Wednesday, September 3, 2008

ANSWER and the RNC protests

Please take a minute to visit the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) website and send an email protesting the treatment of RNC protesters in Minneapolis/ St Paul.

From their website:

...The police have engaged in a widespread riot against social justice organizations, resulting in the arrest of around 300 protesters. Most of the arrested are still in jail, and at least one person with a serious medical condition has been refused care.

Even before the RNC began, protest organizing centers were raided. Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of “preemptive raids." The raids and detentions have targeted activists planning to protest the convention, including journalists and videographers from I-Witness Video and the Glass Bead Collective. These media organizations were targeted because of the instrumental role they played in documenting police abuses the 2004 RNC. Their comprehensive video coverage helped more than 400 wrongfully arrested people get their charges thrown out. ...

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh Please, it is one thing to protest, it is another to go around and destory property. Let them stay in jail for a few days.

Anonymous said...

The far LEFT are wack jobs!!!!!! I agree let them stay in jail or better yet ship them off to Canada.

Dennis Miller - I LOVE YOU!

Anonymous said...

CRACK ~


Did you her that....................................................................................................Palin hit a Homer out of the park.

Obama better get back to bashing Bush because this tough cookie won't be broken and she isn't going to Washington to please the media.

Lifelong Democrat voting McCain / Palin.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you have to break some stuff to get your point across... and sometimes the point is YOU REPUBLICANS are the real WACKJOBS!
Sooner than later, you will be so outnumbered, your only choice will be to move your own asses off to Canada. Good luck to you and your small world view.

Anonymous said...

I am ashamed of my fellow Democrats - how quickly we revert to name calling and mud slinging.

Looking at issues only and resumes....... I kind of agree with my former mayor. If the resumes didn't have names or (R) / (D) next to the name -----then who would I hire. Surely not a snack oil salesman. I want substance to scare away terrorist not just a suit.

HMMMMMMMM.........Why do we claim to be so open minded when it only suits our agenda?

This is not the party I joined in my youth.

METS! METS! METS!

likesforests said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
likesforests said...

For anyone wanting an objective report of what happened here is the Eyewitness News video coverage of the protests (two reporters) and here's an article from St. Paul's Star Tribune.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

likesforests -- Why is a preemptive raid on social activist groups a legal or ethical thing for police to do?

Doug said...

Stop war AND end racism?

You've set yourself some rather lofty goals.

Perhaps you should start by, say, ending racism, see how that goes, and only then move on to stopping war. You just seem to be spreading yourself a little thin.

Joking aside, I respect your opinions even while I don't share them but I am a little bothered by what I perceive to be the implied assumption that there is one side that loves war and racism and another side that doesn't. It would perhaps be more accurate to state that there is one side that believes some wars, including the current one, are necessary (reasonable people can of course disagree on this) and another side, or at least an extreme wing of the other side, that believes war is never justified under any circumstances. As for racism it is simply silly to believe that one political side or the other has the moral high ground here. All moral people of good will would like to see an end to racism in all of its ugly forms. The differences are in the ideas of how to accomplish this. And, truthfully, I think most people on both sides of the political spectrum would be in agreement that one of the LEAST effective ways to end racism is by having a big and raucous and occasionally violent street party. "Raising awareness" sounds impressive if you don't think about it too much but in the end it really just amounts to doing nothing while pretending to be doing something.

soissons said...

The fundamental threat of the Republican party is an increasing disregard for the law and the constitution. It is the worst form of pandering in this country to say, as Palin did, that Obama is worried only about whether terrorists are read their rights. Our system of laws, our legal system and our judiciary are the things that keep us from becoming a tyranny under the control of rampany executive branch. I love Palin's whole persona, but that's as far as it goes. The right wing has no regard for the fundamental rights of people and the extraordinary significance these rights have for what it means to be an America. William Buckley said that he once thought the ethos of a nation could not change but admitted that indeed in this country our ethos as far as it relates to racism and ethnics diversity has changed. This change came about precisely because of the respect for fundamental rights and the implimentation and enforcement (and abidement) of laws meant to protect them.

Anonymous said...

Should have used water cannons with some shampoo and soap mixed in. Then they could have had their first bath of the decade.

Greg Shahade said...

