community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Photos from Oakland Recruiting Center
by af Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 8:56 PM
A quick look at the Pittsburgh counter-recruiting action on August 27.
One week after police used extreme force to end a non-violent demonstration against military recruiting, the anti-war activists were back on Forbes Avenue today.
by af Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 8:56 PM
Bakers Against Brutality offered a unique approach.
The Baker 2
by af Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 8:56 PM
“While Pittsburgh is struggling to deal with police brutality, in the bakering community we've had the solution to police brutality for decades,” said the baker.
by af Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 8:56 PM
The police and the media showed up in large numbers as well, but unlike last week the media behaved like professionals and the the police did not use dogs or tasers to attack anyone.
Success - No police violence today
by af Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 8:56 PM
by a participant Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005 at 11:45 PM
your pastries were a PERFECT touch for the day. thank you !!!!!!!!
Black bloc absent
by Dan B Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 7:52 PM
Where was the black bloc? It had a stronger showing last time and that's who the police attacked. I didn't see any in these pictures. Wouldn't it have made sence for the people that were attacked to come back and show they weren't afraid.
we are all
by bb Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 8:59 PM
The black bloc is a tactic, not a group. We are all the black bloc, and the black bloc is none of us.
Lots of people who wore masks on A20 were there on A27. What's it to you?
People are free to make their own decisions, Dan B. You should respect that more.
re: We are all
by Janus Christ Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 10:54 PM
"People are free to make their own decisions. You should respect that more."
And if someone decides to, lets say, rape a child and throw him in a wood chipper, is that worth respecting just becuz its a "free decision"? Just becuz an idea is made freely doesn't mean its smart or right.
Here's how it is:
The police presence wasn't as profound as last week simply because there wheren't as many chickenshits in masks (I counted 4 at the most this time). Now why is that? Could it be because the police know just as well as the rest of us that The Black Bloc likes to start trouble for the sake of starting trouble?
This city spent 10s of thousands of dollars for police presence during the last KKK rally (another group of chickenshits that hide behind masks) and why? Because even though the police are aggressive, mean, racist shitfucks, THEY ARE NOT STUPID! They know trouble when it shows its ugly face (or lack thereof).
Grow up. The Black Bloc is not good for The Left, for this country, and not even good for POG.
by lars Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 11:05 PM
"Janus" your commentary is without merit or perspective. You basically equate those you refer to as the black bloc with the KKK, and insist that the black bloc protesters are responsible for the cops' violence, which in and of itself, you basically discredit your own logic.
Know who is really on your side (if you know what your side is anyhow). If you are not simply here in a futile attempt to instigate rifts in the community, you're stance then only indicates that you are more concerned with the "purity" of your own version of "the anti-war movement" than with the broader, shared ethical concerns of all of those serious about the movement, who may prefer differing tactics, but can understand there are more important matters at hand.
Then again, I shouldn't even be responding to this line of b.s.
by Janus Christ Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 11:50 PM
"Janus your commentary is without merit or perspective. You basically equate those you refer to as the black bloc with the KKK, and insist that the black bloc protesters are responsible for the cops' violence, which in and of itself, you basically discredit your own logic."
The Black Bloc share the following with the KKK:
They both hide behind masks
Both cling to ideas that are neither mainstream nor popular
Both are on covertly watched by government groups
Both hate the US government (or claim to anyway)
"Know who is really on your side (if you know what your side is anyhow). If you are not simply here in a futile attempt to instigate rifts in the community, you're stance then only indicates that you are more concerned with the "purity" of your own version of "the anti-war movement"..."
My side is neither Left nor Right, my choice is "right" as in "right or wrong". As someone mentioned on here before, the reason the rebellion of 1877 was so effective was because the police joined the protest. If you can get an agenda out that speaks not just to a bunch of disaffected extremists but mostly to the mainstream public, you'll accomplish much more as a group.
"..who may prefer differing tactics.."
I'm sorry, are you implying that petty vandalism and minor rioting are "tactics"?
"Then again, I shouldn't even be responding to this line of b.s."
And yet you did. Do you somehow think that just because I'm not a "leftist" that I don't share some common ideals and ideas? Or that your being part of this culture makes you more of a person that someone that questions it?
by PEACENICK Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 at 11:50 PM
since you seem to be counting, the short, fat, bald taser cop wasn't there now was he?????????? chicken ?????????
