting machines and dump them in Boston Harbor!!!
That is effing brilliant. In general, I think that there are a lot of opportunities available to make use of the symbolic resonance of the Boston area.
Atrios was obviously a little sleepy when he wrote that. There is no point in protesting a polling place which, say, only admits those blacks who comnplete a "literacy test"? There are tons of reasons for protesting a polling place or a convention or any other lying sham of a democratic aspect and the reasons have something to do with the distance between what we have in Boston and New York and what they're supposed to be.
Actually, neither convention this year is necessary, and generally they're not the most essential things anyway (although there are exciting exceptions; but excitemnent is always an exception in a field so dictated and prescribed and incapable of innovation as the presidency). We're completely with Nader/Black/Daily when they say they just illustrate the distance between the Party and the party, give insiders an unnecessary fete with money that could be used to campaign, vengefully screw up cities that never did anything to you, and further solidify the love of lobbyists (for whom the conventions really are).
Also, new word: Bush is paedomorphic.
He retains in adulthood many infantile features.
I think protesting conventions is highly appropriate. I see it as a way of protesting the way the process has changed over the years and making it less and less about the primary voters than about the primary voters in 7 particular states.
What you said about public spaces not being as intergrated into public life is very interesting and something that hadn't occured to me before. I'll have to ponder what that means.
Sometimes, protests need to be seen as a mainstream activity--the Alinskyesque card doesn't always need to be played, and it seems to me that protestors play it too frequently.
I spotaneously joined the 3/21/03 anti-Iraq war protest march as it went past my office (the day after the march that tied up Lake Shore Drive--stupid--and police needlessy arrested hundreds of law-abiding citizens nowhere near LSD for exercising their 1st Amendment rights--stupid).
Police lined the entire march route shoulder to shoulder & in riot gear. Both protestors and police were needlessly antagonizing each other: at Washington & Wells, a man in a wheelchair spit on a cop. The speaker at Federal Plaza delivered an incoherent anti-police rant.
1968 is history: aren't the Chicago cops (& Americans like them) precisely the folks we want to win over to our side? Civil disobedience is most effective when nonviolent--MLK was more effective than Hoffman & Rubin.
Sometimes civil disobedience is also common sense: no way I'd willingly enter a "free speech cage" to protest in NYC.
Do conventions really have a fucking point anymore? I can't remember a single one (going back to Reagan-Carter in '80) when the outcome was already known. It's only in the fevered wingnut mind that something like a Hillary bait-and-switch will happen. Yeah, I understand the need to formally announce the candidates and whatnot, but can't it be done without all the hooplah and fooferall?
Then again, Americans do enjoy their bread and circuses.
No, of course not. But if the black-hoodie crowd hadn't gone around smashing windows (and what exactly was that supposed to accomplish, anyway?) and setting fire to newspaper boxes, chances are there wouldn't have been any tear gas in the air in the first place.
vaara
Public memory on the Seattle WTO demonstration has been pulled all out of proportion. The true story is that a mostly peaceful demonstration occurred during the day. Plenty of people went to the demonstration and returned home without any problems at all.
The trouble started in the evening, when most people had left the area. A group of anarchists broke a couple of windows, some opportunists broke a few more and looted a Starbucks, the police went a little berzerk. We had trials here for several years, lots of video showing police brutally attacking and beating people perceived as protesters (whether they were or not). And keep in mind, people, these were police troops savagely attacking people--in order to prevent property damage.
Protesters cannot curtail their actions merely to avoid giving giving their adversaries a whip to beat them with--unless they simply stop protesting, which of course is the goal.
Mimiru, relate it to the economic concept of the town common and to the way protest was actually a thriving thing in the past to John Ball, etc, but certain people talk about it like it all began and ended in the 1960s.
Putting a damper on the utlimate party of the two dominant political parties is the best way to draw attention to your cause. Nobody likes a party-crasher - especially the partiers - so they might actually do something to keep it from happening. But in this case, Dem cowardice is institutionalized.
Also, think of the media attention possible for the protesters.
Love the Diebold in the harbor scheme! I think its a foregone conclusion something will get dumped in the harbor next week.
