Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMINNEAPOLIS - Shrouded in black, with a bandanna masking her face, a self-proclaimed anarchist slips into her combat boots and dashes through town, tossing a Molotov cocktail here, launching a bowling ball there.
The YouTube video is more parody than threat: The flaming cocktail ignites a charcoal grill, and the bowling ball knocks down pins instead of crashing through a Navy recruiting office window. But as the video fades to black, the message on-screen is clear: "We're getting ready. What are you doing?"
With less than 10 months to go before the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St.Paul, activists are already plotting to crash the party.
On the drawing board: A mass march to protest Iraq; human roadblocks; schemes to disrupt public transportation; and talk of a temporary free state near the main convention site, St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center.
With tens of thousands of people expected to visit the Twin Cities during the convention Sept. 1-4, local and federal law enforcement are getting ready as well.
Civil rights groups and attorneys are talking with police and demonstrators to ensure laws are followed during what will likely be the largest crush of people the state has seen in years.
"It's better to be planning early rather than late," said Jordan Kushner, coordinator of the Legal Observer and Political Defense Committee, a committee within the National Lawyers Guild. "People have as much right to the streets as the Republicans who are coming here to engage in their activities."
St. Paul Police Commander Doug Holtz said the city is working out details on how to accommodate protesters, but declined to go into them. "The city of St. Paul is going to be well-prepared to have an excellent convention," he said.
The group behind the spoof video, the RNC Welcoming Committee, began organizing last fall and says it is helping other groups organize, too.
Members of the group declined to meet with an Associated Press reporter or talk by phone, confining their exchanges to e-mail.
The group says it will help protesters find food, housing and medical support during the convention. It also plans to provide maps of roads, bridges and sites to aid in planning. And it intends to create a family-friendly area for children of protesters.
Protesters also are getting ready for the Democratic National Convention in Denver Aug. 25-28.
The group "Recreate 68" - a reference to the troubled 1968 Democratic National Convention - seeks to serve the same umbrella function as the RNC Welcoming Committee in Minnesota, by supporting other protesters.
Recreate 68 is anti-war and opposed to the two-party system, member-spokesman Glenn Spagnuolo said.
The RNC Welcoming Committee describes itself as an anarchist/anti-authoritarian group. When asked about the use of violence, the group wrote in an e-mail: "We may choose to use pacifist tactics, but we will defend ourselves, our communities, and the Earth. We will not bring violence to the protests, but we will not back down and we will not be terrorized."
The group said it also would not apply for a permit to demonstrate, saying: "We will not allow the state to regulate our resistance."
Some groups who have applied have been frustrated to find the city of St. Paul won't grant them until six months before the convention.
Mick Kelly, a spokesman for the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, said his group plans a massive anti-war march on the convention's first day. It's important to get a permit early so people can plan travel from around the country, he said.
"The Republican National Convention - they've begun their preparations full-press," Kelly said. "We in the anti-war movement need to do the same thing."
Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, said the ACLU wants to make sure protesters are close enough to the convention so they can be seen and heard.
The ACLU and other observers will be on hand to ensure protesters' civil rights aren't violated and to avoid a repeat of the 2004 Republican Convention in New York, when more than 1,800 people were arrested. Some of those people said they weren't protesters at all but were swept up by police. Some lawsuits are still pending.
Associated Press writer George Merritt contributed to this report from Denver.
© 2007 The Associated Press.
40 Comments so far
Show AllMpls/St Paul- site of the RNC convention in Sept
Chris Baker, KTLK talk host, responded on his show to a letter from John Delmonico, the President of the Mpls. Police Federation, which questioned the Departments' limitation of the use of riot equipment to maintain order at the upcoming RNC Convention.
Fair enough. The cops should be prepared in case of unlawful behavior. They need to guard the safety and rights of all Americans during the RNC.
But, Baker used this as an opportunity to paint any and all protesters, legal or illegal, with the same aerosol of defamation.
As we exercise our rights to assemble peaceably, and redress of grievances we are all portrayed under the same false light as "stinky protesters","dread-locked","hooded","varmints", "spitting, frothing at the mouth lunatics,..."
He presents us to his fans as well-funded professionals who will break the law, destroy property, and hurt cops.
