Protesters Make Denver an Offer

Unconventional Denver, an anarchist protest group, says if Denver turns its $50 million security grant over to programs that help the people and calls off its occupation of Denver, it will sit the convention out.

Otherwise, they intend to show the Convention is just a bunch of corporations and lobbyists partying behind closed doors and a wall of heavily armed police. Their goal is to disrupt the spectacle. Democracy is not behind those doors, it's in the streets. That's where hope and change can happen. [More...]

Here's their complete statement. In a nutshell,

Update: Here's my breakdown of yesterday's 71 page federal court decision upholding Denver's planned protest zone.

< How Would Nominee Clinton Have Treated Obama? | The Trouble With Polling, Part XXX >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Could real anarchists make an offer like this? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST

    No (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    And these aren't real anarchists.  They keep their Nikes at home when they're protesting.

    I lived not far from the IMF in DC (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    so I know who these people are. I do not have a high opinion of them.

    Is it wrong to think.... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    that we need protest more than the people need 50 million for programs?  Throwing money at problems often doesn't solve anything...the money gets spent and you're right back where you started.  Protest can be priceless...can you put a price on the marches MLK led for example?  What if MLK had offered to call it all off in exchange for a big bag o' cash for black causes?  The money would be gone by now...would black people be better off today?  I think not.

    I'm hoping the city turns the offer down and my anarchist friends raise alotta hell.  This spectacle needs disruption in the worst way.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    On several occasions, MLK agreed to call off one of his protests in exchange for getting concessions from political bodies.

    There was a famous incident where MLK told Mayor Daley that unless he got what he wanted, he would keep leading black marchers through the Chicago suburbs until every last suburbanite registered Republican.  Daley caved.


    Did he receive.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    a monetary concession or a policy/political one?

    I'm curious.


    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    I'm not sure what the difference is.  He didn't get paid off, if that's what you mean.

    Persuading the government to implement a program and persuading the government to fund it are two sides of the same coin, in my view.  The point I'm making is that MLK was effective because his protests were strategically organized to affect the levers of power and get concrete goals accomplished.

    Most of today's protestors seem like they want to imitate MLK, but with no idea of what actually made him effective, they're just a bunch of people in the street waving signs.


    Not to be forgotten... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    What really set the wheels of change in motion was the sight of human beings being sprayed with fire houses and getting the dogs sicked on 'em.

    If MLK had a cut a deal, and we the people never saw those images, the civil rights movement would not have gotten us as far as it did.

    There really is no substitute for people hitting the streets.


    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    That may have been true up until 1965 or so.  It paints a very incomplete picture of the civil rights movement.

    Again, you have to have a concrete goal.  If your goal is "we'll probably get mistreated by the police, and that will lead to public sympathy for our cause," then that's fine.  But you have to have some reasonable basis to believe that result will actually occur.  Every four years, there are countless examples of protestors being mistreated at the conventions of both parties, and yet there is no national outpouring of sympathy for whatever their causes may be.  So why would anyone expect a different result this year?

    Again, I see an awful lot of people going through the motions without any real sense of why certain tactics worked for MLK and yet don't ever seem to work for them.  It's because they've been taught things like "there really is no substitute for people hitting the streets" without trying to understand the underlying reasons.


    They have a concrete goal.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    to "disrupt the spectacle".  I think it's a worthy one, you probably disagree.  Fair enough.

    I don't see how they can negotiate with the city and the DNC and get them to agree to disrupt their own spectacle...so this is an instance where hitting the streets is their only option.  However, they offered a trade-off...Denver and the Dems  can have their spectacle if they take the money they'd spend on mercernary overtime and tyrannical toys and put it to more worthy causes.  I don't think Denver and the DNC will accept, so I hope the anarchists shut the whole f*ckin' thing down.  It probably won't change anything, I'll grant you that, but it would be damn cool in my book.  And maybe put a scare into the ruling class...which never hurts.