I'd really like to see some kind of Dem reverse protest for the "free speech zone". Would hope to see a group of delegates go to the zone to hold some kind of event (not a preaching kind of thing, a solidarity thing). Would really like to see Kerry and/or Edwards come out to address the crowd.
If Kerry did something do demonstrate that he's not afraid of being confronted with dissenting voices, that action would resonate, I think.
Sorry to be OT, but this is rather urgent, I think:
The House just passed an appropriations bill that continues funding for the School of the Americas, which continues to train torturers, ensuring many more Abu Ghraibs in our future.
Only the Senate can do anything about it now, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein (previous critics of SOA), are noteably silent on the matter.
We need to do everything we can to shut that monstrosity down once and for all.
It wasn't "anarchists", it wasn't any kind of leftist. The only thing identifying them was that they seen from a distance to dress like a protestor. Big proof. If that were the only thing defending a black guy he'd be convicted. They were (not provable but obvious-to-adults) cops or Vance or someone sympathetic--this is the kind of thing has happened before. Plain clothes cops (letting their lazy asses get photographed) or embed journalists helping to engineer a situation that will justify taking off gloves and make protestors look like shit. These guys went into working class neighborhoods and smashed up Toyotas--what the fuck were they doing away from townhouses, not smashing Rolls-Royces, if they were going to break anything? Because they weren't really leftists.
Actually, I think the "free speech zone" was invented by the Democrats...or at least for them. As far as I can tell, the first one was set up at the 1988 Democratic convention in Atlanta, long before 9/11 or even the first Bush presidency.
I was at that convention working for the Dukakis campaign and remember being distinctly embarrassed by the party's (and the city's) attempt to keep protestors away from the delegates.
Here's a link to a couple of Atlanta Journal Constitution articles from 1988 about the Free Speech Zone at that convention (you'll need to pay to see the whole articles, I'm afraid).
If anyone can find an earlier example of a "free speech zone," I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
These guys went into working class neighborhoods and smashed up Toyotas--what the fuck were they doing away from townhouses, not smashing Rolls-Royces, if they were going to break anything?
Because the cops would've actually done something had they tried to smash up rich people's shit. Hell, you know how it goes...
Er, K&Y,
The organized property destruction (storefront smashing of certain MNC outlets) was, indeed, done by anarchists.
The tear gas had started much earlier in the day. They smashed windows in a different part of town than the locked-down intersections to make it as clear as possible that the police violence wasn't a response to the property destruction... lot of good that did.
The Toyotas part I didn't hear. I thought that as the night wore on the cops herded everyone up the hill into a somewhat yuppie neighborhood where non-political folks started to get involved and the cop riot started in earnest.
But then, I wasn't there... just a few of my anarchist friends, who really are class-struggle anarchists and really aren't cops and really did PD.
Er, K&Y,
The organized property destruction (storefront smashing of certain MNC outlets) was, indeed, done by anarchists
...because? Why? On what proof? Did they carry "anarchist membership cards"? Because the cops said so? Because if we repeat it, it'll be true? Because you have some reason to disbelieve the evidence that was collected in other places of infiltration (plaincothes cops photographed trying to assimilate a protest, later matched to official snaps)? What leftist can espouse rightist tactics and rightist philosophy and rightist rhetoric and facilitate rightist goals and still be a leftist? Are you the kind of person who thinks the Maoists are "leftists"?
Atrios:"...to remind the country and the media that the war did not actually have the universal support they were pretending it did."
That's exactly why there are protesters in Boston: to remind the country and the media that the Democratic party (and it's current policies) doesn't have the universal support among progressives that a TV viewer would think if there were no protests.
And give me a break about spaces in other countries being more suitable to protests. Telling US citizens that they can only exercise their constitutional right to free speech in a barb-wire topped cage is fucking disgusting. There is no excuse. If it were shown happening in a third world country there would be shock and outrage.
How much of your constitutional rights are you willing to give up out of fear that Kerry might lose?
"anarchist membership cards"
For some reason, this concept strikes me as highly amusing. Don't really know why. Reminds me of a story I heard about a girl who got suspended from her high school because she tried to form an "anarchist's club". Now there's a yearbook picture that'd be interesting.
I guess, since I claim the Seattle name, I should clarify myself.