They were there.
by Someone. Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 12:38 AM
The black bloc members, at least many of them, were there within the crowd, not neccesarily wearing black, but I saw many of them.
by . Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 10:26 AM
"If you are not simply here in a futile attempt to instigate rifts in the community, you're stance then only indicates that you are more concerned with the "purity" of your own version of "the anti-war movement" than with the broader, shared ethical concerns of all of those serious about the movement, who may prefer differing tactics, but can understand there are more important matters at hand. "
Such a typical response from the POG commander in chief. Anyone who has ever expressed a concern in your line of reasoning has been handed this one size fits all response. I'd suggest switching up your logic or keeping your mouth shut, for no matter what side of the issue one is on, you sound like a broken record.
by -- Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 10:32 AM
A couple things.
Yes, there were 100 people there. In fact I counted 105 by hand simply by going down the line.
There were more cops there than last time- 6 plainclothes/undercovers across the street. 8 cops on the corner to the left, and ~20 cops on the street behind forbes waiting in vans. More cops than last time they just weren't as visible, for the simple reason that they got pounded in the mainstream media over the reaction on Aug 20th, so they took a lower profile this time and tried to avoid trouble.
Regarding all this macho bs about people being chickenshits etc for wearing masks, tis ridiculous. My concern is pragmatic. I could care less whether someone thinks I'm being a whimp or whatever, to sacrifice effectiveness so I won't be called names afterwords would be stupid. Masks are simply a form of protection when direct action is likely to occur. If you don't want to wear one, don't. And if you don't want to be around people wearing them then why not simply come to the 95% of protests that happen around here without the use of masks. It's true that groups pay a price for wearing masks, the question becomes is it worth it, do they advance larger goals, my personal answer is they do in certain situations. I will continue to wear them when it makes sense, and shy away from them lest it become a silly fashion statement.
The purpose of the event on Aug 20th was to shutdown the recruiting station. That goal was met. The purpose on Aug 27th was much different and you can't compare the events using the same measures of sucess. Of course people aren't going to be doing a black bloc on Aug 27th, why would they?
Janus, let me ask you- are you part of the anti-war/counter-recruitment movement? Are you working to stop recruitment? Do you even support the goals of the movement? If you don't support the larger goals don't you think your perspective may not be as relavant to those who are working on these things? Goals informs strategy informs tactics, change the goals and you shouldn't have the same strategy.
Regardless I respect your right to put forth your opinion (which you do on indypgh quite often), but I think your concerns would be best put forth through more honest means of communication. I.e would be better to not hide behind a computer screen, but talk to people in person. Take your mask off and go to a meeting or start your own group. Get your perspectives out there by organizing in a way that you think is effective. Showing people something is more effective is a far better way to produce change and the world you seek than complaining about people every day on an anoymous message board.
by savage henry Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 10:51 AM
"Know who is really on your side (if you know what your side is anyhow). If you are not simply here in a futile attempt to instigate rifts in the community, you're stance then only indicates that you are more concerned with the "purity" of your own version of "the anti-war movement" than with the broader, shared ethical concerns of all of those serious about the movement, who may prefer differing tactics, but can understand there are more important matters at hand. "
You know, all of this talk about "trying to create rifts in the community" and "detriment to the movement" is such bullshit. It assumes that the poster "owns" the movement and knows what is good for the movement..which automatically makes his (probably a manarchist) opinions on the "movement" the correct ones. What fucking horseshit.
pictures don't lie
by concerned citizen Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 11:07 AM
It's seems here there is a question as to who was professional???? Living in America wr have the right to protest the fact that we are against this war. And everyone better get used to it since the latest polls show that 60% of the population wants an end to it. That means that there will most likely be more anti war demonstrations all over the country.
The problem is trigger happy police who abuse their power. The viedo shows clearly that the girl who was stung by the taser had already been down and restrained. The pictures don't lie. There was no need for such sadistic response from the officer who sent that taser off.the police chief and the mayor should admit fault here. the whole incident got out of control but there is no denying that the officer was definately wrong. The police have been more than helpful in recent demonstrations, helping to keep the crowd safe and traffic controlled. that is why it is sad to see one or two cops ruin it for the entire force. If the commander was smart he would have given the taser cop his papers and sent him home, without pay and a job.
study debunks police brutality claims
by ihateanarchists! Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 12:48 PM
Are cops wild in the streets? New study says no way!
To hear some of the media and activist police critics tell it, American cops are "out of control," running rampant in an "epidemic" of unjustified use of force.