    What you need to do (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    is draw a straight line between "disrupting the spectacle" and the larger goals of the organization.   Now, maybe this particular organization has no larger goals.  I never quite understood the concept of organized anarchism.

    Either way, I guarantee you that MLK could draw that straight line for each and every protest he organized.  There were no protests for the sake of protesting.  Maybe it's because in those days the mere act of protesting involved putting your life in your hands, but for whatever reason they were a lot more focused on the end objective than any of these protestors I see at the party conventions year after year.


    A larger goal... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:10:05 PM EST
    could be as simple as getting Democrats to listen to and address the concerns of those who don't have a campaign contribution to offer or a voting bloc to deliver.

    Disrupting the spectacle could accomplish that goal.


    Could (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    How?  Has it worked at any of the past conventions?  Has the Democratic Party ever stopped what it's doing to say "wait, we ought to address the concerns of that group, before they disrupt our spectacle again"?

    MLK got a lot of what he wanted.  Sometimes he marched, sometimes he boycotted, sometimes he gave speeches, sometimes he just sat down and negotiated.  And the reason he was effective is that he intentionally chose methods that had a good chance of getting him the result of what he wanted.  He didn't just say "hey, if we cause a disruption, maybe someone will give us what we're after."

    Point me to the last time ANY convention protest had the result of getting the protestors closer to their ultimate goal.  In my view, convention protesting has become such a cliche at this point that no one even pays any attention to the issue that's being protested.  The protests may aim to shake up business as usual, but they've become business as usual.  People may think they're changing the world, but they're just providing background noise.


    No group has been successful... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    at shutting down a convention yet, or making a significant enough of a disruption.  Maybe this group can succeed where others have failed. People came damn close in '68 and '72.  And I'd say 1968 and 1972 brought about the end of the Vietnam War a little faster.

    It's no easy task...these anarchists are really up against it facing the full might of the city of Denver, the DNC, Secret Service, etc.  The police state is bigger and stronger than ever...it's only gonna get harder.

    I can't argue with you about the general ineffectiveness of convention protests...it is just backgound noise for the most part.  Nothing changes and you get locked up or worse, beat down then locked up.  

    Yet I'm glad there are people who have not given up all hope, and are out there raising hell.  I salute them, and who knows...maybe they could pull a David and slay the Goliath this time.


    The disruption of the 1968 convention (none / 0) (#40)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    helped bring us Richard Nixon. The story behind what happened at the convention has been romanticized by too many. It was unproductive.

    This is all total nonsense. (none / 0) (#43)
    by JohnS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    The visuals in '65 of firehoses and dogs sicced on protesters did helppropel the Civil Rights Movement, but please. What got it done were having a clear strategy, smart tactics and a lot of hard work. These Denver "anarchists" (are you kidding me with that?) have not yet articulated any comprehensible goals as far as I can tell(and I'm paying attention). Disrupting the spectacle? What in God's name is the point of that? The pointlessness is unsurprising if kdog is typical of this crew. kdog also gets his protest history all wrong.

    The '68 protests did nothing but antagonize and galvanize the looney-right "law and order" voters (also referred to as the "Silent Majority") to come out in force and ultimately put Nixon into office. Protests did not accomplish the goal of ending the war in Vietnam. The '72 protests didn't either. What ended the war was that years of guns and butter spending finally brought on a recession/stagflation that ultimately broke the bank.

    Go ahead. Do what you're cluelessly planning to do in Denver. The GOP can't wait.


    Pointlessness? (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    What's pointless is this convention and this election...the anarchists may be the only ones with a point...that the two-party charade must be broken.  I ask who are the real unproductive ones?  The prostesters in the streets or the delegates inside nominating Barack Obama?  I say the latter...though odds are both will fail.

    The '68 protesters gave us Nixon?  Coulda fooled me, I thought Nixon voters gave us Nixon.  Blaming the people who got off their knees to fight for peace for Nixon is as silly as blaming Nader voters for Bush.