I didn't attend the WTO protest. I was planning to after work, but by then the group I'd been planning to meet had gone home and things were degenerating. So my personal experience is limited to the 24-hour local coverage, and of course the years of lawsuits in the aftermath.
One of the initial problems of the protest was that it became very quickly much, much larger than anyone had anticipated. I believe this was the reason for the initial police efforts to control the crowd, such as forcing people into certain areas.
There really were anarchists demonstrating violently (i.e., breaking windows)--these were the first time I and many others had heard of them. They were proud of their actions and proclaimed it.
"name withheld"'s comment that the anarchists tried to highlight the distinction between property damage and police violence is an interesting one, which I hadn't heard before. I see their point--that the property damage shifted sympathy to the police.
However, my point was that no amount of police brutality is justified when the only thing they're protecting is a bit a property.
The unreadable intention of some anonymous third-party-relayed alleged anarchist is neither here nor there: it is a certainty that the pigs required violent crazies to justify the "restoration of law and order" and it is a certainty that unidentifiable somebodies with a clear motivational connection to the pigs and no distinction from them did just that.
For those who haven't seen it, here's a picture of the fence to cage keep protesters in their zones.
vaara says: 'Bring on the big puppets and the window-smashing and the silly chants and the black hoodies.'
I think she's been watching Faux News. They are trying to scare people with dire predictions. I doubt there will be any window smashing-on 2/15/03 the crowd was severely provoked by the NY police, and yet no one started rioting and smashing things.
Regarding Protests: we had an extemely successful vigil/anti-war protest at the reenactment of the battle of Lexington and Concord today for the DNC Delegates.
Pictures here.
Gov. Bill Richardson came over to speak to us after hearing our speaker from Military Families against the War, and his back and forth about why we were there--the need for the democrats to take the lead in repairing the damage that the war has done both to this country and Irag--was covered by rolling TV cameras.
In this case, we were warmly received by many delegates, some of whom posed for pictures with our signs.
"anarchist membership cards"
For some reason, this concept strikes me as highly amusing. Don't really know why
Ha! Puts me in mind of Shaw's never-performed third act of Man and Superman:
THE CHIEF. Friends and fellow brigands. I have a proposal to make to this meeting. We have now spent three evenings in discussing the question Have Anarchists or Social-Democrats the most personal courage? We have gone into the principles of Anarchism and Social-Democracy at great length. The cause of Anarchy has been ably represented by our one Anarchist, who doesnt know what Anarchism means [laughter]—
THE ANARCHIST [rising] A point of order, Mendoza—
MENDOZA [forcibly] No, by thunder: your last point of order took half an hour. Besides, Anarchists dont believe in order.
THE ANARCHIST [mild, polite but persistent: he is, in fact, the respectable looking elderly man in the celluloid collar and cuffs] That is a vulgar error. I can prove—
MENDOZA. Order, order.
THE OTHERS [shouting] Order, order. Sit down. Chair! Shut up.
[The Anarchist is suppressed.]
Thersites,
Okay, that's funny.
vaara says: 'Bring on the big puppets and the window-smashing and the silly chants and the black hoodies.'
I think she's been watching Faux News. They are trying to scare people with dire predictions.
Karin, no. Read the thread, please.
Backslider - to answer your question from a couple hours ago, the "protest area" at the RNC is actually at the corner of 31st St & 8th Ave, which is right across the street from Madison Square Garden (which sits on 8th ave between 31st to 33rd streets)
I tried to research the earliest instance of a "free speech zone" but am coming up empty. I do know that the Secret Service is the one that uses them, and they are in charge of "National Special Security Events" such as the RNC/DNC and Olympics. Richard Clarke discusses how they first came up with the idea in the lead-up to the Atlanta Olympics and informally implemented it there (also the event at which "planes as weapons" WAS considered as a possibility by those in our govt). But even DHS claims the first one was in 1999, so I'm confused (see my link).
Does anyone know the definitive history of the Free Speech Zone? I'd like to have some boilerplate to provide to my lazy friends in the various media newsrooms who seem to have never heard of them.
My thought for a protest of the RNC is a one day general strike in New York. There are going to be a lot of street protests that week, but that doesn't appeal to the entire population, particularly in light of what I believe are real fears of violence in NYC.
