Protests justifiable
The June 12 Rocky Mountain News article, “Activists to party in streets at DNC,” leads us to believe that just a bunch of old hippies is going to descend on Denver during the Democratic National Convention, but it never addresses the reasons why thousands of people are willing to protest what has become a corporate-soaked media event that makes a mockery of our democracy.
Denver must not limit our constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and dissent, nor advocate police violence toward demonstrators who have come with legitimate concerns about the selling off of our democratic foundations to a wealthy elite who pull the strings of power.
Denver’s media must not trivialize the most important issues of our times.
Ann Krohn Rick, Longmont
so ann you want to be in the streets protesting not have a job or that socialized health care is not here?
what does 'legitmate concerns about the selling off of our democratic foundations to a wealthy elite who pull the strings of power' mean?
what are the most important issues of our times? are they so important that you can not name them or are they the same ones you protest all the time about wanting a government just like france or cuba or venezuela?
Ann,
No one is going to deny you your rights. Those rights do not include the right to disrupt others, cause a public nuisance or be violent.
And yes, it is all about a bunch of geriatric hippies and their followers hoping to re-create their old sixties glory. That is what they are saying. If they have a message worth hearing they can communicate it. If all they want is camera time and fleeting fame they may get it but they will be required to obey the law and they won't be allowed to interfere with others or defy police. Or is that concept part of the "elite who pull the strings of power?"
Last night the democratic candidates for president fielded questions from YouTube viewers that were much tougher than the usual softballs lobbed by some commentators.
Would it really be so terrible for the candidates of both parties to directly address the reasonable issues raised by protesters?
Let's be real here. People are going to be there trying to make their voices heard for things like the war, reproduction rights, gay equality, global warming, justice issues, etc.
Why can't we say to the people who want to protest....give us 5 questions from each group...you decide what they are...and they will be posed to whatever candidates still in the running at that time..during the convention?
Posted by Thomas on July 24, 2007 06:33 AMThomas,
That idea makes way too much sense to be adopted.
Posted by Charles B on July 24, 2007 06:54 AMmomma y:
"And yes, it is all about a bunch of geriatric hippies and their followers hoping to re-create their old sixties glory. That is what they are saying."
That is what who is saying?
Posted by Charles B on July 24, 2007 06:55 AMI have to admit that sites like these are extremely helpful in understand political ettiquete. For example, you can't protest by flying the flag upside down. Too disrespectful, especially to the troops. You can't take to the streets and protest (you dirty old hippies you) because, well it is just wrong.
I've been to a few of those "protests" and found that I like the others above was very narrow minded about who attended these little parties. I actually took the time to talk to some of them (unlike some sitting back and assuming who they are). I met teachers (ok no surprise there, ranchers, farmers, factory workers, veterans of Nam and Iraq, soldiers still on active duty (ok just one), and by God you were right, a few that appeared to be old Hippies (and a few young wannabes).
The real interesting group was the pro-war counter protesters across the street: two of them. One (if I'm going to label as you all are) looked suspiciously like a skinhead. The other, a senior biker in leather. I wasn't so much surprised at the image of the counter protesters, so much as the lack of faces there speaking to what they believe in. I had one tell me that the pro-war side had better things to do than walk a street to show their support. They bought a 2 dollar magnet and slapped it on the ole car bumper. I didn't know it was that easy. The bottom line was that they had better things to do.
Sorry gang, but standing up for what I believe in, especially if it involves something that I feel puts MY country at risk I will do what it takes. If you folks choose to take action by plunking away on a keyboard or changing the channel during some fool liberal's interview, so be it. I think those who have the courage and choose to take the time to leave the sanctuary of home to voice their views for the world to see do far more to honor our country, flage, AND those troops who serve this nation than those who sit back and shake their heads at those who do care.
You want to support your beliefs, get off your cans and do so. I find it interesting that a few of you feel we're looking to create a Cuba, France, or Venezuela utopia. We have similar concerns. We see you passive patriots as those who are driving us through the 1920s--30s German neverland to a very dark hole. When you wake up some moring and find us there, you only need to look as far as the mirror to learn the identity of who got us there.
That would be a neat ribbon for some of you; a nice lavendar one with the phrase Passive Patriot--whatever they say goes and the rest can shut their piehole.
Ann needs to get her facts straight - we are not a democracy but a constituional republic - big difference between the two. Otherwise she has a right to her protest wherever she sees as fit and for them to set up isolated areas for protesters is flat out wrong.
Posted by on July 24, 2007 07:37 AMThe use of protest in civil discourse has become the equivalent of the tantrum in context of communication. The reasoned use of free speech is much more effective and the "protesters" know that. Why then the protest? Its a party and is far easier than realm of thoughful civil discourse. Identify your issue, present it thoughfully, offer integrated solutions, and prepared for debate
Free speech does not mean interfering with other's right to free speech. The Democrates have paid for this convention and I want to hear what they say. I am hoping that they set the tone for this election by actually setting a platform. Neither party has done that for a longtime and I am uncertain of what they stand for anymore. The world of protest has degenerated to simple slogans: Hate Bush, No War, Pro or Anti Abortion. Lose the tantrum, and talk. The "Constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and disent, apply to the democrates as well. Respect their right and we will respect yours. Set your own convention (pay the bill) and set your protester platform. This voter will gladly receive any idea thoughfully presented. (Please leave out the name calling and screaming)
Posted by Tom on July 24, 2007 07:45 AMMy! My! My!