Then he crosses the line. He rages, "You must have order, you cannot have a civilized society without order and if that means cracking a few skulls, so be it...a good ole boy network is what you need and hand out some ax handles."
Towards the end of the segment, he adds,"There seems to be a big debate over whether or not police officers will be able to wear helmets, carry shields, use pepper spray and tasers on this crowd. You know, I'll tell you what works on a crowd like this--a machine gun, that always works very well." "Mow 'em down, baby!" excitedly adds Baker's co-host "Jordan".
Chris Baker isn't about to let our police do their cool-headed job for a cool-headed convention.
He prefers hate speech.
"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based..." in this case upon their political views.
I guess it doesn't matter who gets hurt as long as people are talking about him.
After all, he is the new guy. He's building a following.
Who are we?
Some friends, outraged at five years of unlawful occupation and a host of crimes against us, who have gathered lawfully and peaceably, with some homemade banners, for our little sing along.
Lots of sweet little old ladies, and kids.
Some vets, and some musicians.
Real dangerous.
Baker is using his free speech to trash ours.
D
Hi Michelle,
I have to admit, posts like the one above from anarcho sometimes embarrass me by association. As an anarchist, I like to think of my openness to working with people I don't agree with (as long as we agree to play nice with each other) as a much more effective reflection of my anarchist politics than attacking everybody who doesn't agree with me.
Anarcho:
Whoa dude, more time out in the woods. ^_^ I can understand getting your hackles up, but there's nothing like coming off as authoritarian to turn people off from the concept. PS: Chavez is doing just fine - the majority of his detractors are pro-capitalist flunkies and upper middle class strongmen. Is that what you want to associate yourself with, O (man)archist? Just wondering...
Anarcho,
It is clear from your posts that you do not live in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and know nothing about our organizing here. Unlike other areas, we have figured out how to respect a diversity of tactics without condemning any of them publicly. That's a core agreement all of us here in the movement have made, including members of the Welcoming Committee, the Coalition to March, the Protest RNC 2008 coalition and others. We know that there aren't enough of us to start with and that it is counterproductive for people to waste energy fighting each other when that energy could best be used taking on this system. We also know that the mainstream media feeds off that crap and uses it as the excuse to dismiss the vital messages we are all trying to get out through our actions.
If you want to sow dissention between activists, do it in your own town. As for us here in the Twin Cities, we're busy making plans to turn out the largest and most varied response possible against the Repulsicrat's repressive and fascistic agenda.
Michelle G.
Communities United Against Police Brutality (supporting of all of the coalitions working to protest the RNC)
Anarcho,
Sorry for the delay... I was at work. I know, I know... this makes me a subserviant fool in shackles, but ya know, I don't have a trust fund, so I don't have the liberty to entertain silly ideas like an anarchist worldwide revolution. I live in the working class world, and I'm not ashamed to say so, or to advocate on it's behalf. That's called being a progressive.
Now let's see. Where to begin? How 'bout Chavez? I'll admit I've been having some reservations about him lately, but I think the jury's still out. He has cracked down on opposition (read: "mouthpieces for the elite") media, and I, as a rule, distrust that, but remember this was the same media working hand-in-glove with our spooks when we attempted a violent coup in '02. (But violence is OK with you, no?)
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the working class and peasants in Venezuela have benefited enormously by his tenure in office, that's why Sr. Hugo enjoys an over 60% approval rating. But who wants to trust all those ignorant, unwashed, un-well-read-in-anarchist-literature folks anyway? As you said, "As for asking them... they'll say they've changed things, and they'd believe it, but no serious change has been done."
Says you.
But not, apparently, them. But that's what democracy's all about. You've been out-voted. Sorry, but they, and I dare say, we, aren't about to roll over for an anarchist oligarchy just because you seem to know what's better for everyone.
And I see you have NOTHING to say about Mandela or Havel. That's wise of you, because you would not be able to MAKE the argument that voting didn't change things for the better in those countries.
And why did I bring up dear ole Emma? Well, Einstein, she's the one widely attributed to that quote about voting, that's why. Here's a link, in case you don't believe me: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/emmagoldma107325.html
Thought you were supposed to be well-read in anarchist lit. C'mom, anarcho, you can't let a brain dead slave to the existing order like me out-quote you on your own ground, can you?
And are you really trying to make the case that Gandhi is somehow responsible for nukes in Pakistan?