    Of course, to make meaningful change requires strategy, tactics, negotiation, compromise and protest.  Maybe we had too much protest and not enough of the rest in '68, fair enough, it's easy to tuesday morning quarterback.  Today we don't have enough of any of it, especially the protest.

    Bottom line for me, I'll put my lot in with the people in the street over the people inside the convention all day and twice on Sunday.


    Yes, the '68 protests galvanized the right, (none / 0) (#51)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    while managing to further dispirit many on the left (post-MLK/RFK). And yes, Nader ABSOLUTELY helped give us Georgre Bush, thank you very much.

    So. You want to tear down the two party "charade" at the very moment that charade is about to deliver the first African American nominee for president? Gee, now there's a plan you might want to reconsider. And what exactly do you plan on replacing the two party charade with? A three party charade? That's what we need, a bigger  and better charade!

    Listen. You want to fight, by all means fight. I actually would relish a good one. But these "anarchists' are picking the wrong fight at the wrong time. And I detect a serious whiff of unseriousness with this "fight". As I said to another poster, the US Vietnam protests were utter failures because they were students leading students only. The May '68 protests in France and the general strike there last year were successful because they were a coalition of students and labor. I see no serious efforts to draw in labor. Actually, all I see are middle class white posers.  They'll have fun/get all outraged now, but not to worry, they'll still have exciting careers later on. You know, like Jerry Rubin with his '80s era "networking parties' in NYC mega-clubs.



    Strongly disagree... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    Bush voters (and the Supreme Court) gave us Bush, Nixon voters gave us Nixon.  It's my fault Al Gore didn't adequately address my concerns while Nader did, hence earning my vote?  Is that your argument?  Gimme a break....I could just as easily say it's Gore voters fault Nader didn't win...and I'd be just as foolish.  

    Look...I don't know this group, the members, or the ultimate aims from a hole in a wall.  All I know is they wanna disrupt the convention...and I believe both conventions could use some disruption, the conventioners should face resistance as they plot to sell liberty and this once great nation down the river.  The protesters will surely fail, and the conventions will roll on and one of these stooges will be elected.  I'll sleep better knowing somebody got off their arse and tried to throw a wrench in the works.  Just as I look back fondly at '68 when brave souls tried to throw a wrench in the works of a murderous tyranny machine.  


    You voted for Nader? (none / 0) (#54)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    It seems like you're generally pretty fond of pointless gestures with negative consequences.

    That said, I am very dispirited by your second paragraph. You don't even claim to know the aims of this group, yet you wholeheartedly support their intention to disrupt the Denver Convention...just for the sake of disruption. Remember, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Imagine how a lot of people will react to visuals of young protesters breaking the windows of small businesses in downtown Denver. Do you think the average American will see that as throwing "a wrench in the works of a murderous tyranny machine," or maybe they'll instead see a bunch of coddled white kids acting out?

    And sorry, but stuff like  "throw a wrench in the works of a murderous tyranny machine" reads a little over-earnest. You probably want to avoid that.


    I should add (none / 0) (#55)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    that Nixon was able to run as a "law and order" candidate thanks to the '68 riots and the violent protests and in 1966 Ronald Reagan was elected governor of Cali after promising to  "to clean up the mess at Berkeley," of course referring to student protests at the University of California.

    The people who voted for.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    Nixon, Reagan, and Bush bear responsibility for the results of their election wins, not the people who opposed them.  Regardless of their reasoning behind voting for tyrants... be it dirty hippies, the boogey-man, or Jesus.  Their reasons are their own...they still must accept responibility for their votes.

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    I support people saying "no", people saying "stop", people saying "not in my name".  Just for the sake of seeing it, hearing it, witnessing it.  It gives me hope for the future of this nation, and for humanity...the act of resistance in the face of impossible odds.

    I'm fond of pointless gestures that better allow me to look in the mirror without shame, you bet.  I jumped off the Nader train in '04, let fear get the better of me and went with the "lesser of two evils" Kerry as opposed to what I saw as the "good".  I look back in shame on that vote, I feel no shame over my vote in 2000.  I voted for the best candidate to represent my views in 2000...did you?  

