posted on August 24, 2002 12:00:54 AM new
In downtown Portland today Bush's presence for a political good buddy gathering draws protestors out to greet him.
posted on August 24, 2002 06:46:50 AM new
The issues drawing protestors are rapidly increasing. Besides a possible war with Iraq , Palestinian policy and corporate corruption the environment is now in danger.
How could Ari Fleischer "not have an inkling" that the protest would occur? News about the protest were posted on the internet as early as Aug 7 on the Portland Independent Media Center
posted on August 24, 2002 08:49:34 AM new
Next we will hear how these who don't follow the Dear Leader's Plan (Opps wrong State - same idea) are terrorists and come under the Patriots Act. Demonstrating will be aiding a terrorist organization, and aid to some unspecified enemy. There are so many it should be easy to find one.
If I were the head of another country I would start to worry that after the little fish like Korea are taken care of - where does it end? Will the US decide that France, India, Pakistan and perhaps even Britain are unacceptable risks in the world if they retain their weapons of mass destruction? Who is to say who could get control of them?
Will even Russia or China feel safe?
Fearful people do stupid things.
<snip>
"Walter Kansteiner, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, went on to blame Mugabe's policies for contributing to the threat of famine in Zimbabwe.
"We do not see President Mugabe as the democratically legitimate leader of the country," he said. "The political status quo is unacceptable because the elections were fraudulent. So we're working with others, other countries in the region as well as throughout the world, on how we can in fact, together, encourage the body politic of Zimbabwe to ... go forward and correct that situation." <snip>
================
Let us to go forth and correct our situation, starting with the elections this fall!
Or maybe Canada or the EU will decide that Bush & crew do not adhere to the US standards
of government and attempt to "correct the situation". We were not allowed a proper election, so we could ask for HELP!!!!
"Or maybe Canada or the EU will decide that Bush & crew do not adhere to the US standards of government and attempt to "correct the situation". We were not allowed a proper election, so we could ask for HELP!!!!
If we based it on a vote, the world would favor a regime change in the USA.
posted on August 24, 2002 03:36:33 PM new
It's like I said: Portland is a Hotbed of anti-Bush sentiments. The only ones cheering him here were the Elite and loggers. I wasn't exaggerating when I was saying here in the RT a few weeks ago about Portlanders and Oregonians being angry enough at the destruction of our civil rights and they are just about pizzed enough to go do some hunting down on Pennsylvania ave in D.C. Organized Resistance has begun!
posted on August 24, 2002 09:04:53 PM new
Although, it was a small group of protesters in Stockton they were loud enough to be heard. The Republicans had the gall to say they were flown in from Portland ,as if, they are the only citizens that don't like this administrations follies.
Just as I predicted Bush stayed far away from Simon. He was mostly doing campaigning for 2004. Left overs anyone? That $1000 a plate dinner went down to $200, and they still couldn't fill up the place.
posted on August 27, 2002 01:33:40 AM new
Baby sprayed, for protesting too much. Evidently the police crossed their own lines of protest containment in attacking protesters even while protesters remained within those lines.
posted on August 27, 2002 04:29:27 AM new
Not smart.
Show people they can expect violence and they adapt to it.
Next time they will probably face demonstrators with their own face shields - ball pien hammers for the car windows and roofing nails to scatter on the road. Be lucky if somebody does not have a squirt gun of fuming sulfuric acid or gasoline and start squirting back. I wonder how long it takes to get all that riot gear off when you notice your shirt and skin are dissolving?
They should count themselves lucky that they have non-violent people to deal with instead of upping the ante for next time - because the challenge can be met big time. Look into how they meet the riot police in Korea. Ugly.
Beside which you have to live in a community.
How long before someone starts tracking who the thugs are and where they live and shop? Do you want to meet these same folks without your riot gear on and snipers on the roofs? Do you want to be able to start your car in the morning without fear and live normal? Not in a guarded compound like security police had to live in communist countries for fear of retribution.
posted on August 27, 2002 06:57:45 AM new
Disgraceful
Right, gravid...Next time they will be better prepared!!!
But then there is the strong possibility that the Homeland Security will be better prepared also. "When protests become effective, government become repressive." That was an observation of someone during the Vietnam protests.
From an article that krs posted shortly after 9/11....
Under the Patriot act, you are a "domestic terrorist," subject to 25 years in prison, if you engage in acts intended to "influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion." Which is, of course, the very definition of public protest: the attempt to force policy changes on reluctant governments through an unsettling display of popular will.
As always, Bush alone retains the right to decide who is and who is not a terrorist, just as he alone decides what constitutes an "adverse effect" on the United States - could be a bomb, a boycott, a protest, - it's his call.