What a wonderful collection of pre-conceptions, prejudices, and presumptions.
05:53AM - Anonymous - dismisses the idea of protests, out of hand, doing nothing more than heaping ridicule on what his imagination fantasizes their content "is going to be"; i.e., anything he disagrees with.
Momma y tells us the protesters will be nothing more than a bunch of "geriatric hippies", doing nothing more than trying to recreate the 1960's. And of course, they really have nothing to say that's worth listening to anyway.
Thomas suggests that it all should be a nicely staged media event - like the boob tube debates - with a limited number of questions (carefully edited as to any actual content) from each "group", which should, somehow, be included in the Convention agenda - perhaps during one of those afternoon lulls, when no one is really watching TV anyway.
Tom, of course, derides protests as such; denegrates those who would engage in such activity; is certain that there would be nothing more than "simple slogans" - of the kind that would be contrary to his Party's programs and personalities - and suggests that, instead of protest (free speech) there be a seperate form of "convention" - bought and paid for by those wishing to offer anything contrary to Tom's pre-conceived ideas, of course - since his notion of "free speech" is one that already considers protest to be interference with what HE wants to hear.
All these fine folks, having made up their minds (?) in advance, want the rest of us to dismiss the matter - and consider the idea of "protest/protesters" uncouth, unnecessary, and likely to be no more than troubles and law-breaking; since things are going along just fine as they are. And politics is there for those who, in their superior status, are the arbiters of what "ought to be in the future" as well
Then we have, "larkspur", someone who has actually gone down, out on the street, into the crowd, and tried to learn what the protesters - and the basics of protest - are all about. And who, in turn, writes a very refreshing letter, with a very challenging and exciting view of the real "grass roots" of this Nation, and of hopes for the future.
THANK YOU, LARKSPUR! Right on!
Maybe, if we all get busy and get off our cans - at least for once in our lives - and get out there and support our ideas and positions, we can make a difference. And, we can also show the inherent strength and power that still resides in the principles of both freedom of assembly and free speech as well..
Posted by Old Grouch on July 24, 2007 09:13 AMOg, forgive those of us who want to hear the free speech and weigh the ideas. You make several assumptions, one of which is that Larkspur has ever been to a protest. Well, I have too. We used the principles of Gandhi, and Dr. King. It was pointed, well defined, and outlined by free speech. The protest itself, was never the point. Communication of an idea was central. The protesters are a loose confederation of several groups. If you really talk to them, you would see the purpose is to protest as an end. I am open to ideas and willing to listen. Forgive me for trying to communicate. It is not the spectacle it is the idea behind it and the framing of that protest that is effective speech. In today's media rich environment, communication is not as it was in the 60's and other eras. But do not scream for your rights, by trampling on the rights of others. My post-conception is that free speech is enjoyed by all and the right to hear that speech is integral. But I could be wrong so enjoy the show. It may not be meaningful, but doggone it, Larkspur and Og need to be entertained.
Posted by Tom on July 24, 2007 10:03 AMJust go to the damned thing and, if you get the opportunity talk , try to stick to on issue. If you don't, no one will get the point. And, most of all, don't get the idea in your head that what you say is going to change anything. Ideas take a long time in maturing to the point where they can create change which, no matter how many people may say they want it, very few actually do.And, at least try to understand what you are protesting about before opening your mouth, that way lies failure on so many levels.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 10:59 AMTom,
Are you implying that "larkspur" is not to be believed when he states that he went to a protest? That this is only an "assumption" on my part?
In that case, you are just begging the question of what I wrote in the first place - an outline of your own prejudices, presumptions, and pre-conceptions - that you merely repeat, i.e., your ideas of what the protesters "are "and what I "would see as (their) purpose"; together with your concept of what free speech "ought to be" for YOUR benefit.
Adding in, of course, the implication that "larkspur" is lying; as well as snide denegration of the suggestions for being active in standing up for one's positions as being nothing more than a way of seeking to be entertained. And of course, to be dismissed as merely "screaming".
More or less - and very much as usual - typical of the form and contents of "debate" presented by "conservatives". If a bit more literate - and possessed of at least an elementary grasp of good English grammer - than, say, as posted by "AnAmerican", for instance.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 24, 2007 11:18 AMTom...
I apologize and you have a valid point. Any future functions I attend I'll ensure there is a time clock or someone to notarize my attendance. Good man...always assume they're lying. It gives you a base to work from as you dig downwards.
OG thanks for your feedback.
Thank God we have protesters and those who are willing to stand up and do whatever it takes to get the message across and initiate change. Problem is it can cause problems down the road. My God if it wasn't for those unpatriotic so-and-sos from years ago who decided to take to the streets AND battlefields to initiate change, we'd be singing God Save the Queen rather thatn the national anthem.