And what about Carter, Ford, and Bush? They weren't progressives by any stretch of the meaning of the word. Carter's as close as you can get, but he was no McGovern, nor RFK.
denny; Yes, you are my sister. Sorry for the gender assumption. I also print articles from Common Dreams and make copies and give them to people, especially ones without computers.
I'm working on a theory about the 'macho image' that young men and ( I hate to say it ) some young women need, in order to impress their family and friends to show how brave, daring, and tough they are. The military thrives on this sort of behavior and I also fell for it in my teen years. Most people grow out of the imagine as they grow older and wiser, but some stay in that frame of mind even when they are old and gray.
Keep spreading the word, Denny. I've been ridiculed and called all sorts of names, but I continue showing the 'uninformed' what is really going on. Peace and Harmony to you and yours.
leobixby; Good post. I'll add my two cents to the anarchist question in a few hours. I'm an Emma Goldman fan! Gotta run.
It appears that Republicans, generally speaking, have done more harm than good in the United States. They do not seem to care about improving the United States in any way. On the contrary, most do not put Americans first and have cost the United States untold amounts of money based on their ideas by promoting mass murders and pseudo-Christianity. Yes Democrats may have played a part in the whole Iraq and Afghanistan fiasco; but remember, waging war after 9/11 WAS the idea of the Republicans. Why did some Democrats go along with it? Perhaps there was money to be made, and they wanted revenge also - however misguided.
I do believe that some groups are part of the problem and some groups are part of the solution. I mean this in a general sense. Conservative talk show hosts are an example of those who are part of the problem. They are defenders of the status quo and object to any proposed solutions that threaten the status quo. Some groups in the United States that have offered solutions to USA domestic problems are automatically branded as "liberal" even if they are not nor giving explanations as to why a Republican may feel that way. In fact, it seems that many Republicans simply lack critical thinking or objectivity. Maybe that is why they simply are unable to govern in my humble opinion. Sure they are free to have their beliefs but it is dangerous for both the USA and the world community to have neo-cons or Republicans - as they have demonstrated for a few decades now.
While I am on th esubject, I wish Republicans and Neo-cons can just leave the Socialists alone. There is no reason for the Republicans to discredit a Socialist beliefs and question their patriotism. There is simply no basis for it other than to be a******. When was the last time a Socialist was President of the USA? Actually, many solutions for problems in the USA can be solved by adopting some Socialist ideas.
Why are some Americans so afraid of being taxed? How else will the war effort be paid. Hmmmm? Any ideas? I have a couple. Make a law that states no American may make more than 500,000 per year. Ifan individual makes more than that, the money must be forfeited to the USA or an International body such as the UN. That would help pay for "socialized medicine" and any and all debts to China and Saudi Arabia. The less privatization the USA is involved with, the better your society will be.
The fact that 1% of Americans possess 80% of its wealth is something that most Americans suffer from. Solution? Have the Government confiscate those funds. Redirect this money away from individuals to the Government. Then the Government can use this money for domestic programs and to repay the debts from the so-called "war on terror." This should happen in order for a Revolution not to take place as it did in France and Cuba.
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
leobixby,
"It is virtually impossible to dedicate one's life and resources to the betterment of society if one must till all their own soil, so to speak."
I get your point philosophically, but later in your post you reach out for practical goals for effecting change. I personally think that tilling one's own soil is a great way to dedicate one's life and resources to the betterment of society, an option not available to or suitable for everybody, but certainly the more the better.
Anarcho,
The violence you cause in future Peace events will only help the Fascists frame all people in the streets as "terrorists".
Many of the ones who join or lead you will be Police agents maybe dressed in black also.
Maybe you will change for the better some day, but your planned violence will only set back any progress most of us are working for.
Stick to the Really Free Markets if you want to help humanity.
You are a trouble maker hiding behind Idealistic fantasy of "no government".
This has been a very enlightening conversation so far. Last night, I went home and watched a documentary about Anarchism in America. There were several interesting interviews with veteran anarchist theorists, and what I gained from it, more than anything, was that anarchists are really nothing more than classical liberals with a very communitarian approach. Perhaps we could say libertarians without the desire for the constant "leave me the fuck alone" sentiment. They actually do give a shit about society as a whole, in that they think individual freedom, and indeed liberty from the whole, necessarily lifts the whole of society. Lots of room for meaningful debate there.