The edict gives him the power to seize any non-U.S. citizen, in any country on earth, and to subject him or her to secret summary justice. There is no outside check or oversight of this exercise of universal dominion, and no legal recourse for the accused -- not even to the laws of their own country
Americans can now be watched and then locked up without any of the protections of the normal criminal justice system.
posted on August 27, 2002 09:37:40 AM new
This is the first time in my (our) life that I've decided that bringing The Kid to a protest is a BAD idea. And realizing that in itself was chilling. And that was before this.
And then I think I even risk making my kid parentless by attending any overt or organized action, so I had to think about that.
So I thought about that and how I use some of my old GZ stuff (respirator/goggles) then remembered that when the WTO met here it was announced that anybody wearing any kind of mask would be arrested.
I was so PO'd by that I ran out and bought any masks I could find. THe find was two black eye-masks witth whiskers. I was going to take The Kid to some side-line in our masks. I for get why but instead we attached them to our baseball-type caps. I got some peculiar looks commuting to my at-that-time desk job (what the hell I was a declared psychiatric case at the time anyway) but I like to think somebody got it.
I haven't been there for a while but some sites to check out are rtmark.com and gatt.org. In fact I'm going to go take a look now.
posted on August 27, 2002 09:43:56 AM new
Why would the protesters carry their kids
to a protest rally? History didnt teach them much.
Someone always get hurt,everytime.I know,I know,Im missing the big picture.
posted on August 27, 2002 10:33:54 AM new
It is sad that the authorities are stupid enough to miss the big picture.
Protest has always been a safety valve of emotions.
Take it away and you start the pressure building up. When it reaches the burst point it is not nice.
If you tell people no protest is allowed you remove any legitimacy you may have retained in their eyes.
It is asking for armed rebellion.
The Hungarians in '56 are a study in point.
If it happens here however I don't think you will see the moderation of that event. Americans tend to take things to the extreme.
If they decide to fight they will be a sneaky dirty bunch that will make the "terror" level of the Palestinians say look like a boy scout training manual. I've worked with guys here who scared the crap out of me. They would kill you over two weeks pay. If they were turned loose over some solid ideological differences I could see them sending the opposition home in the mail a half pound at a time as a message without it disturbing their sleep at all. Some of these guys learned to kill overseas and found they LIKED it. They would volunteer to go out on patrol and put a few more ears on their cord. Too many of those guys out there trained in all manner of mayhem. And if you think the older ones are safer you are silly. The old boys who have been around the block are the worst.
When my Dad was training for the Rangers there was a guy pushing 50 who reenlisted and they made him go through training again. He was already pissed about that. One of the officers who was training these kids would put them on guard duty and sneak up on them in the night and knock them down and disarm them to "teach them a lesson". He crawled up about 10 foot behind this old guy - who did not let on he knew - made his final sprint to knock him down and got his face fractured by a rifle butt. Then the old boy busted his ribs - burst his spleen - and said "Halt. Who goes there?. Took him 3 months to get out of the hospital.
posted on August 27, 2002 12:14:30 PM new
>>Someone always get hurt,everytime.<<
That's a gross over-generalization.
The Kid has been in Bread and Puppet theater performances/parades since he was three. Union protests. Save the gardens. Leave the squatters alone. All were joyful occassions.
I would never bring him to a WTO, especially after the bloodbath (and I mean bloodbath) in Italy.
But the New World is here, and I believe, as do others here I surmise, and it is going to get really nasty.
Cyn
posted on August 27, 2002 01:02:42 PM new
DeSquirrel, your remarks are ignorant of the facts. Most protests are peaceful. That is, until authorities purposely push citizens over the edge with violence, hoping for a riot so that they can have an excuse to smash heads and break up the protest. It is a tactic done last century in this country time and time again. A more recent tactic is to import troublemakers who will, on signal, insure that violence occurs and give the police the excuse they need. I have participated in this sorts of protests and seen both things happen before. It wasn't "leftists" who started the trouble and that remark is stupid anyway because many protests around here have protestors from the entire political spectrum protesting under one banner.
posted on August 27, 2002 01:31:02 PM new
No Borillar you are just silly.
I was using Ken's link to the Portland paper. I realized the paper is probably "controlled" by the evil government, etc, etc, etc., but where I come from we do not throw things at police officers and when told to stay behind the barricades we stay.
A protester stands there with his buddies and holds his sign etc. It is another person with a different agenda altogether that feels he must confront the object of his alleged torment and commit criminal acts.
I'm taking a bus or driving somewhere and I have to put up with these nuts blocking traffic or WORSE??? I don't think so.
And if the next answer is "it was only the 20 guys up front......." that also makes no difference on the required police response.