    And who's talking about breaking mom and pops window?  I don't support that.  I support disrupting the convention through non-violent civil disobedience.


    The road to hell, paved with good intentions. (none / 0) (#58)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    Oh well, I would have hoped for more results-oriented idealists this time around. But you're all romantic about doing this protest for not only the nation, but for all humanity: to "resist in the face of impossible odds."  And then you go and spoil it by suggesting  this is all about feelin' blameless while "looking in the mirror."

    As for non-violent civil disobedience in Denver:  I'm all for that. But I don't think that's what the cops and probably way too many protestors are gearing up for. You know, historically, these things have a tendency to get a little outta hand, like during the 2000 Democratic Nat'l Convention for instance:

    Large scale, sometimes violent protests took place outside of the Staples Center as well as throughout downtown Los Angeles. Protest groups ranged from pro-life supporters, to homeless activists, to anti-globalization protestors, and anarchists. Out of increased fear after the surprise mass-protests at the 1999 "Battle for Seattle" WTO protests, media coverage and LAPD concern were heightened for the event. Concerns were further raised when violent riots also broke out after the Los Angeles Lakers won the 2000 NBA Championship only a few months before the convention. Originally, a "Protest Zone" was designated a city block away from the Staples Center, but a court order forced the zone moved immediately adjacent to the arena, in a parking lot. The protests became violent during the first evening of the convention, and many different protests, some orderly, some violent, took place over the full four days of the convention. There were numerous arrests, injuries and property damage, however the protests were not to the extent that was originally feared.

    So go ahead and support this crazy, noble endeavor. And as I guess some people never learn, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite us all in the ass...like when you voted for Nader in 2000.


    To answer your question. (none / 0) (#59)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    In 2000, I proudly voted for  the same guy I voted for in the Democratic Primary in 1988: Al Gore.

    If he was the candidate... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    that best matched your views then you made the right choice.

    I could not (and can not now) in good conscience support candidates who support the war on drugs,the war on crime, and the military industrial complex...that included Al Gore and GW Bush then, Barack Obama and John McCain now.


    I will sir... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    and you go ahead and put your lot in with evil, be it the lesser of two or not, and see where that gets ya.

    I think we're both gonna end up bit in the arse, to tell you the truth...and at the end of the day all we are left with is the ability to look in the mirror...or not.

    I hope we both can look without shame.

    Thanks for the food for thought btw...  


    Please don't reduce this to good vs evil (none / 0) (#62)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    What I am looking for are results. Particular results. For instance, I completely get and support what Critical Mass does, because they are crystal clear in their aims and their method of protest makes sense/is effective in light of their aim.

    You might want to check out BTD's post here today about the Accountability Now project: [The] core purpose [of Accountability Now] is to change the political calculation so that there is a real price to pay for continuing to support the prevailing agenda of the rotting Beltway class. The question is not which party will control Congress. It is guaranteed that the Democrats will. The question is what they will do with that control. Accountability Now is designed, first and foremost, to change the way that control is exercised by genuinely harming the interests of those responsible for these destructive trends.

    Bingo. A clear, concrete goal and a clear roadmap to get there. Think about it.


    Critical Mass? (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    how could you support them when all they accomplish is turning middle-class auto commuters against them and their cause by holding up traffic?  Didn't you just argue against that type of action?

    Don't get me wrong, I like Critical Mass too, not because of what they may accomplish, but simply for what they do...hitting the street for their cause.

    And you're right...it's never as simple as good vs. evil, it's never black and white.  But I'm at a loss as to what else to call a candidate like Al Gore or Barack Obama, who support chaining and caging citizens over drugs.  If that ain't a form of evil what is?