Makes you wonder who would have stood up and spoke out in support of freedom back then--the ones who show that same courage today or our passive patriots?
And Mr. Campbell? Very true. Going to a protest for the sake of going is counterproductive. You need to at least have made an effort to understand what is going on and why. Many don't do that on either side. Most people don't even make that attempt when voting, if they vote at all.
I remember that during the 2004 Dem convention in Boston, the day after there was widespread property damage and assaults committed by "activists", Diane Carmen wrote glowingly about "playful acts of civil disobedience" in one of her lame columns
There are many multiple groups of whacked out moonbats who protest full time Some are violent and some are just plain nuts.
To view these "progressives" check this out,
http://www.zombietime.com/
Now ask yourself if you really want to give these types free reign in Denver?
Posted by Get Real on July 24, 2007 06:59 PMOG - did you ever stop to think that some folks might have actually logged onto the "Recreate '68" website like I did to see what it was all about? I didn't think so.
Ann - when you said, "Denver must not limit our constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and dissent, nor advocate police violence..." you lost me. I have seen nowhere that Denver is advocating violence against protestors. The objection from the city council is that nobody will be allowed to come into Denver and dictate to the city how its' police will react to them. Seems to me that you are making an assumption here, unless you know something we don't about what is going to happen. Plans for protest violence perhaps?
I have no problem if folks want to protest, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, or disrupt business while they are doing it. That's one of the things that is great about this country. You are free to protest.
Just don't expect much to change as a result or you may be disappointed.
Posted by RU Serious on July 24, 2007 07:04 PMRUSerious,
As to logging on to a website and finding out "what it is/was all about" - ANY WEBSITE, and/or, as ebay advertises, "whatever IT is" - I would suggest you log on to the "Landover Baptist Church" website; and there you will find out what "fundamental Christianity" is "all about".
As to "advocating police violence": Perhaps you might remember that, back in 1968, at the Chicago convention, the principal politician in Chicago was Mayor Daley.
Setting aside any personal opinions of the man, the Chicago/Cook-County political machine, the Chicago police department, and/or all the above, one of the pre-eminent points established by way of the news videos of that day was that, on the Mayor's orders, the riot squad of the police department waded into the assembled protestors, and began one of the most brutal, vicious, and disgusting "crowd control actions" ever seen in America, up to that time.
The protestors were doing nothing more than being there, peacefully assembled.
What Ann - and others - were, and are, saying, is, simply, that given the Chicago example - as well as the repeated example of the trigger happy Denver Police over the past years (including, but not limited to, climbing up a ladder, crawling through a bedroom window, emptying a semi-automatic pistol into a sick man in bed - because he had a pop can in his hand, which the "peace officer" thought[?] was a weapon - without warrant or established probable cause); those organizing the potential 2008 assembly and protest at the upcoming Convention were hoping that Denver would not see a repeat of Chicago. A very legitimate appeal under the circumstances; and one that, it may be hoped, has some effect on the Denver political machine today. After all, Hick is a nice guy, with a great smile.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 25, 2007 08:38 AMMy point was simply that the words that Ann used seemed to anticipate that her rights would be infringed. If there is any evidence of "advocating police violence" towards protestors, perhaps you can provide a link?
Comparing 1968 Chicago to today's Denver is not applicable. I grew up in that area and was of voting age at the time. There is no comparison.
Ann's comments and choice of language seem to anticipate an impending infringement of the rights of protestors who will gather in Denver. Seems like an unfounded assumption to me.
Posted by RU Serious on July 25, 2007 02:14 PMDoes the"rights"of protesters include trashing in the streetslike they did in Seatle?? They left that town looking like Kristlenact!!
Posted by tj on July 25, 2007 06:20 PMRUSerious,
It sort of depends on what kind of comparison one is going to make. Actually, I wasn't comparing them so much as trying to illustrate what the phrase "nor advocate police violence" meant to those proposing to protest.
And I certainly have to agree that Chicago politics and Denver politics bear little resemblance to each other. (Most of my Mother's family is buried in the Cemetery at 69th and Cottage Grove, so I'm not completely unaware of Chicago; though never having actually lived there myself.)
For the upcoming protest organizers, as I see it anyway, it was/is a matter of attempting to de-fuse potential problems in advance, having the 1968 Chicago experience from which to project possible future action. And, sad to say, Denver's police response to crowd situations has not been all that wonderful itself over the years.
Maybe the protest organizers are overly fearful - or perhaps more pro-active than necessary. That remains to be seen, when a protest gathering happens.
But, a request to avoid violence was, and is, still a reasonable request, whatever the underlying reasons for making it. It's more of a matter of making a judgment about what might happen, from past evidence of what has happened than a matter of "link" to something.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 03:51 PMA bit more grist for the discussion:
In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled (Buckley vs. Valeo) that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.
Does this make free speech a relative thing? Whose "free speech" actually gets heard?
Our "media" is filtered through fewer and fewer mega corporations. What effect does this have on our democracy (democratic-republic if you prefer)?
Ann
Posted by Ann Krohn Rick on September 7, 2007 09:18 AM