However, the method they plan to use to get their sucks, and they tend not to clearly talk about the very real realities that exist on the path to arriving at their utopia, which is every family subsisting on their own, in fact homesteading. Tens of millions of people would have to simply be eliminated if that was to be any kind of solution that would lead to a society any less violent or devoid of true individual freedom than what we have now. What would handicapped people do? What about the criminally insane? What about those who actually would like to dedicate their lives to the betterment of society as a whole, in place of homesteading? It is virtually impossible to dedicate one's life and resources to the betterment of society if one must till all their own soil, so to speak.
Anyway, I know this is not a discussion about anarchy directly, but I find the discrepencies in the theory very intriguing, and I wonder what "anarcho" would have to say about it.
Now, more on point, violence for the sake of violence, is nothing but violence. Just like criticism without vision is simply dominance, violence without vision is simply disruption. I agree with anarcho in that mass disruption MUST occur at the RNC next year, but I would hope that their is a more immediately usable and practical goal to be had along the way.
I agree- I think I will stick with our "meaningless" elections. Of course, elections are only meaningless when the candidate that is elected is incapable of representing the public interest.
If you vote for a meaningful candidate, then elections matter.
As far as 'working for the revolution' mentioned previously. By supporting the Green Party, working to shut out special interest $ from the political process, and opening up our winner take all system to a true multi party democracy- that sounds pretty revolutionary to me....
Wow, "Anarcho_" sure has a lot to say. Unfortunately, when I got to the part where he/she advocated "violent protest," I stopped reading.
As a general rule, anybody advocating violent activity at an anti-violence protest (isn't that what anti-war protests are?) is either pathologically deluded or an agent provocateur. In either case, one hurts the cause one claims to support.
I hope the Mpls/St Paul protesters will buy up all of the available hotel space during the convention, and sell it back to Republicans (and the media) at scalpers' prices. It would be interesting to see if Republicans continued to tout the "entreprenaurial spirit" and the workings of the free-market.
Iowairish; I agree with denny; well said.
denny; Nothing like 24 hour propaganda to mold people's thoughts. That is why I have said so many times on other posts that "ignorance is not bliss, it is unforgivable', because, "when the vast majority let a small minority do their thinking, tyrants take over".
Continue talking to these misguided confused youngsters about war, violence, human rights imperialism, etc., and above all, encourage them to READ alternative books and magazines and watch progressive film and listen to progressive radio for a more thorough understanding of the world we live in. And attend lectures by progressives. Peace, brother.
Iowairish, well said! voluntary slaughter is not what I would call patriotism to the usa but more burden of global hatred of the usa and how could anyone volunteer to go into the service knowing they are gonna kill people relentlessly, I tried to offer a young guy here some info on why he shouldn't join the army but he was so mesmerized to go to iraq and kill arabs for his country I mean how could I have spoke to him about this grave mistake he was so anxious to kill the enemy what could I have said to him
sunspot,
I've read parts of Gandhi's books, he was influenced heavily by thoreau's civil disobedience essay. Civil disobedience in the way that Gandhi used it, I don't really agree with. I do believe in disobeying laws, which I supposed could be defined as that. Direct Action is something I advocate as an anarchist because it is the best way to accomplish things I feel. Rather than writing lengthy details on it, I'd rather turn you to this link which explains it:
http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/pdfs/direct_action_guide.pdf . There are a lot of different strategies to take too, it just depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think the actions by groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front are more effective than other environmental groups, (but this is considered domestic terrorism, www.greenisthenewred.com) but at the same time, Earth Firsters! don't destroy corporate property anymore, and are also effective from doing things like tree sitting and squatting forrests to prevent them from being cut down. Groups like ELF practice tree spiking too, where Earth First! has renounced those kinds of tactics. I think overall, the best deviation away from the current liberal activism is to organize protests without permits, and without permission from the government, if you do this in small groups you risk arrests, but if you do this in large groups, you are typically able to get away with it. There are always marches too where thousands show up, but the groups always get permits to do them, and liberal activist groups fear reclaiming the streets as their own. It would be much more intimidating if they didn't have government permission. I also don't see the point in protesting just to show opposition, when the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have a meeting, there shouldn't be protests designed to show opposition to their policies only, but the protests should be designed to shut down the meeting permanently. Also, workplace occupations are effective for shutting down bussiness, and could be used for bussiness' which are doing something wrong, as actions could be done similar to shut down government buildings for days. There is more but I doubt it will all get put on here, you can email me if you would like to hear more ideas at anarcho55@gmail.com
Anarcho,
I hear you in every way. I'm interested in what kind of civil disobedience you might advise. I, too think it's time to notch up the dissident activities (uh oh, I just felt my name and social security # start flashing somewhere in the Homeland Security database!) beyond the well ordered protests that are happening.