But in an ongoing study that has been underway now for more than three years, Dr. Darrell Ross, an associate professor in the CJ department at East Carolina University, is nailing down facts that prove just the opposite is true.
In reality, Ross insists, officers' use of force is miniscule in the totality of police-citizen contacts. Force incidents -both lethal and nonlethal - actually are down by significant percentages in recent years. And the oft-repeated accusation that police deliberately and discriminatorily target racial minorities in employing force is not substantiated when important contextual information is taken into account.
Why does the myth of extensive and excessive use of force persist? Partly, Ross suggests, because certain powerful political agendas and philosophical orientations depend on it. Partly because important, relevant social forces are not properly understood or reported. And partly because of the nature of modern media.
"People try to show a trend by taking one incident and magnifying it," Ross told Force Science News, and the practice of tv shows infinitely replaying videotape "loops" of isolated police violence makes the atmosphere on the street "look worse than it is, like the police profession is in a conspiracy to beat people up.
"This is not to say we have never had officers who cross the line of brutality. We've had countless examples, just as other professions have their unethical members. But not at the level that the myth says. The truth is that police use of force, including deadly force, is less than it used to be by far."
As a law enforcement trainer, CJ educator and expert witness with more than 20 years' experience, Ross had grown wearily familiar with the accusatory broadsides leveled at American policing regarding use of force. At the latest ASLET training conference, he itemized a laundry list of these allegations, including claims that "police brutality is systematic," that police "use more force than necessary," that police "discriminately use excessive force against minority groups," that police willfully and regularly "violate citizens' 4th Amendment rights" and so on.
What finally motivated Ross to launch his study was the book "Police Brutality," an anthology of essays edited by journalist Jill Nelson about the "crisis" of police "misconduct," the "persecution" and "murder" of blacks by officers, and the disreputable behavior of "the fuzz" on the "battlefront" of the streets. The tenor of this material, coupled with "police brutality" reports by activist groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, seemed so vastly "ill-informed and ill-conceived" compared to Ross' personal experiences that he determined to discover and document the truth.
To date, he has compiled and analyzed an extensive amount of pertinent data, including more than 220 lethal force and 60 less-than-lethal force studies, innumerable articles and reports, 35 years' worth of government crime-trend statistics, 26 years of officer-felon shooting data and 3,500 civil liability cases (among them more than 300 that he has been involved in as an expert witness).
In an interview with Force Science News, he discussed some of his key conclusions:
-First of all, it's important to understand that between 1978 and 2003, the U.S. population age 13 and older grew by about 47,000,000 people. The police population in that period increased by about 235,000 officers. Yet despite a civilian population growth that is about 200 times that of law enforcement growth, police shootings have not increased. Indeed only a tiny percentage of police-citizen contacts-holding steady at about 1%-involve police using force of any kind. Even in arrests, use of force occurs only in about 3%.
-From 1968 to 1975, an average of 483 persons per year were shot dead by police rounds. That average has dropped significantly since then. Overall, the annual average of lethal shootings is down 33% since 1968. Shootings by police that inflict injury but not death have decreased by 20-22%, Ross says. He credits a drop in violent crime, more restrictive court rulings (notably Tennessee v. Garner), better training and decision-making by officers and the availability of more less-lethal force options, including OC, Taser and beanbag ammunition.
-Police shootings are related to UCR violent crime trends. Both tend to be highest in crime- and violence-ridden "hot spots" within a city. These areas are "catalysts" for officers being called and using force to deal with the situations they encounter there, Ross says. Like it or not, the areas with the highest concentration of violent crimes predominately are black. "Shootings are related to community safety and crime in the community," Ross explains. In fairness, "you can't ignore that and look at police shootings in a vacuum. If you don't consider factors like this you aren't looking at the true nature of the statistics."
-Given their representation in the general population (about 15%), blacks are disproportionately shot by police. But that figure is changing. In 1978, 49% of suspects shot by officers were black. By 2003 that had fallen to 34%. It's relevant to note that there also is a racial disparity where the commission of violent crime is concerned. For example, "African-American males are eight times more likely to commit homicide than whites," Ross points out. This involvement in violence and other behavioral choices make them more likely use-of-force targets. "The lifestyle of people who get shot is generally different from those who don't. You can't overlook that. Disparity in shootings does not equate with 'discrimination' in shootings."