A giant "senior-skip day" allows New Yorkers to send a message and get out and do whatever they feel is the best response to an unwelcomed invasion of our fine city. Protest. Volunteer. Register voters. Whatever.
http://www.shutitdownnyc.com
For some reason, this concept strikes me as highly amusing. Don't really know why. Reminds me of a story I heard about a girl who got suspended from her high school because she tried to form an "anarchist's club". Now there's a yearbook picture that'd be interesting.
Backslider, back in the early 90's, prolly 91, 92ish, there was a club for peace-punks in Memphis called the Anarchy Youth Federation. My friends and I always got a big kick out of the irony of there being an organization for anarchy.
-- We might also consider that given the current conservative agenda of rolling back important social safety net features, a gridlocked government (Dem in the White House, Repuplican Congress) isn't such a bad thing. Demogenes Aristophanes
As a person who works in a "social safety net" agency, I must say that in this sphere, there truly isn't the proverbial "dime's worth of difference" between the parties. I spoze it was the Reagan political climate that generated the nimbostratus meme that gummint social service agencies were more trouble than they were worth. The shit-mist began to indeed trickle down, until the Compassionate State was abandoned in favor of the Hollow State. And Democrats bought into this "less is more" pathology just as eagerly as the Repubs. Don't get me started...
--KCinDC's relentless carping about the counter-productivity of protest to the extent that it can be offensive and off-putting to third parties has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By which I meantersay, this particular persistent nattering protest offends the hell out of me! It smacks a bit too much of Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy's recurrent shriek, "We must think of the children!"
-- Tena, I did read Atrios' post, and his subsequent comment. As others have noted, the post has the flavor of Atrios trying to work through a sticky question, at the end of which the light bulb comes on and he finally realizes that there is some redeeming quality to the "oddity" of protesting at a political convention.
Still, there's a lingering quality of damning with faint approval.
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao / You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
I love and admire the late John Lennon, and I generally enjoy the song "Revolution," however reviled and despised the man and the song are by some. But after reading the moderate/reactionary voices in this thread, I can understand why the song's tone pissed people off.
PS: Does anyone who lurks or posts on blogs such as these ever worry about the unfortunate predilection for conformity and sychophancy that manifests in them? I don't mean being civil, or expressing appreciation or gratitude towards the host. I'm talkin' about the fact that there's a certain degree of trepidation at the very idea of disagreeing with Atrios.
That bothers me a bit at times, even though I usually thrive on irony. Just sayin'.
------- No protests. None. The only way the Republicans can win the election is to repeat Chicago 1968 and the police riot. Does anyone doubt they have agent provocateurs in place to do just that? Has everyone forgotten the "Brooks Brothers Riot" that stopped the votes from being counted in Florida?
Any protest or demonstration would be the sure way to elect Bush. Being peaceful means zero because Republican agents will cause the riot.
RJMcD
I'm talkin' about the fact that there's a certain degree of trepidation at the very idea of disagreeing with Atrios.
Little Brøther, Jesus Christ. You mean some people might agree or not with the posts he does on a minimum of topics on a daily basis?
Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Sure, in this post-modrun era, blogging might be a lot more effective in changing public policy and rearranging governmental personnel than street protests, especially when, as now, street protesters are portrayed as loons and eccentrics and -- dare we say it -- "out of the mainstream."
Bloggers, of course, are becoming the mainstream. Ergo, their snipage and commentary is listened to by the power muckymucks, and their insight is wise.
Street protests are sooo 20th century. Well, 19th century, too. Well, pretty much every century before now. And no, most street protests don't result in immediate policy or government change.
Maybe the storming of the Bastille is an exception or the march on the Winter Palace... but obviously, the massive world-wide protests against the Iraq invasion had no effect on the White House at all, and now, some of the same people want to make a public statement in Boston. Who cares?
Oh but, the massive world wide protests of the Iraq invasion might not have had an effect on the White House, but they sure had an effect on the participants -- who discovered this world girdling network of likeminded peoples and groups, and who, through their common interest and shared goals, now look to take back this fucking planet from the insane ideologues who are trying to run it.
Yeah, go to the streets.
Blog.
Do whatever is necessary to roust the usurpers everywhere.
--felix
Do whatever is necessary to roust the usurpers everywhere.