Also, have you ever read Gandhi's autobiography? He was pretty effective. He might turn you on to a few ideas, if you haven't.
drift-
You have no understanding of who I am, for I am no ideologue. Nor do you have any understanding of what an ideologue is apparently.
"Emma Goldman was just plain-ass, dead fucking wrong. Voting didn't change anything? Try telling that to Nelson Mandela, or Vaclev Havel, or Hugo Chavez. They'd just laugh at you, because finally, that's what you are: laughable."
Voting never changed anything. Voting puts someone into power that will make minor adjustments to the system. Chavez? You're calling me an ideologue? Chavez is an idiot who doesn't give a flying fu*ck about his people, he only cares about those who will follow him. As for asking them, why don't you concern yourself with the people out of curiousity? Of course they'll say they've changed things, and they'd believe it, but no serious change has been done. Look at Ghandi and the independence of India, which created Pakistan as well. Both countries now have nukes, and both governments are corrupt. Voting only elects more governments, but it never creates actual change. Voting is a matter of making a decision between choices which have already been decided for you. Freedom is making the decisions in the first place. What about Bush, who lead the murderous war on terror? What about Clinton who waged a sanctions campaign against Iraq which killed millions of Iraqi's? What about Gerald Ford, who allowed the invasion of East Timor which killed a quarter of the population at least? What about Jimmy Carter, who supported the military regime of Pal Pot, and gave them military aid? Voting is worthless and doesn't do anything for the people.
Who mentioned Emma Goldman anyways? Is your understanding of anarchy so naive to think that every anarchist follows Emma Goldman as if she was Marx? That's not what anarchy is.
"And just in case you missed it: "Common Dreams: News and Views of the Progressive Community." That makes you a troll. You're not here to contribute to the discussion, you're here to bait and brawl."
In case you missed it, this article spoke about the RNC Welcoming Committee, which is an anti-authoritarian anarchist group. What have you done to contribute to the discussion? 1. Attack me for your own misunderstandings of anarchy. 2. Attack me for realizing that voting doesn't accomplish anything, and told me to ask these idiots that of course would say they brought about change (If you were to ask Hitler if voting brought about change, he would have said yes too I'm sure, just so you know). 3. Said this is a progressive website, and I am a troll. Yup, you're really contributing to the discussion. I've been arguing tactics with people, you simply are attacking me with no basis for your arguments.
sunspot-
I respect the fact that you are not trying to impose your view as the better view. I comment only to bring a different perspective onto this site in an attempt to make people question their tactics, and hopefully to help them realize that there are more effective tactics to be used.
I believe every human being is good in nature, but for whatever reason, including mostly their indoctrination and the social conditions which exist today, some choose to do wrong.
I dissagre with you on pushing them farther into their position by condemning what they do. The people who go to war can come home proud of what they have done, and have people behind them, which is only encouraging their behavior. Furthermore, I feel that it only sets an example for other kids who wish to join the military, and will make them feel that it is an acceptable route to go, therefore it becomes problematic. I don't feel that someone who has killed another human being to defend this system should be supported, but that is my opinion, and we obviously dissagre.
" Frankly if you and others like you were to skillfully throw some wrenches into the machine, I'd be behind you in spirit."
So long as your not against us, then my conflict doesn't lie with you. You take care as well.
I wouldn't follow you across the street, anarcho. You're a bloviating ideologue with feverish delusions of granduer.
Emma Goldman was just plain-ass, dead fucking wrong. Voting didn't change anything? Try telling that to Nelson Mandela, or Vaclev Havel, or Hugo Chavez. They'd just laugh at you, because finally, that's what you are: laughable.
