August 7, 2000
9:05 PM   Subscribe

The Village Voice is doing a great job covering the RNC protests (isn't it a little odd that these stories aren't all over the place?) and to top it off their new design features snazzy dHTML navigation.
posted by sudama (38 comments total)
 
Why would the media, namely Westinghouse, Disney, and GE give much coverage to an anti-big business assembly? I'm just waiting for the usual ill-informed "They had it coming" and "Its all B.S." posts.
posted by skallas at 9:41 PM on August 7, 2000


re: above comment. I am a tad mystified by these types of comments that skalls describes. Maybe it's because of the people I hang out with, but very few of them are so pro-establishment as those obligatory comments, even though many of them come from relatively conservative and pro-corporate backgrounds. Those of you who are young, traditional conservatives: my impression is that you are blind! but I am the kind of person who belives that both sides to every story have validity, so... what's your side? Why are you so quick to support today's system, do you think it works that well?
posted by chaz at 12:53 AM on August 8, 2000


I'm not conservative, I'm not liberal. I consider myself a moderate (with a bit of a capitalistic bent). My main problem with these protestors is that instead of going the proper route to make their problems known, they choose to violate the law then scream "police brutality" when they are arrested.

If you work within the system for change instead of screaming your head off on tv, more people will listen. Right now the image all these protestors give off is a bunch of GenXers with too much time on their hands that are protesting a "fashionable" issue. No substance.

Personally, I don't think the "system" is that bad. Like any system there are abuses, so there is a place for people to shine light on them. Just don't go wild in the streets hurting small business people - allegedly the people they care so much about.
posted by owillis at 8:06 AM on August 8, 2000


Working within the system for change may work - if you're trying to change something within the system.

If your problem is the system itself, however, I don't see how that can possibly work.

I'm not advocating for what happened at all, but I do think it's unreasonable to think that change can happen happily. Because that's rarely ever the case.

And, yes, screaming your head off on TV *will* get more people to listen to you. Whether or not that gets them to agree to you is another matter entirely. :)
posted by dgallo at 8:56 AM on August 8, 2000


But why aren't we hearing about the abuse the protesters have experienced at the hands of the state? Where is the public outrage? It is never ok for public authorities to treat people this way; guilty or innocent, violent or nonviolent, politically correct or politically abhorrent. What's the deal?

We're talking about basic human rights here, folks.

...

And what do people think of the new navigation? Is dHTML ready for prime-time, so to speak?
posted by sudama at 9:11 AM on August 8, 2000


Perhaps I am just the voice of cruelty but if you're going to run into the street for the sole purpose of blocking traffic then thank god there are police to kick your ass!
Plus the only good I've ever seen come from the Village Voice is when bums use it for a blanket.
posted by Nyarlathotep at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2000


Ok, you're the voice of cruelty.

Protest is important in this country, remember oh, say... the Boston Tea Party? Did they work within the system to get their voices heard? No, because the system was too far gone.

This country has always had protest, it thrives on protest. If you're detached from the system or can't get into the proper channels, you can always go outside and scream your head off. And that's... ok.

Sudama's right, these are basic human rights violations. If you're blocking traffic, a cop has every right to escort you to the curb, but kicking you down and wailing on you until you leave the street? That's a bit too much.
posted by mathowie at 10:07 AM on August 8, 2000


These stories aren't all over the place? They sure seem to be on MeFi.

But, presuming you're merely talking about Big Media (and I'm not sure why people are so concerned about them any more, since it's obvious that there are now a zillion other ways to spread the word and that Big Media has less reach every day), here's a couple of reasons: 1) The Voice is preaching to the choir. They're so openly one-sided that most people that do not hold similar political opinions won't bother reading it. And their reach beyond lower Manhattan is near nil anyway. It's still a local community newspaper for all practical purposes. 2) For this particular story at least, there's no there there. We have a person who claims she was beaten by the cops. It seems obvious that she's been injured, but ... there's no evidence presented at all as to how this happened, other than what came out of her mouth. And it's coming out of the mouth of someone who by definition would never have much good to say about the police in any case. Was she being truly nonviolent? We dunno. Was she even right where she says she was? We dunno. There isn't even any record of her being arrested in the first place. In short, if you want a victim to parade around as an example, she ain't it.

sudama asks where's the public outrage. The simple fact is that there's no public outrage because, first, most of the public doesn't believe these people. They believe that these protestors are out to cause violence, pure and simple, and aim to overthrow the state, and all it takes is one photograph or one piece of video showing any violent actions in Philly to completely validate their beliefs. Ergo, they don't believe anything these people claim about what happens to them, and even if it is true, well, when you're trying to overthrow the state, the state's gonna fight back. (And it should be noted that publicly advocating the overthrow of the government is no mere misdemeanor.) Second, the public, in general, is against anything that screws with them personally. And something as simple as blocking traffic is affecting them personally in a negative way. When that happens, the public's belief that think these people should be dealt with by any means necessary increases dramatically. In short, what people want more than anything else is to be left alone. If you interfere with that most basic right, you're up the creek as far as public sympathy.