-The race of the players in use-of-force scenarios is changing. The incidence of white officers killing black suspects has dropped since 1978, while the incidence of white officers killing white suspects is increasing. Most often black suspects are killed by black officers. All of this "dispels the myth of cops picking only on a certain race" when force is used, Ross says. "Research over the last 30 years repeatedly shows that lethal force used by police is NOT racially motivated."
-As to the charge that misguided police tactics provoke force encounters, Ross found no evidence of a pattern in which "the officer 'created' the danger and/or situation in which lethal force was required, nor did the officer take a 'poor position' that placed the officer in a situation necessitating the use of lethal force."
-Where both lethal force and nonlethal force are concerned, Ross' research confirms that the measure of force officers decide to employ is "highly associated" with the degree of suspect resistance. In other words, force is not just arbitrarily and unjustly delivered. Indeed, he found that officers "routinely use lower forms of force than what could have been justified" (deploying OC, for example, when a baton or a neck restraint could have been employed). A significant indication of the move toward lower levels of force is a decline in the use of impact weapons and a corresponding rise in the use of pepper spray, Ross says.
-As to the claim of widespread "brutality," Ross cites the federal DOJ's Use of Force Survey (1996 and 2000), the largest study of its kind ever made. Of all the hundreds of thousands of police-citizen contacts in which force of some kind was used, fewer than 1% of uses were considered excessive. In 68% of arrests, the subject did not sustain any injury, and in another 25% only a cut or bruise occurred. In fact, officers in force encounters are more likely than suspects to suffer an injury that requires hospital treatment!
Ross believes it'is important for officers, trainers, administrators and friends of law enforcement to "do what we can to get the word out" about his findings and "set the record straight." He also urges these additional recommendations:
1. Government entities and their insurers need to continue to "fight to win" questionable lawsuits based on exaggerated abusive force allegations. Officers can help in this effort by writing "a lot better reports" of force incidents, he says.
2. The trend toward greater sophistication in police training needs to be accelerated. He specifically advocates "dynamic, scenario-based" training through role-playing and use of simulators that helps officers "make better decisions" and drive inappropriate uses of force "down even further."
3. Departments should review and revise use-of-force policies that may create confusing, no-win situations for officers. For example, he says, some agencies still insist that officers use "only the minimum force necessary" to make an arrest or control a violent offender. This unnecessarily opens the door to "coulda/shoulda" criticism where officers' actions are second-guessed, Ross says-because it is not the standard stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Graham v. Connor. The Court established a standard of "objective reasonableness," which allows for broader flexibility in the realistic context of unpredictable, fast-evolving, complex dynamics that so often characterize force encounters.
"It's vitally important that the public be informed about the issues Dr. Ross' research addresses," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato. "If myths are not dispelled, they are believed, and that means people will believe cops are as violent as movies and other media often make them out to be. Once that belief prevails, then the risk is that even totally professional force encounters between officers and subjects will be interpreted as inappropriately violent."
Some of Ross' findings are reported in the journal Law Enforcement Executive Forum for Jan. '05. The article is titled: "A Content Analysis of the Emerging Trends in the Use of Non-Lethal Force Research in Policing." Copies can be ordered on line at: http://www.ptb.state.il.us/ForumJournal/current.shtml
Ross also teaches a 16-hour block on "The Myths and Realities of the Police Use of Force," which can be adapted for shorter conference presentations, with training implications included. He can be reached at (252) 328-4203 or via email Dr. Darrell Ross
by Janus Christ Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 5:57 PM
That post about police brutality was excellent!
On something of a side note, if anyone is interested about pepper spray, this article is rather interesting: http://www.reasonableforce.com/peppersprayfaqs.html
by jim Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 9:39 PM
why should people be concerned with a FAQ from a pepper spray MANUFACTURER'S WEBSITE or a short, rather vague post on police brutality that doesn't look at demonstrations-- the issue being debated-- and covers such a large spectrum of police brutality statistics that it can only be useless to our discussion, which by the way is on the growing use and extremity of force towards peaceful protestors.
re: study debunks police brutality claims
by david Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 at 11:15 PM
That study lacks scientific credibility. There is no systematic data collection for police shootings.
When the Police Shoot, Who's Counting?