And just in case you missed it: "Common Dreams: News and Views of the Progressive Community." That makes you a troll. You're not here to contribute to the discussion, you're here to bait and brawl.
anarcho
So many questions! I mean no disrespect by not answering each, but maybe I can address the deeper regions of our conflict of opinion.
I support the goodness and capacity to choose righteousness in every human being, be they Nazi, Iraqi,or republican. We are not dealing with these groups, persay, but the individuals who comprise them. (I've never met "the republicans" but have interacted with plenty of republicans)
I have personally found that fellow human beings are far more open to change when met with the compassion and understanding that results from seeing the complexity of influences that shape us all.
Further, it's been my experience that painting anyone with a broad, passionate stroke of condemnation will often push them further into their own passionate position. This may be an unpopular perspective in this neighborhood, but I don't see much value in passion, at all. It's passion that is the seed of conflict that has sprouted into the many limbed warfare enclosing the globe.
I think we need to be cool, objective, act efficiently, consistently, and intensely, but without the emotional judgements that stoke the flames of hostility.
Anarcho, it's best to remember when dialoguing(?) with me that my intent is not to impose mine as the better view, just another view. Frankly if you and others like you were to skillfully throw some wrenches into the machine, I'd be behind you in spirit. I just tend toward catching my flies with Honey. Take care.
sunspot-
Are you willing to support a Nazi simply because they all have different motives for being nazi's? Hitler wanted to have one giant government over the world because he thought this would bring world peace. The republicans want to violate our every right, they have mixed ideas as well, some of them are freaked out by the terrorism issue and are taking it way to far, should we give them a break? The troops are murderering innocent people, they should never be supported. You're only supporting them because they are American troops, you're blinded by your patriotism, the Iraqi's are fighting for their freedom, why aren't you supporting them? What do you propose they are if they aren't murderers? They are killing innocent people for the sake of defending the American empire, and supporting the governments habit of killing brown people, I have no sympathy for them and they are murderers.
Some of you speak of supporting or not supporting the troops. Though it be an all volunteer army, let's keep in mind the motives of those who enlisted cannot be other than mixed.
Many, I'm sure, were idealistic, honorable. (Did anyone here ever fantasize, as a child, about being a great warrior? Same thing, we all grow beyond such fantasies at our own clip.) While it helps no one to support the illusion that US armed forces are, on the whole, a force for righteousness, it is not useful to slip into vitriol condemning them, en masse, as murderers.
I think that this is the first slip into the rigidity of the same black and white worldview that is ammunition for every dark tyrant, used to justify his own course.
keyinside-
I'll take your question. I won't vote at all. Even if your party makes it (which obviously won't happen), do you honestly think the Congress will seriously allow you guys to take office? Your efforts that your going to spend campaigning would be better dedicated to working towards the revolution and to achieve serious change, rather than installing another moron into that hierarchical position of president. You're still going to enforce the capitalist system, yes? Let me guess, you want to reform it? What is your party going to do to truly bring freedom? Are you going to keep the laws which are cobwebs for the rich and chains of steel for the poor? What do you intend to do about the fact that millions of people within this country are forced into wage-slavery? You still want to keep this system which enslaves us, you just want your guy to be the master as opposed to another party. Will you keep the wage system in place? Will you make America a classless society? What will you do to make a world based more on mutual aid as opposed to continuing a system based on mutual aid?
You can speak of direct democracy, but so long as there is hierarchy, there will never be democracy. Voting never changed anything and it never will.
www.infoshop.org
www.crimethinc.com
lobster
your solution is another leader? You're the type of person that is spending their whole life waiting for the right candidate to come into office so they can hopefully give you a little more "freedom"-not that you would have any understanding of what that is. You'll spend your whole life helping to keep this system in order and blindly believe that someday the right candidate will come along and everything will be fine. You can continue to live in your dream world but I'll be doing what I can to bring the revolution, and to steal back my freedom from those assholes that run this country. You can criticize the tactics of direct action and violence because you don't understand them, but they are the most effective. "Have we no statesmen…like Sarkoszy (sp?), Gordon Brown to call us to order and to our better selves?" Yeah because they've both done a great job haven't they? They've really challenged the American empire, the world capitalist system, worked towards abolishing the government completely, worked towards abolishing corporations.