Um, no.
pie-I was responding to something vaara said at 3:02 PM. Sorry for the delayed reaction, but I went out for a while. There seems to be a big fear of anarchist violence, puppets and black hoodies on the part of some people. I trust the people of New York to be able to have a large peaceful demonstration, that's all I was saying.
Maybe after 35 years of protesting I'm just sick to death of it. I have every intention of either staying home when the Repubs are here in NY or taking one last trip to the pool for the end of the summer.
I am 51 years old and I can say with out hesitation the results of the coming election are without a dought the most critical in my life time not to mention in our nations history. We are in danger of losing our democracy to corperate and religious interests and fighting a 50+ year war against hornets using sledge hammer tactics.
Dispite all this Americans are more obsessed with Nascar the biggest SUV on the block and a really awesome rifle then voting to avoid disaster. 40% OF AMERICANS DON"T VOTE!
Atrios on saying that it's an "odd" thing to protest conventions, you are wrong. Maybe in Eisenhowers time it would be "odd" but not in these times. Maybe in New York as a lark a camera will broadcast a shot and a talking head will comment " Gee their sure are alot of protesters on the west side highway. It's so silly, all these people don't like president Bush and think this election is important".
See you in New York.
Um pie,
Then don't. Things go on no matter what we do. Or don't do.
People are doing what is necessary to roust the usurpers everywhere.
And some aren't.
--felix
I think that the protests should have started at Gracie Mansion the day our city was turned over to the occupying army. Mayor Bloomberg might have changed his mind if thousands of people were surrounding him.Why Are We Back In Iraq?
I think that the protests should have started at Gracie Mansion the day our city was turned over to the occupying army. Mayor Bloomberg might have changed his mind if thousands of people were surrounding him.Why Are We Back In Iraq?
I'm a native New Yorker who just relocated to California (temporarily) after 16 years in Brooklyn. I tend generally to not be all that big on protests.
But I gotta say, the fact that the Republicans are having their convention in New York City hurts and outrages me in a way that goes beyond logic. And if I can scrape together the money, I will be in New York this summer to protest.
An anecdote that might help to illustrate why people in NYC are so pissed off: Not long before I moved, I went to a public taping of the Brian Lehrer show, and there was Republican speechwriter there, Lisa something (sorry, can't remember her last name). Her tone throughout the show was very: oh you latte-sipping liberals have no idea about the kind of bad stuff that goes on in the real world. Towards the end of the taping, having faced an audience of vociferously anti-Iraq war New Yorkers, she wrapped up yet another we-have-to-defend-ourselves-from-these-evil-
terrorists defense of the war with a statement along the lines of, "But I get the feeling that the people in this audience just don't appreciate the danger that we are facing from terrorists."
I couldn't believe that this person would actually make such a statement before an audience of New Yorkers. I wanted to scream at her: We were THERE on September 11th. How DARE you tell us that you don't think we understand the danger. We lost friends and family members in the attack. For months, the city was plastered with photos of the "missing" who we all knew were almost certainly dead. For months, the air was filled with the smell of burning bodies; it got into your clothes and hair when you went outside.
Yet New Yorkers, who very obviously knew the danger we face from terrorists, turned out enmasse to protest the war on Iraq in one of the biggest demonstrations the city has ever seen. But hey, who cares what those New Yorkers think, they're just a bunch of whiney liberals, right?
The current administration has taken every opportunity to exploit the tragedy that happened in NYC for the last three years, without actually giving a damn about what New Yorkers think about anything. They've gone around proclaiming how much safer they're making us while focusing their efforts on people other than those who actually attacked us, ridiculously under-funding anti-terrorism measures in targeted cities, and generally behaving in a negligent and reckless way.
The Bush administration can repeat their empty talking points all day long for the next hundred years, but New Yorkers, who are aware in a uniquely visceral way that they have a giant target on their backs, do not feel safer. In fact, the population of the city most directly affected by the events of 9/11 that Bush is constantly grandstanding about are overwhelming anti-Republican and anti-Bush.
And what do the Republicans do? Hold their convention in New York City mere days before the anniversary of September 11th. Th
Damn you, haloscan, you cut off the last sentence of my rant!
Which was: the word "outrage" doesn't even begin to cover how I feel about that.
/rant
Sigh of relief...