    As someone who has protested (none / 0) (#9)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    many things, at many times, I appreciate your comment, kdog. But protest can take many forms. Sending the message that issues like education, the environment, etc. are more important to us than the Denver police having riot gear is a form of protest as well. Not all protest involves being "in your face".

    Point taken.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    but lets face it...the taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for assorted tyranny gadgets to the tune of millions and millions of dollars regardless if the anarchist group protests or not.  A lack of funds for social programs isn't our big problem...the erosion of liberty, the sad state of representative government, our various "wars on X" are all much larger issues, in my humble opinion.  

    Personally, I'd like to see them on the street...I think we need them on the street.


    These folks will definately... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    ...be taking it to the streets.  Twice a day, in fact.



    Good to hear, good to hear...n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    Is it me (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    or is there something strangely humorous about this story?  Sometimes my sense of humor is odd.  I kind of like the idea in one way, particularly since these are really difficult times economically, but on the other hand I'm sitting here laughing as I read this.

    Fact, fiction and all that.  What a whacky world we live in.

    I think it's kind of funny, too. (none / 0) (#10)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    Do you think the city of Denver would trust them not to show up? [They can trust me. 8^)]

    It's A Mad, Mad, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    ..,Mad World.

    Surreal, definitely.  I'm not on the extortionists' side or the fascists' side.  Part of the security presence is to keep anything from happening that would embarrass Denver or the DNC.  Sure there's a public safety concern, but that's not all of it.  Part of it is to portray the city of Denver as a safe and happy Pleasantville.


    To me what is striking (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    is Jeralyn putting up their statement on her blog.  Come on Jeralyn, admit it.  You no more want Obama to be prez than a lot of your readers past and present do.

    Eveyone knows you are a super nice woman and being a good soldier in the fight against the R's. But give us a little more.  PUHLEEZE!?!?!? <eg>

    And there's a small part of me that WISHED Obama picked Biden for his VP.  I would love to see how TL would shift in this race.

    That's just me though.  I totally respect your support and responding to HRC's wishes that we get behind BHO as well.  I am not that magnanimous towards BHO.

    So (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    what are the odds of Unconventional Denver not protesting if the money is given back to the taxpayers?  

    Dream on... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    taxpayer money is either going to buy billy-clubs and tasers or textbooks and tree-planting...it ain't coming back the taxpayers way:)

    Summer's here and the time is right (none / 0) (#52)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:57:10 AM EST
    for fighting in the street boy!

    Modern day Anarchists (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    are so organized, they got bulk rate bandanas, and I don't know there is a wholesome quality about them, very Rocky Mountain High.  

    Wholesome indeed. (none / 0) (#44)
    by JohnS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    And very very middle class white judging from the video.

    If the city of Denver would do this, (none / 0) (#4)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    I would stay home, too. Now, I don't have plans to do anything other marathon knit for charity, but I can do it at home and donate the cost of my travel expenses to a worthwhile local charity.

    The other convention (none / 0) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM EST
    Mpls/St Paul has a $50M security budget given to them by the Fed's, as well. They don't seem to be spending it in a fashion that expects a great deal of trouble.

    So, the DNC must have known what they were doing to direct the primary was going to result in the need for public comment.

    No similar offer (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    from the anarchists here in MSP.  From what I have seen, these people are really intent on disruption.  They have posted the delegate bus routes and even have plans to blockade the bridges across the Mississippi from Mpls to St. Paul.

    Who knows what will happen, but the way these guys talk, they are planning for major conflict.


    Thanks for the insight, eric. (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    I'm sure any conflict there will be in the "Minnesota Nice" spirit!  

    Any idea on the number of protesters there?


    Protesters (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    looking for trouble aren't generally the locals.

    OMG--really? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    You mean myself and my neighbors, friends and co-workers really aren't all anarchists?  Whew--that's good to know!

    Sun God bless 'em.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    bless every one...better men and women than I.

    Oh, the lovely anarchists (none / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    They have the right to protest just like any other group. What they don't have the right to do is deliberately cause mayhem, so let's just hope.