In a world where meaning is already assigned to everything, where your every possible action is determined, you can never know true freedom unless you become the resistance.
leobixby:
Call it platitudes if you want, but in the end the choice is yours:
Vote for pro-war democrats
Vote for pro-war republicans
Vote for anti-war greens
Don't vote at all
Any other ideas? I'm open to suggestions.
And, btw, the greens will be running an all-out national presidential campaign in 2008.
anarcho-
AAARGH! You're advocating acting like marauding elephants in the jungle...too big to lurch around like that. And I'll tell you what else! Once you start doing violence on inanimate (or animate) objects, you've lost me and my vote.
Have we no statesmen...like Sarkoszy (sp?), Gordon Brown to call us to order and to our better selves?
Green Party my ass. You guys are usually too damn wimpy to launch a real national campaign, because you think it is pointless. Spare us you platitudes.
And for your information, none of us protesting the convention think it is going to make a damn bit of difference to the punks who we have running this country now, but we DO hope it will influence the punks who are doing nothing to change it.
Wow....how "protesty."
So there are big demonstrations....maybe some rioting....maybe some people barge into the convention and get the "don't tase me, bro" treatment....
So what?
With no representation in congress or the white house, loud protests count for precisely nothing.
No one is listening.
Opposition groups to the two party system would be much better served by supporting political inroads, such as those spearheaded by the Green Party, www.GP.org
There seems to be a little confusion in this discussion regarding the
difference between pacifism and non-violence. Pacifism is a way of life, non-violence is a tactic. In true, and effective non-violent protests, there
is always plenty of violence. It just happens to all be done by the organs of
State power. Unfortunately, with the rise of "liberal protests" non-violence
has come to mean, being compliant and not provoking the State. This is exactly
the opposite of what Gandhi and Martin Luther King wanted to accomplish with
their use of non-violent tactics.
anarcho: I agree with you on the 'support the troops' - No soldier in the current military deserves our support (except for the one now-famous lieutenant Watada). Do they deserve our care after they return home? Absolutely - no one should be denied access to a doctor. It's called universal access. But support before that? Nope - they VOLUNTEERED to murder innocent women, children, and men. If any of the volunteers believe they are doing it in some 'service to the country' or 'to protect us' they are intentionally, willfully ignorant. Even with the neocon-run MSM, there shouldn't be anyone who still believes that Iraq was any threat. Willful ignorance deserves no support. It's not like Vietnam - guys that were drafted into doing something that they didn't waant to do. These people are volunteering to kill - I can't support that.
Could there possibly be anything more futile than protesting at the Republican National Convention?
If you want to have this protest, here are some ideas for banners that might lead to substantive policy discussions:
"Sterilize the poor!"
"Bomb them NOW!"
"Screw the Earth!"
"Liberal = Roadkill"
"No tax for me and my friends (on second thought, forget about my friends)"
Just began checking out Noam Chomsky on Anarchism on You Tube. Very interesting stuff. Highly recommended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO2e0DrnYg4
I'm glad to see the Denver group reminding us of the 1968 Chicago Convention. How many of you actually remember those events?
1968 was the first year I could vote. I can tell you that Daley's police thugs cost Hubert Humphrey, whose name shall live in infamy, the election. That's right, Mayor Daley was responsible for Richard Nixon's election, because after that, a great many of us couldn't vote for Humphrey under any circumstances. Nixon's margin was tiny.
It reminds us of something else important: the Democrats were responsible for the Vietnam War. That's the other reason Humphrey lost. Like the leading Democrats today, he would not promise to end the war.
I voted for the pig - the real one: Pigasus, the Yippies' candidate. I wish I knew how many votes it got. If you have to vote for a pig, it might as well be a real one.
So I'm also glad they're attacking the 2-party system. It has run us off the cliff. Fortunately, the 2 parties are doing their best to destroy the system themselves. Next year is going to be verrry interesting.
There is major-party blood in the water, and the sharks are gathering. The Green Party plans to be ready (Cynthia McKinnney is running for our nomination; we'll see who else). We'll need your help. www.GPUS.org.
Usually, I don't like to agree with anarchists, because let's face it, many of them of dunces who are full of methods for pointing out problems but zero in the way of solutions. However, in this case, "anarcho" is dead on, at least in regard to the violence issue. The only reason a permit should ever be applied for is to get a little closer to the action, allowing a legal place for those of us who are willing to actually engage in civil disobedience to retreat to when running from the cops.