NY Police & Fire Unions to Picket GOP events
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/2...on/
24union.html
I'm with you, Nascar Daughter. This is how we all feel here.
You said it, nascar daughter. People who were thousands of miles away, who were pissing their pants and buying duct tape, are lecturing New Yorkers about danger. Don't even get me started about the asbestos.
I never thought I'd see the day when Atrios disparaged people turning out in the thousands to constitutionally voice their displeasure with Bush and his administration. Especially given how reclusive this president has been.
Also, contrary to what Atrios says, there's a terrific reason to protest this year's GOP convention (as I see many have already mentioned): the Republicans' attempt to appropriate NYC and Ground Zero as political currency. What more reason does one need? (Beyond how anti-protest this administration has been.)
I've mentioned to several friends and fmaily members--many of them mainstream in their politics--that I plan to protest at the GOP convention; they think it's a great idea. (I was thinking tonight that My Pet Goat would make a nice book to bring along to read at Ground Zero.)
I'm all for discussing the downsides of protesting, but please don't blindly perpetuate the myth that any and all protest alienates the left.
Cheers,
Rhet
I never thought I'd see the day when Atrios disparaged people turning out in the thousands to constitutionally voice their displeasure with Bush and his administration.
I think he was talking about the protests at the Dem convention.
Does anyone know the definitive history of the Free Speech Zone? I'd like to have some boilerplate to provide to my lazy friends in the various media newsrooms who seem to have never heard of them.
There was a Free Speech Zone at the 1988 Democratic Convention in Atlanta (see my comment above for links to articles from '88 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution). I don't know of any earlier FSZ, but the concept goes at least that far back.
One reason to protest in huge numbers is to show the rest of the world that their is dissent in America. However, I think we would be much better served surrounding the Fox news studio and not allowing them to leave.
At any rate, there needs to be evidence that we are against Bush; that there are huge numbers of people who are against Bush. We are noit protesting their convention, we are protesting him. This is not politicas as usual. How can it be?
People in Europe and all around the world are wondering, where are the good Americans?
What a riot (no play on words).
Atrios tries to explain away the Dems more NatSoc behavior while Euro immigrant "casseurs" like Vaara try to explain why thay should wear suits instead of strings.
You go girls!!!
Pie-- No, I don't know how ridiculous I sound. Thanks for asking.
"Nothing is more American than protest. Protest is what enables this nation, in its angriest moments, to progress, not self-destruct. It converts the despair of minorities into demands, turning the rage against oppression into an impetus for transformation. It makes a nation of individualists come together in struggle against exploitation and injustice. It keeps presidents from becoming monarchs and people from becoming subjects. Protest is the essence of American democracy."
Chisun Lee, VV
http://www.villagevoice.com/issu...es/0429/
lee.php
I can't say I'm really sure what Atrios is getting at here in any case.
Shorter Atrios: Don't bother to protest, not that there's anything wrong with protesting, and you should protest sometimes.
Most of us will say, "Wha???"
So I suggest that blogging can be more effective than street protests to change policies and personnel, but protesting in the streets has always had a place in precipitating change.
Do whatever is necessary to roust the usurpers everywhere.
And pie says "No."
What?!
Oh that's right, the premise here is "Don't bother." Unless the issue is a big one, like civil rights or the Vietnam War... which are so over, so don't bother.
As for usurpers, well... I guess we do get the government we deserve. So we shouldn't do what's necessary to change it.
Or something.
March on!
--felix
When the massive hordes of protesters in New York surround the RNC in a few weeks, you'll find out how useful "mass protest" can be.
whew - "out of the mainstream", thank god! for a minute there i was afraid i was turning bourgeois in my old age.
for people like me, protesting is what we do instead of going to baseball games.
also, it's a way of taking back that public space and putting it back in the center of daily life. that's the thing that REALLY pisses Them off. They would like nothing better than for us to stay at home jacked in as docile consumers of everything, of life itself, even of the Demo Convention. it re-asserts the urgency of being a participant not just in democracy but in one's own life, and shows the reality that nobody in power really wants anything like this to happen.
"Nothing is more American than protest. Protest is what enables this nation, in its angriest moments, to progress, not self-destruct. It converts the despair of minorities into demands, turning the rage against oppression into an impetus for transformation. It makes a nation of individualists come together in struggle against exploitation and injustice. It keeps presidents from becoming monarchs and people from becoming subjects. Protest is the essence of American democracy."