>>It is never ok for public authorities to treat people this way; guilty or innocent, violent or nonviolent, politically correct or politically abhorrent.<<

This statement is not true. The amount of force the police are legally allowed to use is proportional to the danger that a person or group presents. For example, if someone is being extremely violent - say, taking a large knife and slashing and stabbing everyone in sight, the cops have every right to go in there and shoot to kill, no questions asked. Obviously I'm not saying any of the Philly protestors were doing anything like that, merely saying that it very much is ok to "treat people this way" in many cases.

To chaz: You ask "what's our side?" I think that in this case it's up to you to first articulate your side. You can't just try to put us on the defensive by default.
posted by aaron at 10:31 AM on August 8, 2000



>>Protest is important in this country, remember oh, say... the Boston Tea Party? Did they work within the system to get their voices heard? No, because the system was too far gone.<<

Sorry, Matt, you're wrong. The Boston Tea Party was an attempt to preserve the system, not destroy it. It happened because the British government had just lowered the tax on British tea, an action that suddenly made British tea economically competitive in the colonies with tea that was being smuggled in from Holland by people with names like John Hancock. The Tea Party was all about maintaining high profit margins, nothing more.
posted by aaron at 10:45 AM on August 8, 2000



Sorry, Matt, you're wrong. The Boston Tea Party was an attempt to preserve the system, not destroy it. It happened because [revisionist history deleted]

But Matt's point is still valid. They worked outside the system because they couldn't get their voices heard otherwise. Besides, even if the Boston Tea Party is not a good example, there's always that pesky Revolutionary War thing.
posted by daveadams at 11:01 AM on August 8, 2000


To all who think it's right to kick protesters asses - being on the side opposite Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Thomas Paine, etc. is probably the wrong place to be. Protest has an important, time-honoured role in politics. Siding with the jackboots is an unconscionable position.

The first amendment is there for a reason - to protect political expression (among other types of expression). In the day that meant "speech" - now it's broader than that.

I would go so far as to suggest that wanting to stifle non-violent protest is unamerican.
posted by mikel at 11:11 AM on August 8, 2000


aaron: you're right, of course, it is silly to just ask someone what 'their side' is. But it seems that every time this (or related) topics come up on MeFi, there is a knee-jerk law-and-order reaction that I just don't get from the people around me. I honestly just wanted some more background, a further exchange of ideas... because it seems so blatant from where I'm sitting that traditional media has made traditional protest impossible and ineffective.
posted by chaz at 11:46 AM on August 8, 2000


mikel: Aren't you from Canada? Maybe you meant unNorthAmerican. I don't think anyone has a problem with non-violent protest. People picketing a business are not harrassed, I see strikes all the time. If neo-nazis throw a human chain around the White House they automatically get the moral high ground? There has been violence. The protesters have violated the rights of others. That is not exactly American either. I already posted this in another thread, but it is pretty far down now. The protests were peaceful at first, even the protesters agree things were going smoothly. When the crimes started the police moved in. Now they are getting smacked for it. Last month when the rapist animals in Central Park went nuts, the police left them alone and got smacked for it, why do I get the feeling the same pepole are bashing the cops in both instances?
posted by thirteen at 11:48 AM on August 8, 2000


You can't protest without violating someone or other's rights. The whole point of a protest is to do something visibly dramatic to get people's attention and focus political pressure on the person or organization responsible for whatever injustice it is that you're upset about. Slowed or even stopped traffic, large crowds, noise, and disruption of day-to-day routine are pretty much inevitable side effects of any successful protest.

