As I touched on in yesterday's post, the Republican National Convention is going to be held later this year in St. Paul. It is my belief that there is going to be some serious protesting going on in my fair city. It turns out that some groups are already "practicing." From a report today on kstp.com:
ST. PAUL (AP) - A few dozen anti-war protesters marched Wednesday from the state Capitol to the Xcel Energy Center, hoping it will guarantee them to chance to hold a demonstration along the same route during the Republican National Convention in September.
The sign-toting, slogan-chanting crowd set out around noon in near-zero temperatures on what they described as the first part of a recurring protest.
The group "The Coalition to March on the RNC to Stop the War" (that is TCTMOTRNCTSTW to you and me) claims that protesting takes some serious planning and practice.
"The protest of the Republican National Convention requires the same type of planning the Republican National Convention requires," said Bruce Nestor, a Minneapolis attorney working with protesters as part of the National Lawyers Guild.
No question about that. Now, once again, I would like to say that I am firmly FOR the right of American citizens to protest. I look at it as freedom of speech and, when orderly, is a fundamental right. Hey, try protesting in China or Iran and see where it gets you. Either thrown in the huzcow (probably wrong spelling of that) or dead or worse. So I am all for it. Also, as I have written, I am a big fan of 60's tunes. So, of course, a small part of me thinks it would be fun to walk down the street chanting some slogan (hell, no, we won't go!) with a big 'fro and a sign that tells other people What Jeff Thinks. But another part of me would feel like a fraud unless we were protesting "not building a Twins stadium" or a raising beer tax or something.
As I have written before, I do not believe that all protesters have "the issue" in mind when they march. Here was my breakdown of why people protest in that previous post, which I still believe is fairly accurate:
10% - People protesting because they care deeply about the issue at hand.
15% - People trying to relive the '60's.
25% - People pissed because they missed the '60's.
40% - People who just like to burn things and break shit.
10% - People who "just happened to be in the area."
It is the burning things and breaking shit that has me worried about the protesters this fall. Hey, I love downtown St. Paul. The X, Rice Park, the Science Museum, The Liffy (for God sakes), Tom Reid's, McGovern's, The Gopher Bar (but they'll leave that place alone), etc. We don't need people lighting that stuff on fire. I'm starting to get paranoid because I've seen too much video of Chicago in 1968.
Anyway, it's not the people who are practicing protesting that worry me. Hey, have a sit-in. See if I care. It's the people who drive the love bus in from Jersey just as the acid kicks in that worry me. They had better not lay a hand on the Xcel Energy Center.
Peace,
Jeff
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I am actually more worried what damage the Republic nominee will do over the next four years if elected than what any protesters will do over 4 days later this Summer.
Hey Free, I am very confused about who to vote for this year. Like the rest of the country, I suppose. I consider myself very "middle of the road." I don't even know if I am a "liberal Republican" or a "conservative Democrat."
I agree with you that it is scary because whoever is President will have some very big decisions to make on issues that affect the entire world. Kind of like me at THE CHECK.
Who are you leaning towards so far?
Jeff
katherine kersten has a pretty good article in the star trib today about how this could backfire on the democrats. just like it did with that wellstone debacle a few years ago. get ready democrats, to take the reins of power. they are shifting back to you. but remember, you better watch out for what you wish for...btw, enjoy the link below on the "far right" and the "neocons" plan to disrupt the DNC this summer
just so I understand you mr free. you would rather have delgates and folks associated with the republicans be subjected to violence, belittled for their right to freely choose, and the community that hosts this convention go up in flames. that does not concern you has much as a republican in power? Well, knock me over with a feather!!!
I think the word that you are looking for is "hoosegow"...you did a nice job of sounding it out though. Hooked on Phonics indeed!
Brian
zzzzzzz
way to twist my words anon. I'll say this right now and you can shove it back in my face in 8 months if I'm wrong:
No damage will be done to the X by protesters.
No republican delegates will be subject to violence by protesters or prevented from participating in the convention.
St. Paul will not be up in flames due to protesters.
Why do I know this? because I looked at the last 9 republican conventions.
However if a Republican is elected as president I am sure we will see further deficits, more wars, higher taxes on the middle class, no health care solutions, lack of progress on the environment, more positions filled by cronies, more bridges falling down, and little job creation.
Why do I know this? I just looked at the past 7 years.
let's see what 8 years of democratic control got us:
little or no action on direct islamic attacks on US soil, or overseas interests. see the WTC bombing in 1993, along with the USS Cole, and many others instances to numerous to mention. why? because the dems wanted to treat it as a "criminal action" rather than an act of war! see 9/11 as a direct result! the wealthy, by far, pay the VAST MAJORITY of the taxes in this country. that is a fact. who do you want to spend your money? you and your family, or the govt? free health care for all! lack of progress on the environment? what the hell is that? bush and the gang want to build more nuclear power plants! not a lot of emissions there? nope, say the dems. can't do that. how about offshore drilling, like every other country does to lessen our dependency on foreign oil? nope! can't do that! I forgot that the republicans and only the republicans fill postitions by cronies! see every administration in us history! yes, you are correct. bush is at fault for the bridge falling down. and a buckled highway. and the crack in my sidewalk. and my bratty kid. little job creation? what are you reading? better yet, what are you smoking? give me some!
August 6, 2001
CIA: Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.
G.W.Bush: zzzzzzzzzzz
I don't feel like sharing my thoughts on this one, but at least Free has the balls to not be anonymous...oh, and it is apparent that he actually thought out his comments, where the anon ones could have been easily been cut/past from any number of right leaning blogs. The only thing he missed is the part where Slick Willie got a BJ that ruined the economy.
anonymous has some great points. so does free. the one thing that I agree with free on is at least we did have a better fiscal situation under clinton(balanced budget) free-I don't agree with you on your assessment of 9/11 at all. like anonymous already pointed out, they already struck us several times prior to 9/11, and it is a fact that sudan offered to serve up bin laden on a platter, but that was turned down. plus, clinton not personally visiting the WTC bomb site in 1993 is an egregious breach of duty for a commander in chief. know what my favorite willie story is? when he was huddled up with the JCS during the somalian crisis/black hawk down stuff, he actually asked the JCS the following: why don't we just leave them behind? JCS coldly replies to the commander in chief: sir, we don't do that. awesome job bill!
Good, civil, debate everyone. I kind of thought this would spur some conversation. It will be an interesting year and election.
so dave, what is wrong with someone being anonymous when they post? do you think free alonzo is his real name? could it be you just don't politically agree with anonymous? who cares if they give their name. try and be a little more tolerant. half the stuff on here could come from a nutroot website, for heavens sake.
Tony,
I'd never heard the one about Clinton saying to the JCS that the soldiers should just be left behind. Any online sources you could point me to? I just searched, and couldn't find any.
neil-it was in one of two books I read. losing bin laden-how bill clinton's failures unleashed global terror, or dereliction of duty. dereliction of duty was written by the guy who used to carry the football for clinton. I am pretty sure it was that book.
Post a Comment