Chisun Lee, VV
http://www.villagevoice.com/issu...es/0429/
lee.php
"Nothing is more American than protest. Protest is what enables this nation, in its angriest moments, to progress, not self-destruct. It converts the despair of minorities into demands, turning the rage against oppression into an impetus for transformation. It makes a nation of individualists come together in struggle against exploitation and injustice. It keeps presidents from becoming monarchs and people from becoming subjects. Protest is the essence of American democracy."
Chisun Lee, VV
http://www.villagevoice.com/issu...es/0429/
lee.php
Protest at conventions:
Baa! Baa! March like sheep.
It takes a Million people to fill the west side highway, and a million people makes you feel not so alone and not so downtrodden, and keeps you energized.
Baa! Baa!
Unlike a blog, joining a public protest is about not being an individual, just going to be counted as standing in opposition. If you don't go stand, yopu can;'t be (under)counted.
See you in NYC!
Here is The Zone Great isn't it?
http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/index.html
more at:
http://www.boston.com/news/local...testers?
mode=PF
BTW to even try to equate the party political conventions to actually casting your vote in the polls is patently pretty rediculous - the conventions should somehow be "sacrosanct"? Give me a break. They should never ever be confused with the democratic (small d) electoral process itself - they are pure party politics.
Here is The Zone Great isn't it?
http://parkerpettus.com/fleet/index.html
more at:
http://www.boston.com/news/local...testers?
mode=PF
BTW to even try to equate the party political conventions to actually casting your vote in the polls is patently pretty rediculous - the conventions should somehow be "sacrosanct"? Give me a break. They should never ever be confused with the democratic (small d) electoral process itself - they are pure party politics.
I see Atrios' point about the dissent at conventions (and nowhere was there a mention that dissent should be stifled, so all those folks quoting the Bill of Rights need to calm down). I think that for most conventions there is no great point in demonstrating. But as a New Yorker, I think New Yorkers need to make their voices heard at the RNC. Not to say "the Iraqi war is wrong" (which it is), nor to say, "Bush sucks" (which he does). Rather, because these people chose NYC to exploit a tragedy that they have done almost nothing to address.
I imagine that when the GOP Nat'l Committee first picked NYC, they were thinking of Bush's warm reception at Ground Zero and thinking that many wonderful photo ops for the campaign could be mined from that traumatized earth. But New Yorkers are well aware, today, that this is the party that coerced the EPA into telling us the air quality was safe at Ground Zero, that this was the party that promised us $200 million, less than 10% of which was seen, that this is the party trying to eliminate the overtime pay that would go the very rescue workers who they posed so happily with nearly three years ago, that this is the party that has allowed Wyoming to receive 7 times more counterterrorism funding than New York. That this is the party that actually considered housing its delegates on boats in the river and denying any revenue to the city whose economy was devastated in the aftermath of 9/11.
As one of the posters at the February 2003 anti-war march read: "NYers say: Don't exploit our pain for your gain." This is what NYers need to protest next month, when these soulless bastards come to our town.
In response to Karen, and the post itself... read a history book.
Political conventions are extremely vital spaces for protest. Jeez quit blogging for a sec and go outside and meet some people..
Note article in today's NYT "demonstrators steer clear of cage"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/2...n/
26street.html
Excerpts: "We never intended to use it," said Rachel Nasca of Boston Answer, the main protest coalition, marching at the head of the line. "We never even bothered to take it to court. Did you see that thing?"
Indeed, the Free Speech Zone is rapidly becoming the hottest local issue of the convention, with most of the protest groups vowing to boycott it. The only protesters to embrace it were members of a pro-Palestinian group that says the cyclone fencing and barbed wire provide an ideal visual backdrop to their message of opposition to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
"We want to draw attention to what Palestinians have been subjected to for years," said Marilyn Levin of the group, United for Justice With Peace. "We can leave our cage, but Palestinians cannot leave theirs."
***
Putting finishing touches on the area this morning, a workman, who asked that his name not be used, took in the fencing and the razor wire wrapped around the overhead track. "Does it look like a concentration camp?" he said. "I'm Jewish. It looks like a concentration camp."