If you're going to demand that people demonstrate without "violating the rights of others" in any way, you might as well ban public protest and have done with it.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:22 PM on August 8, 2000


aaron -- i was referring to the treatment the protestors have received after they've been cuffed & jailed.
posted by sudama at 12:25 PM on August 8, 2000


So then if you're protesting it's perfectly fine to violate someone else's rights? Unless they're a protester, right?
posted by Nyarlathotep at 12:30 PM on August 8, 2000


Did anyone else get an "Urgent Action" e-mail from freespeech.org regarding police brutality in Philly?

Note that in many cases (including the one in the Voice article), we're talking about people being taken into custody but never actually arrested (a direct violation of the 6th amendment).
posted by EssenDreck at 12:43 PM on August 8, 2000


It just like the old "segregation today, segregation tommarow" rhetoric, calling protesters criminal because they block access to restraurants or take up valuable front bus seats. Sorry, but the name calling isn't convincing, history has shown us the typical reaction to social change over and over. You are free to keep your head in the sand for as long as you like, but cops are abusing people and these reports keep coming in every day.
posted by skallas at 1:32 PM on August 8, 2000


Interesting how you say "these reports keep coming in every day". Where's the pictures? Where's the video? All the "big media" and "independent media" out there, and nary a trickle. Why?

To equate these thugs with Martin Luther King is sacrilege. He nonviolently changed a system. He made his cause by passing legislation, not breaking out people's windows.
posted by owillis at 1:38 PM on August 8, 2000


A sit in is nonviolent. A loud demo - even on the streets, blocking traffic, is nonviolent.

thirteen - I am Canadian, but the problems are the same here, and close to as bad (if not worse, actually). And since I've studied American politics for half my life and have family in the US I figure I know enough about it to comment on "unamerican-ness" of the thing (and I mean it's equally uncanadian as well - I'm not reserving a high road for us here).

I'll also take the piss out of most late-90s protesters as well by saying that they fundamentally misunderstand the point of nonviolent protest and resistance if they think the point is to NOT be arrested. The AIM is TO GET arrested (at least to a point it is) - ask Gandhi or many of the civil rights protesters, they'll tell you in their writings.

The trick is how police treat people engaging in such behaviour. I think increasingly that any expression against capital is viewed as an inherantly violent act - which if course is not necessarily true. Shooting, tear gas, pepper spray, and batons are not appropriate responses to shouting, period. Nor to blocking a street in an organized fashion, sitting in, or waving placards.
posted by mikel at 1:51 PM on August 8, 2000


The thing about the likes of Gandhi, King and Parks is that they were all protesting for, roughly, the right to exist as equal members of society, and to be allowed to participate in it. That's not the same thing as fighting to alter what society is, merely because your general arguments don't convince anyone. (I guess Gandhi was fighting in a way to change what Indian society was, but he was doing so because foreigners were basically infringing on their basic right to run their own country. And in the end what they got was the same democratic society, just one run by themselves.)

Regarding the Revolutionary War: We look upon it as a good thing, of course, but at the time, not nearly as many people as you'd think thought the system didn't work. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it was something like this: About a third were for the Revolution, about a third were against it, and about a third didn't really care one way or the other. That's what bugs me about arguments along the lines of "the system doesn't work,": There are rarely ever times where most people believe that. You may think "the system" doesn't work, even to the point where you believe in a big-time overthrow of it in place of some other system, but really what you're thinking is that the system doesn't work FOR YOU for whatever reason, and you are but a person, not "the people."

chaz: I can defintely see where you're coming from, since as a conservative I too see the traditional media as pretty much ignoring my viewpoints, if not being actively hostile to it. But in general I've seen alternatives pop up over time to the point where I really don't need them that much, thanks to the Net, talk radio, other magazines, etc. (Of course, I also have the security of knowing that roughly half the country also considers themselves to have political beliefs at least roughly similar to my own, so we can get along pretty well regardless. I know that in your case your numbers are smaller, and that would make it all a lot more frustrating.) And I don't mean to put you on the defensive either, it's just that in my case, I can just look out the window and see that my side ("the system", for lack of a better phrase) is working, insofar as we're all here in one piece, have freedom (more or less), etc., and it's not that easy for me to comprehend what it is you wish to have changed, what you think the big issues are. Especially since the protestors in Philly are a conglomeration of different groups wanting different things.

To Mars: Anytime anyone does much of anything, they're going to be infringing on the ability of someone else to do something else in that same space at the same instant. If I'm walking my dog down the street on a leash waiting for him to find a place to take a leak, someone else coming down the sidewalk on Rollerblades is going to have to go around me and my dog. Likewise, if there's a bunch of Rollerbladers fooling around in a certain spot on the sidewalk first, I'm going to have to go around them. The mere act of existing means that you're going to have to exist at least a few feet away if you don't want a big mess.