I liked Martin Luther Kings description of protestors...He compared them to an ambulance going through a red light on its way to the hospital. The Bush administration needs emergency care.
posted on August 27, 2002 04:03:00 PM new
When I see protests now I wonder how many of those protesters have been paid by the government or big corporations to get their point across and/or insite riots if needed.
By now everyone's heard of the group of Republicans who intimidated the Miami Dade canvassing board into stopping its legally ordered recount. However, you may be surprised to know that this boisterous group was not just a random assembly of concerned citizens out to demonstrate their opinions. No, in typical Republican Party symbolism over reality this was a paid group of current and former Congressional staffers and corporate lobbyists, flown in, housed and fed for the occasion by the GOP.
The Washington, D.C., meeting had both anti- and pro-GMO protesters, although the proponents came at a high price in public relations for [b]Monsanto. The biotech giant paid about 100 members of a Baptist church
to demonstrate in favor of GMOs,[/b] according to a story in the Times.
The final session, in Oakland Dec. 13, also featured protesters on both sides of the issue. Again money played a role for the pro-GMO protesters who came from the University of California at Berkely's department of plant and microbial biology, which in 1998 agreed to research biotechnology with $25 million from Novartis, the Swiss biotechnology company.
The rally was highly successful despite an effort funded by
the Monsanto corporation in which around 100 people were
hired at $25 apiece to travel from a local Baptist church
and protest in favor of genetically engineered foods. In an
embarrassing story for Monsanto, the New York Times reported
on the paid protestors in a December 8 article - detailing
the [b]work of giant public relations firm Burson Marsteller,
which has been working for Monsanto at the FDA hearings.[/b]
posted on August 27, 2002 05:54:17 PM new
"And if the next answer is "it was only the 20 guys up front......." that also makes no difference on the required police response."
Do TRY to remember that if you walk out of a building at the wrong time and are swept away
with the crowd and beaten with batons and tear gassed.
It was just "REQUIRED" for the police to beat the crap out of you. To prove what point exactly? That they can't tell the difference between someone standing still and holding a sign and somebody assaulting them? Is that what YOU think of the mental ability of your police? Do you think the TV camera men there were assaulting the police? Or was it too revealing for them to record what happened?
The cops don't seem to have any trouble telling people appart in other situations.
They don;t for the most part shoot the hostages as well when responding to a hostage situation - unless they are black in Dearborn - then they do shoot them dead also.
posted on August 27, 2002 08:09:08 PM new
Cyn,I've been attending organized protests since 1969
That time frame I was holding down a couple of jobs,16 to 18 hours a day.
There were no Union protests here,because,
no such thing.The only garden protest was when someone ripped off someones pot.
Any protest was far and few,The war,and civil rights issues.A good time was not had at these protests,The protesters ended up in different groups(it was probley planned that way)and at times turned on each other.
They disagreed to agree,and a fight would break out.Then the cops would get involved,
and someone would get hurt bad,even the cops.
Thats the way I remember it here,regardless of how it was done in NY. Might be interesting to find out what others remember from their side of the world.
[ edited by junquemama on Aug 27, 2002 08:10 PM ]
posted on August 28, 2002 10:37:08 AM new
Hmmmmm. Take tortillas to next protest. Protection and lunch at the same time. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on August 28, 2002 12:20:53 PM new
I have been wondering what was in pepper spray besides a hot pepper type ingredient. Found this article below when I googled.
I also found a company selling one brand of pepper spray. It said it used Capsaicin/Capsicin with a chemical propellant
A134 or 134A and a chemical carrier. Wonder what those are?
ACLU Urges CA Appeals Court to Declare
Use of Pepper Spray Dangerous and Cruel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, August 12, 1999
SAN FRANCISCO, CA--
On three separate occasions during the protest, Humboldt law enforcement authorities applied Q-tips soaked in pepper spray directly to the eyes of the protesters, who had linked their hands inside metal sleeves. <snip>
The friend-of-the-court brief summarizes empirical, scientific and toxicological research on pepper spray. "Scientific literature refutes the repeated depiction, by the trial judge and by Humboldt, that pepper spray is a benign organic substance that causes only transient discomfort," the ACLU's Crosby said.
"In fact, pepper spray ingredients, alone and in combination with solvents that create the weapon, have a variety of physiological effects," she added. "Courts have recognized that pepper spray may be a dangerous chemical weapon, resulting in liability to government or private parties, or incarceration to criminal defendants."
<snip>
Pepper spray weapons - both their active ingredients and their chemical solvents and propellants -- may have damaging short and long-term effects on a number of body systems and functions. These weapons are particularly dangerous for people with compromised health status and for young people.
"Pepper spray's effects on the respiratory, ophthalmologic, and neurologic systems may be severe," Crosby added. "Studies also show that pepper spray may produce carcinogenic effects and disrupt the body's temperature regulation system."