Doug this is the whole point, when you discuss your ideas (and this is true of most people who are heated in politics), you find the most extreme about the opposing party and talk about that, while for your own party you talk about their more moderate viewpoints. For example:

"It would perhaps be more accurate to state that there is one side that believes some wars, including the current one, are necessary (reasonable people can of course disagree on this) and another side, or at least an extreme wing of the other side, that believes war is never justified under any circumstances"

While you claim to want to try to be accurate, the above sentence is clearly biased towards Republicans. A more even handed way of saying it would be to simply say that Democrats are generally less likely to agree that war is a good thing, instead of summoning the ultra left wing extreme exceptions to the party, who believe that war is never justified (which I'm sure that most people who have heard of the Nazi's disagree with.)

I'm sure there is an ultra right wing side that wants to go to war for all kinds of stupid petty reasons that the large majority of Republicans disagree with.

Anyway I generally feel that the media distorts so much that it's almost impossible for an average American citizen to actually know what's happening in wartime situation.

I'd definitely say that I don't believe the Iraq war is a good thing, but I haven't been there and I understand that the media is totally and completely distorted a very large percentage of the time. So it's possible I'm wrong.

Basically my general feeling about politics, especially world politics, is that most people don't have even the slightest clue what the hell is going on, so they should be careful forming overly passionate opinions on certain subjects.

Some soldiers come home and say how horrible the war was. Some come home and say how necessary it was. Invariably you will only hear from one subset of these soldiers depending on whether the article you are reading has a liberal or conservative bias. Almost all liberals/conservatives are more likely to read articles that subscribe to their bias.

So, even though I've completely gone off point from the original reason for writing this comment, I am definitely in favor of Obama, for one reason that when you listen to him and McCain talk, he sounds much more intelligent, rational, logical and almost never dismisses any idea without giving it proper thought and explanation, even if he completely disagrees with it. I'm always aware that it could be my Liberal bias that makes me think so, but I really believe it about him, and I do think that such qualities should make a superior president.

likesforests said...

Elizabeth Vickary: "likesforests -- Why is a preemptive raid on social activist groups a legal or ethical thing for police to do?"

I did not say this. A pre-emptive raid on people who plan to wave signs and shout their views would be wrong, of course. Police say that is not what happened. They say they have proof that DePalma and the group known as the "RNC Welcoming Committee" planned to hurt people and destroy property to make their point. That's terrorism (the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes) and if they're guilty, kudos to the police.

Elizabeth Vickary -- "Why is a preemptive raid on social activist groups a legal or ethical thing for police to do?"

What I said was you directed us to an extremely biased account of what happened. Further, their e-mail petition does not ask for 'better treatment of RNC protesters" but rather to "release all protesters". That is something that I cannot in good conscience support after watching videos and reading accounts of what some of the arrested "protesters" have done (some news sites use the term protesters for the thousands who marched peacefully and troublemakers for the 300 or so who broke laws).

Wall Street Journal

"Demonstrations this week have been the most violent at a national party convention in recent memory, with protesters smashing windows, slashing tires, throwing bags of urine and excrement and physically confronting Republican delegates in the streets."

Anonymous said...

So any news and gossip on the USCL?

Doug said...

Greg, in fairness I did acknowledge in my previous post that I was refering to an extreme wing of the other party. Still you make some fair points.

Anonymous said...

The problem for Palin's 17 year old daughter is her parents. Does she have a real choice to carry to term or abort? I think not. Her parnet's choice will leave a child to be rasied by a mother and father who are too young and without life experience to raise a child effectively. And so, the cycle of teen pregnancy will continue. As they said in Jurassic Park, nature will find a way.

As for myself, I find the pregnancy tragically amusing. I guess the vaunted Republican plank calling for abstinence is clearly not working--but we all knew that statistically from every teen pregnancy study done since the morons took office in 2000.

Sex itself is most often against Republican values if not done in missionary position for the purpose of procreating. Sadly for the pregnant Palin and most Republicans, alternatives such as anal sex with it's combination of pleasure and effective birth control are verboten. This is not to say that Christian Fundamentalists, particularly ordained men, may not engage in all forms of sex, particularly in door-slammer motels on country roads. Significantly, they can usually repent without having another child to raise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take another look at the London System.

Cheers,
Brian Lafferty

Anonymous said...

Note to media pundits. There is no mainstream liberal/left media in the US.It's a myth brought to you by Fox, Clearchannel, Rupert and friends. The reason Americans are so easily befuddled, made fearful and led like sheep to the slaughter, is because they are dumbed down by generations of television sitcoms & "news", and have no critical thinking skills or curiosity as to information and the wider World. They've gotten what they deserve.

Brian Lafferty

es_trick said...