    Over 30,000 people peacefully protested in Seattle during the WTO conference. It was the anarchists that sent all of downtown into a circus of mayhem and violence.

    I appreciate their right to protest. But I abhor them more than I can say.

    The anarchists are right (none / 0) (#26)
    by citizen53 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    It will be a corporate spectacle, posing as democracy at work, while those who protest are placed in a big cage.

    I only wish their movement was more diverse and encompassed a wider spectrum of the population.

    However, when there are more groups like these that take to the streets in a committed fashion, then perhaps the wheels of change may start to turn, away from corrupted party politics, Democratic and Republican, that works to install corporate policies above the interests of the people.

    When you take away: (none / 0) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    wrestling, NASCAR, cheetos, beer, Wal Mart and American Idol...THEN and ONLY then will you see any kinda seismic shift in the American body politic.

    I believe it was an aide of Nixon who said something along those lines back in the day but used a vulgarity in that mix that I wouldn't dare list here.


    Ugh. (none / 0) (#45)
    by JohnS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    You guys don't have appear to have a clue. The "wider spectrum of the population," as you call it, is currently more concerned with putting food on the table than with the antics of a bunch of privileged   white kids.  While not as glam  as violent protests, patience and organizing will get these anarchists farther towards whatever murky goals they have. Sorry but "disrupting the spectacle" is poor messaging, like you just want a bigger, better spectacle.

    Maybe you should read more closely... (none / 0) (#47)
    by citizen53 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    as I said I wished they were a more diverse group.

    But that does not make their point as to the corrupt system any less valid.

    Just because my clue is not like yours does not mean I don't have one.  Or are you the only one who is clued in here?


    I read what you wrote. (none / 0) (#48)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:31:49 AM EST
    Of course you wish it were more diverse, your protests actually might then actually start to look relevant. In the meantime, why do you think your group is not diverse?  (Hint: take a look at the Dem candidate this year).

    The reason that US protests were not successful in ending the Vietnam War is because they were student-only protests. The general strikes in France in '68 and last year were successful because students AND labor joined forces and they shut that country down. If you guys were serious you'd be courting labor with your anti-corporate (or whatever) message. But you're not. You're just white dilettantes.

    And to answer your question, no I don't think I'm the only one clued in here, but I wouldn't count any protestors or their supporters among that number.

    And by the way, you'd better hope Obama wins if you guys do a number on the Dems -- or you could wind up about as popular with Dems (and esp African Americans) as Ralph Nader. People will be pointing fingers.



    I've got a permit for St. paul (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    for a "STOP GOVERNMENT SPYING" event the last day, Sept. 4, 4;00-8:00, in Hamms Plaza. Good visibility, tiny space.


    I know that place (none / 0) (#35)
    by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:20:36 PM EST
    right by the Great Waters Brew Pub.  I drive through St. Paul every day on the way to and from work.  Most of the locals here are planning on steering clear of downtown, however.

    Any wifi hotspots close? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#38)
    by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    right there.  There is a Dunn Bros. Coffee shop at 5th and Wabasha, that's pretty close.  They always have free wifi.  There is a restaurant on that corner, Kincaids, and that brew pub, Great Waters.  They might.

    LOL (none / 0) (#42)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    progessives, gotta luv em.

    I think they're probably hypocrits. They could (none / 0) (#46)
    by WillBFair on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    have been doing charity work all along and made a huge difference in people's lives. Instead, they want to teach us obvious lessons about corporate power. Someone should mention that there's still a decent liberal faction in the power structure, and we should be supporting them, not acting all self righteous on camera.

    Yeah. Like Americans haven't (none / 0) (#49)
    by JohnS on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:48:00 AM EST
    got a clue that multi-national mega-corporations aren't crushing American democracy. Like we need a bunch of over-privileged  white kids to lead the way to democracy by wilding out the Dem convention in Denver. I'm so sure African Americans are just gonna love it if these "anarchists" trash their first-ever candidate's chances in November...