Federal data on police shootings lacking
Shielded from Justice
by 53 Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 12:50 AM
53. The number was 53. There were 53 people at the protest. I counted them. there were 53. Look at the pictures. This may include people trying to get a chalupa at Qdoba, but I count 53.
ha, ya right.
by -- Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 10:04 AM
no, there were 105, were you even at this protest? 2 different people went down the line counting at different points in the event. No pictures are going to show everyone there and people came and left, especially towards the end. If there honestly were 50 I would say that- I didn't think turnout really mattered for this event, but seeing as how I actually was there and counted I think being honest is important.
by Doyle Smith Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 1:42 PM
Dear dumbass, never put myself in harm's way, don't actually know any Muslims, never been to Iraq or Afghanistan friends,
I hate to point out the obvious, but recruiting offices are usually closed on Saturdays, Sundays and national holidays. I'm sure you thought this out with the same carefulness you think out your group's agenda.
I am happy to know some stinky, zit-faced, spoiled kids who have never actually left the country are speaking on my behalf and concerned about my welfare. I understand kids protesting just to feel like they're part of something, but to see grown-ups at these silly little events is shocking.
Please keep up the good work as you are showing the city and nation exactly what kind of morons join groups like yours.
To the man holding the sign stating, "recruiters are child abusers" (or something like that)-Wow! I can't begin to tell you how ridiculous you look. If you and your life partner are ever able to adopt, let me know so I can refer your kid to a recruiter.
Thank you again, losers,
PS-Your Grand Master (or whatever you call the idiot running your group) has the PR savy of Ted Bundy.
by Janus Christ Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 3:57 PM
"why should people be concerned with a FAQ from a pepper spray MANUFACTURER'S WEBSITE.."
Because IT'S BEING USED ON YOU at protests!! So very sorry if I tried to help you learn something.
"...or a short, rather vague post on police brutality that doesn't look at demonstrations..."
Does it not stand to reason that if an officer is the type to bash someone's head apart with a nightstick that they would also be the type to be overly aggressive dealing with protests?
by U.G. Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 4:21 PM
For all the knuckleheads who thought the use of the stun gun on a 100lb, prostrate girl was somehow justified and within police protocol:
by jim hippie Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 5:46 PM
Hello fellow hippie scum. I just love when we protest together because i am not the most smelly person around. I have been protesting for seven years now and not once did i miss work because i never had a job. In fact i protested mcdonalds when they forget to put cheese on my burger. I also protest hanes company because i had the same pair of underware on for six years and they ripped. they just dont make them like they used to. Next protest i am starting is against myself. i need help making signs so anybody that doesnt have a job or really hates me please meet me in frick park "thats where i live".
Please do the wrold a favor and just fuck yourself so you can't pass on your genes
by Dan B Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 at 6:41 PM
"Dear dumbass, never put myself in harm's way, don't actually know any Muslims, never been to Iraq or Afghanistan friends,
I hate to point out the obvious, but recruiting offices are usually closed on Saturdays, Sundays and national holidays. I'm sure you thought this out with the same carefulness you think out your group's agenda"
I love how you said you don't put yourself in harms way and you don't know any Muslims. So basically you’re nothing more than a shit talker that won't back up what he preaches. Life is not worth living if you haven't found something your willing to die for. Second, how the fuck do you not know any Muslims. Do you live in Utah or Alaska? Or are you just so racist that you don't bother to talk to any of them? The remark that the recruiters office was closed tells me that you have trouble reading. Cause if you would have bothered to get an education you would have read that on the original date of the protest the center was open. It only closed after they learned the protest was coming. This protest was held on the one week anniversary.
"I am happy to know some stinky, zit-faced, spoiled kids who have never actually left the country are speaking on my behalf and concerned about my welfare. I understand kids protesting just to feel like they're part of something, but to see grown-ups at these silly little events is shocking.
Please keep up the good work as you are showing the city and nation exactly what kind of morons join groups like yours."
I think you do more harm to your argument with this statement then I ever could.
"To the man holding the sign stating, "recruiters are child abusers" (or something like that)-Wow! I can't begin to tell you how ridiculous you look. If you and your life partner are ever able to adopt, let me know so I can refer your kid to a recruiter."
You fucking piece of shit! I hope you get framed for a crime you didn't commit and then get ass raped in jail you homophobic bastard. People like you are no better than KKK members and Neo-Nazis. Keep on making anti-gay remarks to a man that probably isn't even gay. Your ignorance doesn't hurt me. Have fun fighting for the scraps that fall from the table of the aristocrats
by Concerned Citizen Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 10:12 AM
I like how you deleted my comments. I made valid comments and it just gauls you, doesn't it!!!! You only care about free speech if it suits your purpose. HA! HA! HA!