But, luckily, we have enough space to go around. And if you want to stage a protest, there's plenty of room for you to do so. For example, Lafayette Park in Washington, right across the street from the White House, is essentially one continuous protest of one sort or another. You protest there, and I can keep walking my dog anywhere else. And if your protest is bigger, or you want to hold it somewhere symbolic, like at a party convention, well, that's why they have things like permits. That way, you can do what you want while the authorities have time to do all the things like making plans to reroute traffic so that everyone gets to do what they want, so that they can plan to get enough cops there to keep order and, hey, even protect you guys too, etc. You'll still get attention, if you have anything worth saying. (And that, in my opinion, would be far better attention than the almost universally negative attention you get by doing things as were done in Philly. I mean, what's the point of doing anything at all if you just make everyone hate you because of the way you did it, overshadowing your argument?)

Sudama: Okay, I understand what you mean better now. But, for better or worse, I think most of the public thinks the same regardless. I think they see it as, "These people are completely against the most basic rules of society, and would probably have me up against the wall in a second for some perceived evil if they were ever in power. So why should I care if the cops break our societal rules in stopping them?" Not necessarily right, but that's how they feel.
posted by aaron at 1:59 PM on August 8, 2000



I have no idea why the streets were blocked. I have read all the links provided. Skallas has not said why the restaurants were blockaded, just that it is necessary. There is no unifying theme here, there is nothing to understand. Is there no such thing as a criminal? Nobody pulls off stunts like this without realizing that there is a good chance you will get arrested. I really don't give a damn about the politics involved, I probably agree with some of the messsages. Does wanting good things for all humanity give you the right to poke me in the eye. After you poke me in the eye am I required to fight to get you out of jail for poking me in the eye. I did not call names, I feel bad for the real protesters who were drowned out by the criminals, but they were drown out. Who is really to blame for obscurring the message. The ends do NOT justify the means. I do not have to be a doormat, just so you can walk around feeling like Rosa Parks. I did not see Rosa on the news by the way, just a bunch of privilaged white kids– some of whom were criminals.
posted by thirteen at 2:03 PM on August 8, 2000


mikel:Your last post makes sense to me for the most part. It does beg a question, if blocking a street and blockading a building are non-violent protests, rather than passive agression as I feel. Would it be equally appropriate for Anti-abortion groups to do the same to an abortion clinic? If we do not follow the law, the chaos of our different opinions would shut everything down. If I am not responsible for NAFTA, why do I have to pay for it, and who are you to make me pay?
posted by thirteen at 2:16 PM on August 8, 2000


Blocking a street is not a right! No matter how you justify it, it ain't.

They're talking about this on Slashdot too.
posted by owillis at 2:48 PM on August 8, 2000


Interesting how you say "these reports keep coming in every day". Where's the pictures? Where's the video? All the "big media" and "independent media" out there, and nary a trickle. Why?

From what I've read, the cops were targeting independent media specifically -- destroying cameras and such. I'm sure when the big media were around (if ever) they were under orders to be on their best behavior. I imagine the networks and the city government had worked out an understanding of what the media would and wouldn't cover, so the cops wouldn't have to worry about being caught on tape.
posted by sudama at 2:54 PM on August 8, 2000


Big media "under orders"? "Working out an understanding"? I'm sorry, but such a thought is just completely nuts. There is nothing that sends reporters into a psychotic tizzy like the authorities making any attempt to stop them from covering something, or even making any attempt to use them or their work any purpose whatsoever. Look at what happened at the Providence Journal over the weekend (link via Romenesko, and ironically a possible example of police overreaction). Look at what happens any time a prosecutor subpoenas a reporter's notes for a criminal trial, or even tries to subpoena a reporter merely to show up in court and confirm what s/he reported in the paper. If the cops made any attempt to stop any member of the media from covering something, not only would that reporter have practically ever member of his/her newsroom all over that place inside of an hour, but they'd have practically every other member of the media within 50 miles swooping in as well.
posted by aaron at 3:20 PM on August 8, 2000