The press - regional, national, international - will be gathered in Boston during the convention.
They'll be looking for political stories. What better environment is there for political protest? The point of political protests is to attract attention to an issue or viewpoint which might not otherwise get attention.
Whatever the protest level you see in Boston, the protests against the W party should be bigger and better.
Hello,Buyers
We sell all kind of unlock phones,laptops,ipod,plasma tv,mp3 at cheap price.They are all brand new unlock cell phones still inh there factory pack with complete accesories.We ship via FEDEX and DHL world wide international.You can email us.(allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
or(allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
phones
Imate Jasjar $400
Nokia N91 250$
Nokia 6060 145$
Nokia 6111 132$
Nokia 6270 125$ (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
Nokia 6270 115$
Nokia 6280 125$ (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
Nokia N90 200$
Nokia N70 180$
Nokia N80 190$
Nokia Vertu 155$
Nokia 5140i 130$
Nokia 6230i 140$ (allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
Nokia 8800 200$ (allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
Nokia 6021 150$
Nokia 6030 150$
Nokia 6680 150$
Nokia 6681 150$
Zenith P42W22B 42 Inch Plasma TV Blowout $700
Gateway 42" Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio, Supports1280 $800
Samsung HP-R4252 Plasma TV & Monitors $900
Samsung HP-R5052 50" Plasma TV $1,500
Panasonic TH-37PWD8UK Plasma TV $650
Gateway 42" Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio, Supports 1280 $700
Sony Wega Ke-42M1 42-Inch EDTV Plasma TV $800
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma TV & Monitors $650
Gateway 50" HD Plasma TV 16 : 9 Aspect Ratio $1,500
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK 42" Plasma TV - Exceptional 4000:1 $700
Panasonic TH-42PD50U 42" Diagonal Plasma TV Special Order $750
Samsung HPR5052 50 High Definition Plasma TV with $1,100
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma TV $800
Philips 42 Inch Plasma TV and Monitor 42PF9630A $1,050
Sony VAIO V505DC2 Series Notebook Intel Pentium4-M 2.2 $800
Sony VAIO PCG-V505AC Notebook Computer Intel Pentium 4 M $700
New Sony VAIO PCG-V505DC21 P4 2.2ghz Laptop Notebook PC $700
Sony VAIO VGN-U70 Notebook Computer - World'S Smallest $1,000
Dell Latitude Laptop $300
Dell Latitude D800 15" Notebook/Laptop Computer PC $1,200
Dell XPS M170 2GHZ 1GB 80GB 256M 7800GTX Laptop Computer $1,150
Dell Laptop M60-HQCP741 $750
Dell Laptop M60-JJ50G51 $650
DEC640 - Dell Latitude C640 Notebook/Laptop Computer $400
IBM ThinkPad T30 236697U $1,150
IBM Thinkpad T23 26475NU $1,050
IBM 2379DKU Notebook Computer $535
IBM / Lenovo - N100 Intel Centrino Duo Mobile 1.6G $500
Hewlett Packard PG402UA#ABA HP Compaq nw8000 Pentium-M $1,530
Hewlett Packard DV131U#ABA HP Compaq tr3000,Pentium-III $1,300
HP Compaq tc4200,Pentium-M 750 (1.86GHz),12.1 inch XGA $800
HP nc6400 Notebook PC $750
Hewlett Packard PR127UA#ABA HP Compaq nc6120,Pentium-m $820
HP nc6400 Notebook PC $700
HP Pavilion HP DV5250us 15.4" Widescreen Laptop w/1.83 $750
Sony VAIO Pentium M 1.6GHz Centrino Wireless B+G $650
Sony VAIO VAIO SZ140P10 Notebook $1,050
Sony VAIO VGN-A690 17 Notebook PC $530
Sony VAIO Pentium M 2.26GHz Notebook PC (Open Box) $900
Sony VAIO S170 Intel Pentium M 1.5GHz, 13.3in WXGA, 40GB $800
(allphonesltd1@yahoo.co.uk)
(allphonesltd1999@hotmail.com)
buy generic link online.searchdrugs.org viagra buy generic link online.searchdrugs.org viagra buy generic link online.searchdrugs.org viagra. nfl betting nfl betting nfl betting.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