POG Oppresses II
by John Westen Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 10:15 AM
I see you filter things that might not agree with your agenda.
by IRAQ VETERAN Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 2:22 PM
If you think you are right to protest, than why do most of you wear bandanas over your faces???? http://www.foxnews.com/images/142908/7_22_102804_threat_hand_450.jpg Compare the pictures from Oakland to the one at the link above. Don't be cowards and hide your faces...
by thugbot Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 6:00 PM
yep.. good cop.. have a donut
by Dan B Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 6:10 PM
New rule, you can't post on here if you say exactly what the other 30 right wingers said before you. If you want to know why we wear the masks please go to the topics about the original CR protest.
NEW RULE #2
by toupee Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 6:35 PM
You can not post here if you are just going to say the same thing that the other brainless leftists here have already said.
To stormfront guy
by dan b Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 10:19 PM
Please give me a link to the article on the stormfront website. That sounds a little too made up to me. Second, why were you on the website to begin with? Is that sort of thing up your alley? Maybe if you would have taken a political science class you would know that nazi's are a radical RIGHT-WING group, not left.
To stormfront guy again
by Dan B Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 at 10:23 PM
I just visited the site and it seems to be that you can't even read the posts with out being a member. How fucking stupid do you think we are. Either you are telling the truth and your a racist peice of neo-nazi trash or your bullshiting us. Which one is it?
TO DAN B
by MorOn.org Thursday, Sep. 01, 2005 at 6:43 PM
There's the link. Knock yourself out. No password or membership required. There is not any need for us to get into how stupid I think you are.
Nice how you are so quick to assault those that might disagree with you. No, I am absolutely not a nazi or Stormfront guy/gal. I just do a good bit of reading and observation, unlike most of the peple here (yourself, apparently, included). I like to stay up on politics and social issues not from the onesided myopia which plagues the IMC crowd, but to read, consider and observe the wider range of voices out there. I beleive it is most interesting the alliances that have formed between the Left and the Neo-Nazis. No the Nazis are not a modern right wing organization. The political views of the modern nazi are more inline with those of the world leftists at this point in history.
The American Left has become a loose and directionless conglomeration of disparate political players. So many voices and nothing intelligible to be heard.
The LEft, as evidenced by the IMCers around here, is more suportive of oppresion of diversity of thought, violence, insurrection, and social disorder than civil society would welcome. You will hear ridiculous statements like "violence against property is not violence", or "shut down [NAME OF BUSINESS HERE] inthe interest of society. All of this disregarding the societal benefits of a functioning economy.
Thanks for your support.
by Janus Christ Friday, Sep. 02, 2005 at 7:07 AM
Am I the only one that sees this as a positive thing? Sure they're a racist bunch of thugs, but if they're gonna jump on board with the "out of Iraq" movement, albeit for different reasons, then why not? Does it not mean something when an far-right nationalist group views a far-right nationalist government as "corrupt, cowardly and paid-for"?
by scorekeeper Friday, Sep. 02, 2005 at 1:08 PM
J.C., exactly how many personalities do you have?
is it five or possibly six?
First you are angered at police brutality, then you more or less say you want to offer your "help" to pog (whatever that means, then you talk a bunch of shit on pog, you get mad at racist postings - then you openly say you have no problem aligning yourself with nazi's
you should probably get your own blog so you can at least keep all your contradictory thoughts together in one entry
Response to Scorekeeper
by Janus Christ Friday, Sep. 02, 2005 at 4:54 PM
"First you are angered at police brutality"
Breakdown of how I feel about police at protests:
Pepper spray: OK
Dogs: excessive and unneeded
Tazers: only if the subject outweighs the cop, a 100 pound girl is excessive and wrong
"then you more or less say you want to offer your "help" to pog (whatever that means).
That was before I found out the real story: that the Black Bloc aggrevated things the way they've done in the past. It still doesn't excuse the fact that the dogs and tazer use where excessive.
"You get mad at racist postings - then you openly say you have no problem aligning yourself with nazi's"
No, I never said anything about "aligning with nazis", I simply commented that it's a good thing when even Stormfront hates the Bush administation.
I was irritated about the "nigger hater" post because it was trolling and completely useless as a post. If someone where to say "This is what I think about blacks/asians/whites, etc." and have a well reasoned argument behind it, I'd be more inclined to tolerate it or even read it.
by Jenny Craig Friday, Sep. 02, 2005 at 6:07 PM
She weighed in at 160 if she weighed an ounce. Look at that can !!