Doug wrote:
“ . . . I am a little bothered by what I perceive to be the implied assumption that there is one side that loves war and racism and another side that doesn't.

. . . As for racism it is simply silly to believe that one political side or the other has the moral high ground here. All moral people of good will would like to see an end to racism in all of its ugly forms.”


I will allow that there are lots of moral people of good will who would like to see an end to racism in both the Republican and Democratic parties. There are also many racists in both parties.

However, it’s not a coincidence that the demographic group that most fears blacks, working class /blue collar whites, overwhelmingly gravitates to the Republican party.

It was not always so. For a hundred years the Republican party was the party of the liberators, and there was a very strong progressive wing of the party, epitomized by Theodore Roosevelt. Meanwhile, the Democratic party was the conservative party, the party of Jim Crow, the party of the ‘solid South.’

But beginning in 1964 the South began its dramatic, 180 degree turn around to the Republican party. The cause? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was introduced by President Kennedy in 1963, and signed into law by Johnson eight months after Kennedy’s assassination. Johnson knew that signing the act into law would drive white southerners from the Democratic party. And so it did. In the presidential election that followed four months later, five states in the deep south voted Republican for the first time in living memory. Besides Goldwater’s home state of Arizona, those were the only states the Republicans won that year. In 1968, George Wallace, an avowed segregationist running as a third party candidate, won four of the five southern states that Goldwater had claimed, plus South Carolina. On the evening of the election in 1972, the news casters kept saying over and over all night long that “the George Wallace vote has all gone to Nixon.”

Now the south is solidly Republican, except when the Democrats nominate a Southerner such as Carter or Clinton. The refrain of many old southern Democrats is “I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me.” And who are the “Reagan Democrats” that the Republicans woo so covetously? They are the conservative whites who were born into families that have been Democrats for generations, who can’t switch their party registration because of family tradition, but can’t identify with the progressive positions that the Democratic party now stands for.

-Eric

Anonymous said...

The shampoo comment is by FAR the best - BRAVO - made me laugh out loud.


Yes, you can protest peacefully anywhere in our great country. Like the first poster said, "Oh Please, it is one thing to protest, it is another to go around and destory property. Let them stay in jail for a few days."

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth, the police in St. Paul did the same things that were done by the NYPD when the Republicans met in NYC. There were what amounted to illegal, preventative arrests and IIRC, NYC paid some big money to settle law suits that resulted from some of those arrests. I'm currently reading through Richard Pipes The Russian Revolution and I am struck by the similarities in police tactics used by the Tsarist police against opponents of the monarchy. It's nothing new.

We had police infiltrators in the student movement against the Vietnam War--excuse me--Conflict. I even remember a uniformed state police officer attending an on campus meeting of the Panthers. Fun stuff. We also had a FBI snitch living in my dorm reporting on me. I suspected what he was and had some darned good fun with him which I later read about in my FBI file.

SSDCentury.

Brian Lafferty

Glenn Wilson said...

More than 280 people were arrested here in St. Paul Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Among them were several journalists covering the protests in the streets link.

The deal required the Republican Party's host committee to buy insurance covering up to $10 million in damages and unlimited legal costs for law enforcement officials accused of brutality, violating civil rights and other misconduct.
...
In St. Paul, some critics say the agreement has only encouraged police to use aggressive tactics knowing they won't have to pay damages.
link

Anonymous said...

Wilson wrote:
"The deal required the Republican Party's host committee to buy insurance covering up to $10 million in damages and unlimited legal costs for law enforcement officials accused of brutality, violating civil rights and other misconduct.
...
In St. Paul, some critics say the agreement has only encouraged police to use aggressive tactics knowing they won't have to pay damages."

This is truly disgusting news but it has all the hallmarks of a true Republican plan. Just like selling pollution credits, you can sell civil rights by insuring the perps.
Brian Lafferty

Anonymous said...

Brian Lafferty,

I disagree with part of your post.

You should look at the Ruy Lopez instead. The London system is crap.

Anonymous said...

Anon said:
"I disagree with part of your post.

You should look at the Ruy Lopez instead. The London system is crap."

LOL. The London is a tough nut for black to crack. Besides, it's a Queen pawn opening which I prefer. It's been played by Spassky, Kamsky, Yusupov, Kasparov and Bronstein to name a few. Now if only I could play it 1/4 as well as any of them do (did).

BL

Tom Panelas said...

Andrew Sullivan, an A-list blogger and self-described conservative, has this about the protests at the Republican convention.

As a say, bear in mind that Sullivan is a conservative.