Even Ghandi engaged in behavior that virtually guaranteed physical violence, though it was never them perpetrating the violence. This where the Anarchists lose their vision and the subtlety of their message. They end up being more about the violence than the proposed outcome. Very ignorant path indeed. Furthermore, what the hell to do they propose? They talk about the system being completely screwed (capitalism), which is quite correct, but instead of proposing a non-capitalist system, they propose some kind of state that has no police, no government, no ....... Somebody please enlighten me here.
Alas, it is indeed true that we need to be about 100 times more courageous about our protesting. We need to learn that until we stop the machine from operating, we are only working as the oil for its gears.
It's good to see the Welcoming Committee getting attention. These protests shouldn't be formed simply to show opposition though, they should be formed with the intention of seriously disrupting as in stopping them if possible. Liberal activism gets us nowhere, the Welcoming Committee will employ direct action tactics which will be far more useful. It should be known that anarchists don't wish to "reform' this system, and make this "democracy" better, we wish to overthrow the capitalist system and abolish the hierarchy which exists, not to turn this country around in the right direction in the liberal sense of direction.
Violence should never be ruled out, and it would be wise for the left to notice the difference between it and anarchists. Pacifism only protects the State, and violence can be useful. No one should be hurt but if the police start to attack, then self defense is something which must be used. And "violence" against inanimate objects should never be ruled out.
As far as the permits go, what a joke. If you're getting permission to protest then you're not going to do much to disrupt things are you? You people and following your laws and regulations, you liberals are obedient to the system till the end, always trying to reform, always failing to see what is so plainly in front of your eyes.
http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/pdfs/direct_action_guide.pdf
And peacepoet:
Screw supporting the troops. You are supporting people who are murdering innocent men, women, and children so long as you support the troops. The troops are tools of the empire and they should not be supported under any means if you oppose this war. It is as hypocritical as an anarchist who supports the police and their oppression. I do not say this lightly, fu*ck the troops! So long as they serve this war will continue. Support shouldn't be given to anyone who even joins the military, they should know that their career choices are not welcome. Supporting the troops is not going to help anything, there needs to be clear opposition against them, for the military is not a noble organization. I'm sure some of you have read the Nation Magazine's article which documented the accounts of 50 soldiers and what they witnessed in the war, after reading that, no one should even have the ignorance to support those murderers. None of you will support the Iraqi insurgency, but you will support the troops? The hypocrisy. You are all pacifists yet you support the murderous pricks in this military.
http://www.rncwelcomingcommittee.org/
People in this country, particularly those on the coasts, have no idea how progressive the Twin Cities really is. Hubert Humphrey, Paul Wellstone, and Fritz Mondale all hail from here, and we are damn proud of the "prairie progressivism" that is alive and well here. Furthermore, the labor unions of Saint Paul are by far the most cutting edge in the country, and you can bet they will have their folks out there in force too! All I can say is, watch out Republicans, because the press the convention gains is going to be all about the protests! I am both afraid and excited as hell about the carnival of protest that will be going on in Saint Paul. We will get our message out there, no matter the lengths we have to go to. Simple as that. The Republicans will regret they ever contemplated coming to our city!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pziZ30Q6ydg
This seems like an invitation, at least to the none-brick-throwing protest.
I remember seeing or reading an ineterview with the newly elected Mayor Coleman right after the anouncement that the RNC convention was to be in St Paul. In that interview, the Mayor was asked about protests that may occurr and said to the effect that; 'Everybody was welcome to St Paul, including the protesters.' (Slightly paraphrased.)
I believe that was an invitation. It seems to me carrying a copy of the Mayor's invitation could be helpful. I am in search of the exact quote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pziZ30Q6ydg
"Business as usual" better watch out! The people in this country are angry! We are on the March! Get out of the Way! Period!
Gee Whiz! Protests against Republicans in Minnesota AND Democrats in Colorado! Just goes to show you how much people care about the awful direction this country is going under this administration and Congress.
The National Convention of the Veterans for Peace will be in Minneapolis the week before the RNC Convention. I encourage all VFP members to plan to stay over to have "discussions" with the Republicans about how they "Support the Troops".