(ick, left out a line.) You have to understand: The reason these protestors aren't getting much coverage isn't because of some government-media conspiracy, it's because the media considers the protestors so marginal as to not be worth covering. They won't even cover Ralph Nader, who at this point has somewhere between 7-10% of the vote, because they think (almost certainly correctly) that he doesn't have a chance. Do you really think they're gonna cover you?
posted by aaron at 3:23 PM on August 8, 2000


aaron: actually there is little that I agree with in terms of what the Philly/Seattle protestors were actually protesting about. I'm not for tearing down the system by any stretch of the imagination, but i do think the real potential of our system is obscured by selfish, greedy bastards without any sense of imagination or public duty. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think free-thinking and capitalism aren't exclusive of each other. I think the loudest, wealthiest voice is the one most people listen to, because that's what they have been trained to do. And for the most part, people are generally satisfied economically in this country, which is an amazing feat. But how fulfilled are people in general? I believe in the creation of wealth, but I wish our leaders, our media, and our people could realize that that's just one part of the total picture. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything that is being championed by those in Seattle/Philly, I do believe that free expression has been stifled in this society where, in the words of Tupac, only gettin the cash counts.
posted by chaz at 3:34 PM on August 8, 2000


There is no government/media conspiracy in this case (next thing you'll say the Trilateral Comission and the Illuminati are involved - aren't they?).

Nothing the media likes to cover more than a riot. Protest also makes much more interesting TV than boring old politicians. And police brutality = ratings gold. So, no. There is no conspiracy.

Cameras can't report things that never happened.
posted by owillis at 4:26 PM on August 8, 2000


aaron, I hope you're kidding. Exactly one reporter was allowed (allowed) to be present at the bail hearings for those arrested in Philadelphia. Reporters do and don't cover stories because they're told what to cover. Behind media is the same money that's behind the political parties. Those behind (or on top of?) the money have a vested interest in the stability of the system. Are you suggesting they don't do everything they can to protect that interest?
posted by sudama at 4:57 PM on August 8, 2000


but really what you're thinking is that the system doesn't work FOR YOU for whatever reason

'The system' isn't working for the huge and growing global underclass. It's certainly working to my advantage, but as a person of conscience I cannot support it.
posted by sudama at 5:02 PM on August 8, 2000


chaz: I'm probably not the best person to be asking for comments on what fulfills people in general, or on what any change in the system would do to make them feel more fulfilled; my own feelings about such things don't often seem to mesh with the general public's. (For some reason, the example that pops into my head is that of marriage. I see so many people who get married to someone because "well, we get along, he makes enough money to keep us comfortable, and he'll be a good father for our kids." And then they wonder why it all falls apart five years later after they finally figure out they weren't all that compatible in the first place. I ask myself, is that all there is to picking a life partner? Maybe that is all people want, a little bit of security. Who knows.) I guess what I'm saying is that, as a direct answer to your question, most people just don't expect that much out of life in the grand scheme of things anyway, and probably wouldn't recognize, appreciate, or take advantage of any opportunities any big systematic change might bring them in the first place. Of course, it's almost impossible to say for certain without enacting such a change and seeing what happens.



sudama: Yeah, I agree that corporations look out for themselves. But I also know that reporters go completely nuts when they're told to cover up something they've discovered, and in cases where they are prohibited from reporting something they've found out, they'll leak it to someone else who can get it out. They're very very big on the supposed Sanctity of Journalism, and most of them have wet dreams at night about being martyrs to the cause. ;) Many (most?) would gladly get themselves fired if it meant reporting something that some power was trying to suppress. Besides, unless they're really at the tippy-top of their profession, they're probably earning less than the average bus driver, so they don't have any personal vested interest in the stability of the system, or even of their own company, unless they're so filled with self-doubt about their own abilities that they don't think they could ever get a job anywhere else.

WRT the bail hearings: Judges often limit the number in their courtroom, especially in big cases; they're always totally anal about control of the courtroom and don't like having a ton of media in there making noise (or, worse, jumping up en masse to run out of the room the moment any decision is handed down and causing a big ruckus). Besides, the media often prefers it this way, because in such cases it means they can use what they call the "pool system," where only one or two people (usually one print guy and one TV guy) covers the hearing for everyone; it keeps costs down and lets everyone else keep one extra reporter on hand to cover something else at the same time. And given how controlled the activities of a court session are anyway, you really don't need any more people. As long as at least someone is there, they're going to be able to witness and document everything that goes on. It's just not a de facto admission that there's a coverup going on.

>>'The system' isn't working for the huge and growing global underclass.<<

Well, as far as the global underclass goes, what would changing the American system alone do about it? (And what changes would they be?) It's been shown a number of times that the only real reason there's so much starvation in poor Third World countries is because the people in power there prevent the food from getting to the people that need it. Instead they dole it out to their cronies to sell, sell it themselves to pocket the cash, sell it to buy arms, or even just let it sit and rot in order to punish groups they don't like. Even if the US went totally socialist and started trying to be the caretaker of the planet at the same time, these rogue governments would stop them.
posted by aaron at 5:59 PM on August 8, 2000



Even if all the protesters are lying, asking for it, etc, I can't see how you conservatives can sit there and defend bail rates of up to 1 million dollars for misdeamenors. Characterizing all the protesters as bloody thirsty anarchists is just as silly, a few bad apples who get all the press is not typical nor is the assumption that they're all there to 'tear down the system.' Many are simply looking for social change, not revolution. Blindly defending the police and making generalized accusations about the protesters sounds a lot like prejudice to me.

The assemblies and protests are almost all far-left because those people simply don't have a mainstream outlet for their opinions, especially considering how conservative the US is this isn't exactly surprising, not because they're all "communists" looking to burn America down. They're people who live and work here, have families, and want to do something about corporate influences in politics, poverty, and the war on the drugs, just to name a few.


posted by skallas at 8:02 PM on August 8, 2000


thirteen>>Would it be equally appropriate for Anti-abortion groups to do the same to an abortion clinic?<<

They do. They picket and demonstrate 365 days of the year, at almost every facility in North America. When they block individuals, they are prevented from doing so, and the legal precedents set in cases in which the prevention of such activities was tried support this - picket, demonstrate - but don't hinder a woman from seeing her physician.

owillis - driving on the street isn't any more of a right than protesting on a street. There is no jurisdiction in the world in which driving is a right. So who's non-right trumps the other's non-right?
posted by mikel at 11:32 PM on August 8, 2000


mikel: I appreciate the tone of your replys, thank you for your level head. I know they protest in front of abortion clinics, I know of 5 places in Chicago where the proceedure is performed, and they are not picketed 365 days a year, mostly Saturdays, and then not every single one. I disagree with those protesters as well, I don't know why people cannot mind their own business.
If the Philly protesters were picketing and demonstrating, but not hindering anyone this would be a much shorter thread. My question was really, would it be appropriate for them to smash windows, form human chains with lockboxes, shut down the street, and let no one pass, spray paint and assault people. Would anyone, would you, support their right to do so. Would anyone complain when the police took them away? I would not.
Re: your reply to Owillis, I pay for a vehicle sticker, and a licence plate. I have to be licenced, the roads are designed with my vehicle in mind. I do not own the road, but my car has more of a right to be there. That is why I do not drive on sidewalks.
posted by thirteen at 12:06 AM on August 9, 2000


Owillis: Cameras are recording police brutality that is happening. Philly IMC and Free Speech have videos of police violence at the protests available online.

Thirteen: Many of the protest groups in Philadelphia applied for permits to protest, and were denied.

I thought one of the most interesting things I've read about the protests is this article, A Tactical Critique of Philadelphia. A protester assessed the action at Philly and points out some things the protesters there could have done better to get their message out.
posted by wiremommy at 5:20 PM on August 9, 2000


I... want a war,
between the rich and the poor,
I wanna fight,
and know what I'm fighting forrrrr
in a classwar,classwarclasswar.

We deserve what we get, I wish we would all kill each other and get it over with. We are never gonna get off this planet. Shut down the street and burn the town, last one out, shut off the lights.
That was a Dils song by the way, they rocked. I was so sure I was not gonna post again on this topic. These threads just get under your skin, tre' ickie
I wonder if I can get a permit to shut down the congress parkway during next years Taste of Chicago, if they don't give it to me there will be hell to pay, cause I got a message.
Wiremommy: I followed your links, thanks for posting them. Unfortunatly I did not get anything new out of them, and they depressed me horribly. The cops are violent, the protesters are violent, the uninterested are inconvienced. I wish I could afford an island, maybe Brad Wood would let me live on his, I could garden or something.
posted by thirteen at 9:28 PM on August 9, 2000


Driving is a right; it's part of your right to travel freely. The rules that exist WRT driving are only there for safety reasons, because your right to drive does not overrule my right not to be killed by your incompetence. But as long as you can prove you're a competent driver, you will be allowed to drive.
posted by aaron at 10:13 PM on August 9, 2000


« Older Revolution or... vodka?   |   Giant, rare, and slow bloomer Amorphophallus... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments