Serious Business

Ha, I'm sorry but I can't help but giggle a bit when I read this comment from the Leader-Telegram.

Normal, in this case, meant downtown St. Paul was teeming with a cast of characters ranging from delegates attending to the serious business of nominating Arizona Sen. John McCain as the GOP presidential candidate to street musicians trying to cash in on the influx of conventiongoers.

Call me whatever you want but in my opinion the absolutely LEAST serious business being attended to this week is the nominating of John McCain. I'd say the the most serious folks are probably either the Cops or the Anarchists. Everyone else seems out to have fun, ok many of the other protesters are pretty serious too, but ironically the anarchists seem the best organized to really do some shit. From the little I can gather from various media sources these folks mean business and I'm not surprised at all that the cops have been targeting them. I'm surprised they wear such obvious clothing. If I was them I'd have a big white t-shirt with some protest message on it that could quickly be ripped of to change my appearance, and don't put the bandanna over your face till you start some shit, or just before. All I know is that the cops are seeing every type of nutjob you can imagine right now, most of them they know are harmless hippies and what not. Thats not an insult to hippies, they're just not a violent group, so actually thats a compliment. Then all of the sudden they see a line of folks wearing almost all black, faces covered and wearing goggles. Those folks are planning on getting pepper sprayed, watch them.

Within my circle of friends I'm the oddball, because I look so normal. I don't have tattoo's, no piercings, I don't have a mohawk, and I don't wear black that much. In the summer its shorts, a short sleeve button up shirt, and sandals. Winter its jeans, and a long sleeve button up shirt. A big part of this is because I just don't care about clothing and so what I wear to work is just what I wear. The other part of this is because by looking decent and nondescript I can get away with more. I can walk into areas I'm not supposed to be with a slight smile and a purposeful walk and no one hassles me. And that is ultimately my goal in life. Other friends want to say fuck the system, and think the best way to do that is by avoiding becoming a part of the system. They admit that they are slowly being reeled in but they do there best. I on the other hand want to embrace the system, so I can exploit the system. This country is too apathetic to revolt and change things in a major way, of that I am certain, although its possible that could change. The next best hope, is to work within the body politic to try to make changes.

So while I honestly don't think that protests are particularly effective anymore, I do think that the police over reaction can be a very useful tool for getting people riled up. So now lets take a moment and look over some actual serious business from yesterday.

Heres a photo from this slide show, and the related article in the NY Times.
Ok from this pic, thats a legit use of pepper spray, I would guess that cop wasn't knocked over, the article mentions police attempting to arrest someone and other protesters pulling the person away, I'm assuming this is that confrontation. But its still a lot of protesters and not many police around, he probably wasn't in danger per-se but I can understand the use of force in this case.
This is towards the other end of the spectrum, holy crap thats a lot of cops, and one protester who didn't run fast enough.

Heres another article, with more pics. This is either Ralph Nader's Flickr or a supporter, either way theres some pics. Some guy's pics. Another good pic, from here. Oh wow! I knew Rage Against the Machine played at the RNC (and the DNC) I didn't realize Dead Prez was there too, that would have been a great combo show, but I don't think it was, oh shit Anti-Flag too! Heres photos, and a big thank you to Neil who's photos I just linked to.
Also want to thank Neil for this great caption to his photos of the anarchists.
"Each of the anarchist that I photographed is that they all stated that they did not give thier permission to have thier photo taken. In an anarchist state, you need permission?"
I might have time to add more to this later, or start another post but right now I'm outta time!

Protest, Rights and the RNC

Looks like a typical day in Iraq, oh wait my bad, this is St. Paul Minnesota. Speaking of Iraq I heard we turned over the Anbar Province to Iraqi security, sweet! How long till we give them the rest of their country back?

I covered the Protests at the DNC pretty extensively, or at least as extensively as my extremely limited resources allowed. So how does St. Paul compare? I have no idea. I'm seeing more national guard in these pics. Lots of arrests at both, lots or tear gas, pepper spray, and "Impact Rounds." I'd love to be out there and see what its really like, at the same time with my asthma and allergies tear gas might be really dangerous. Theres other reasons too, like the fact that I don't have money to get there, I don't think its an effective way to be heard, and I'm not that into getting arrested, even if the charges are usually dropped. Pepper spray and tear gas look like they suck pretty bad even without asthma, then again so does getting beat with a night stick. Then again there were protesters out in the streets dancing to Dead Kennedys and also Public Enemy's "9/11 was a Joke." I'm always down for dancing to some DK!

Ok so ya want some info on whats going on? Go to the Minnesota Independent, they seem to have the most info of anybody, lots of pics and shit. This was a particularly good article from them, about the first day. I'm obviously not a police officer, but if I was I think I'd try to do a little research, know your enemy kinda shit. I'd want to know things like, the guys in the bright ass green hats that seem to be following the protests but don't seem too active. Yeah those are reps for the National Lawyer Guild, they are there to monitor police activity to help prevent the protesters rights from being infringed. In other words they know the law, or to put it another way, I wouldn't target them, they will sue your ass. BTW, expect lawsuits in both cities.
Case in point. See that guy in the bright green hat? Yeah pretty fuckin hard to miss right? Apparently hard to miss with the pepper spray too, cause immediately after that photo was taken he gets blasted at obviously close range, at least according to this report.

Oh I won't put up the pic but a great piece of symbolic art was the 20 foot long ice sculpture of the word DEMOCRACY, that melted in the sun.

Now on the other side I must say the cops do sound like they showed more restraint than I would have expected at other times. They talked about a semi-violent group that smashed the rear window out of a patrol car and threw newspaper machines into the streets to create a little barricade. They made it sound like the cops allowed this without making a big deal out of it, but shit went down later, so maybe they just wanted to wait for backup and restraint had nothing to do with it. It's hard for me to tell for certain from the report.

Another should be obvious group to avoid targeting during a protest, the media. Duh. I mean really, with the apathy of this country you can pretty well stomp all over the rights of individuals and get away with it because so few pay attention, and the little blips in the mainstream news only get a "serves them hippies right" reaction out of much of the public. But if fuck up badly enough, by say killing a protester, then suddenly the country is going to suddenly pay a whole lot more attention to you than you want. Another way to get the people pissed at you is to make the media pissed at you, so maybe another group you'd be advised to avoid targeting would be those guys with media credentials. You can spot them by the media credentials they wear on the outside of there clothes, kinda like that badge the cops wear. They also are likely to have cameras or even video cameras, another reason to avoid doing illegal things to them. They will get there story heard and they will have evidence. So again, avoid them. But obviously the cops follow a different play book than I would so here is Amy Goodman of Democracy Now being arrested, and in print. At the time I linked to it the video had over a quarter of a million views. Oh and throwing a can of tear gas at a persons feet is rude, until you realize they often burst into flames when they go off (remember Waco) then its more than rude, and again avoid doing that to media persons. I want to know what would have happened if the guy kicked that back at the police. I mean I'm sure he'd have been tackled and arrested, but could they charge him with something for returning what was thrown at him?

Here is TIME magazines coverage, the reporter seems confused as to why the anarchists group The RNC Welcoming Committee didn't like his magazine...

One last note, the anarchists spraying silly string in response to the cops pepper spray, fuckin priceless.

Fuck The Police

More love from the police coming outta Denver. This time with video... goodness?

First off I hope that woman is ok.

Now lets start this off on the positive. We need police, they are an invaluable part of society. In a utopia then they would become obsolete, but we obviously aren't in a utopia, so we need to face reality and admit that we need the police. (sorry to the anarchists I left a comment with earlier) But being in that oh so very real world we cannot pretend that the police are any more utopic (I might have made that word up) than those they arrest. Occasional abuse by individual officers has to be expected when people are given power over others, they're human, but there are higher ups who's job it is to keep this at a minimum. We can argue how good they are at this another day. The problem in this case isn't an individual officer taking things too far, this is a systemic disregard for civil liberties and human rights. This is important not just for these protests but for society at large, and the police themselves too. By disregarding the law they marginalize themselves, how can they be seen as a legitimate form of Law Enforcement if they fail to follow the law themselves? If the police push too far the people will push back, the people of LA should know exactly what I'm talking about, they had a little civil unrest a while back when the police pushed too far. I honestly don't think this is going to turn into an all out riot, but I do believe that the police are hurting themselves more than the protesters (at least as a whole, some of the protesters are probably in quite a bit of pain). This might sound like concern trolling but honestly I don't want riots, I want civilized discourse, but if they want to leave us with no other options, then well some shit is going to get fucked up.

Thats the big picture take (ignoring the cosmically big picture - the cosmos doesn't care) , then theres an altogether other side of this, the small picture, the what would I do if I was there scenario. Yeah I'm a bit of a feminist, equal rights, equal pay all that shit, I mean come on how can you really try to argue against that? Men should get paid more cause... we always have? I don't know. But I was raised kinda old school, lil bit o chivalry, one of the simple ones being you don't hit girls. Maybe thats a unfair double standard, but I don't hit girls. To be fair I almost never hit anyone at all, which is also how I was raised but if you have to out of defense or protecting someone who can't defend themselves then sometimes theres no option left but a little bit of violence. Now that I think about it, I've only got a mild double standard, I'd hit a woman if left with absolutely no other option, but I'd try even harder to avoid it than I would a man. If thats a double standard then I don't care, its one I plan on keeping, and passing along if I ever have kids.

So how about if you see a man take a club or a bat and knock a woman to the ground while screaming, "get down bitch!" If another man then stepped in and punched that fucker square in the face, you know what, I wouldn't be opposed. I don't see how a title or a badge changes that.

But because I can't be easy about anything, lets flip it around again. For all I know that woman had been harassing the cop, given fair warning and told to step back or force would be used. This is why diplomacy is so much harder than violence. I have a very hard time believing that such a level of force was required, maybe she had been throwing large rocks or something, but I kinda doubt it.

So what do you think?

UPDATE: forgot the link

The First Fucking Ammendment / DNC protests

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wanna see me get real angry? Fuck with my rights. Theres some shit going down outside the DNC that matters a whole lot more to me than the hot air coming out of the rich folks inside the DNC (although I heard Kucinich was good, from the Rude Pundit)

Ok I'm rewriting this, it was written originally with a lot of emotion and verbed versions of four letter words. Lets just take it slow, first off is the article that got me fired up in the first place. READ THIS SHIT PZ is a lot calmer than I would be if someone sent this letter to me.

Then there is the AP version of the story. Now this claims that the protesters were video taped charging the police, that does change matters significantly, then it is no longer a peaceful protest and the cops have the right to disperse it. I want to see the video.

So here is an example of a tense situation a couple days ago that did not end so badly, it gives a good idea of what the guy in the Pharyngula post was doing. It's worth a read.

And here is the same papers take on the events of that evening, while not nearly as harsh as the first account, it still sounds like the police were at fault. One important note here, eyewitness are not particularly credible, especially in an emotional situation, or when blinded by pepper spray. But if I was the guy who was pepper sprayed while trying to get to the bus, I would bring assault charges against the police. Then I'd probably want to move to a new town.

Here is a persons pictures from this event, they don't really tell much but they're interesting. Heres some pics from a person who agrees with the arrests. Pics from a protest without arrests.

A national Anarchist group, that's protesting at the DNC and other places. Apparently people are also pissed about the local secret prison, nick named "Gitmo on the Platte."

Heres some more, now this was a different event there was only one (or two) arrest. They claim the guy who was arrested hit a counter protester, if thats the case then fine, you can't hit people. The only problem being that the guy who was hit doesn't know if he was or not.

“If he hit me, I didn’t feel it,” Israel said. “But then again, I have a hard head.”

He is a bible thumper... nah that joke is too easy. Since its unclear if the guy hit him or not I'll just leave that alone. The more interesting question is the shouting match that led to the confrontation. Does freedom of speech include amplified speech? A normal shouting match is annoying and unproductive but perfectly legal and pretty much expected when you have protesters and counter protesters. But what about scouting matches with bullhorns? If I want to sit on the sidewalk with a freaking PA and scream about, well whatever, do I have that right? I'm really not sure. Then again I do know that the guy who cut the cord of bullhorn man was in the wrong, destruction of property, but should or can the cops tell bullhorn man to put away the bullhorn? Probably citing noise ordinances, or the need for the police to be able to be heard. I'm not really sure.

Heres a guys pics from this event, including the "assault" which the comments claim was friendly, a claim that I would doubt. Those two don't look like buddies, although there is a huge difference between touching an assault, it might be a loud place with bullhorn guy going, maybe he touched the other guys arm to get his attention so they could have a calm discussion, or maybe he swatted him, its a still photo. Actually in the picture both guys have there arms out almost to the other persons chest, to me it looks like people who talk with their hands, their obviously people passionate about their beliefs or they wouldn't be there, so they get going and their arms flail, lots of people do this, but who knows.

The cops did let people know what their rights are and what they can be arrested for, thats actually a really good idea. Some people think it was meant to discourage protesters but without reading the wording of it I'll just say that an outline of what will get you arrested is pretty handy. I wonder if it included walking past a protest en route to work? Theres one line in this that seems highly suspect to me,

Police are distributing a pamphlet reminding protesters of where they have a right to demonstrate but also warning them they can be arrested if they refuse a lawful order to disperse, even if they aren't breaking any laws.

So in other words the cops actually wrote a pamphlet that says you can be arrested even if you aren't breaking the law.... the founding fathers, real patriots, overthrew a government for shit like this.



Seattle Was A Riot - Anti Flag

Seattle was a riot, they tried to pin on us
But we didn't show up, with gas and billy clubs
An un-armed mass of thousands, just trying to be heard

Freedom can be awkward

Theres a few ways I can look at this here article about a school with a mural that has offended a few people. The mural does contain various religious symbols, so those who say that it violates the first amendment have a legitimate point. Schools should not be endorsing any religion, unless they are private schools obviously.

The flip side of this is that the students decided what images to include and with the help of a hired artist and a grant they painted a mural inside their building which as been there for five years without bothering anyone. Then a mother sees it and raises a hissy fit. I'm not sure which part is stupider the fact that shes a mother, who HOME SCHOOLS her children AKA they don't go to school there, or the fact that she initially was offended by the Hindu god Shiva dancing on a demon of ignorance which she somehow mistook for an promotion of abortion.

The irony drips.

She also claims that this could confuse the christian students who she apparently assumes are just as stupid as she is, personally I think it would be great to have truly controversial paintings in schools then if a kid takes offense they can bring it up in the appropriate class and start a meaningful conversation.

Again these kooks stumbled onto a point, yes the law says that schools cannot endorse any particular religion, seeing as it depicts at least four different religions it would be hard to say which they are endorsing, although one option had this been brought up when the mural was in its design phase would have been to include at least one of the abrahamic religions symbols. Of course any true christian would scream blasphemy at this suggestion considering that creating an image of god is the first of the Ten Commandments......
(jews and muslims do follow that which is why muslims flip out over pics of mohammed, and jews even write G_d, hence I pick on christians)

It also tells me that some people's faith is incredibly fragile, do they really think that the simple image of another religions god is going to make their precious snowflakes abandon there beliefs? Are they admitting that any knowledge of the outside world will destroy what they've spent years indoctrinating?

Ultimately I'm not really sure. If I was on the school board I know what I'd do, tell the lady to STFU you're kids don't go here, then I'd let the kids decide. Talk to the social studies teachers and if they can give up two days of class then they will lead a round table discussion on the social and legal ramifications of said mural, then let the kids vote on it. Also have them talk about ways they could show unity and diversity without infringing on the law. Kids are smart, and its their school, let them figure it out. Oh but only the kids that go there.

(STFU = shut the fuck up)

Flying Spaghetti gets into hot water

Ok so via Fark (again) I came across this article about a FSM display in front of a court house in Tennessee. Initial reaction, nice FSM display! The article starts off alright, says that the display has been met with mixed reviews, generally ranging from indifference to outrage, and thats reasonable. But then it becomes very very one sided.

In summation, the spaghetti monster unveils the secular myth of neutrality when it comes to politics. I applaud the county government in being consistent with the free exchange of ideas by granting the statue a place on the courthouse lawn along with the other artistic and religious expressions. While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything.

If Congress is to give no precedence to one religion over another, let’s make sure the Church of Darwin is treated no differently.

Then again this is Tennessee and journalism 101 says know your audience, write to your readers. But how can we help these readers? Oh plus this is from April fools day so who knows, I hope any news paper would only run the words "Church of Darwin" as a joke, but sadly I'm not convinced that it is.

1st Amendment Time

Kid walks down the street singing a crappy rap song by Lil' Boosie, I don't know this particular rapper but the statistical likelihood of being crap is exponentially greater when the name begins with Lil', which contained profanity. This kid (19) happened to walk past some younger children, who are usually kept inside tupperware to ensure their safety, and may or mat not have heard the offensive language, so this menace was snatched up by the police for his heinous crime of singing a shitty song. Now personally I think it would be great if we could get rid of crappy music by just arresting anyone who sings shitty songs, sure we'd have our jails over crowded with rednecks singing country but hey nothing comes cheap, and I'd be concerned about who deems music shitty enough to be arrest worthy....

Wait what? He wasn't arrested for singing shitty music but for swearing? How the fuck does that work? Are you telling me that there are still words you can't say in public? I understand not being able to scream fire in a theater, but not being able to say certain words in public when no bodily harm is imposed upon anyone? I'd love to be that attorney, You're honor just to be clear so my client does not end up in this situation again, which words exactly are we not allowed to say in public? Are we going by George Carlins list? Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits, advertisements for drugs can say Anal Leakage but I can't say, "Aw shit I forgot my wallet"? Who decides what words are ok and which words aren't, the judge I guess. So I don't see it as unreasonable to ask the same judge exactly which words are not ok? Is it the actual words that are unacceptable or is it the concepts that aren't allowed? If he walked around loudly talking about, Vigorously thrusting his penis into the ladies vagina, eventually secreting seminal fluids from his gonads all over her large sweaty mammaries. Maybe throw in some anal exploration just for good measure, would that be illegal? No dirty words were used so its ok to say in public right?

While all that is kinda funny it's actually irrelevant to the situation. The first amendment protects freedom of speech there are limits to protect the rights of others but not being offended is not a right. I find the speeches of George Bush highly offensive, does that mean I can have the cops go arrest him? Absolutely not. I can't have the evangelical on the street corner arrested and I don't want them to be. You don't change peoples attitudes by arresting people you disagree with, no you you change peoples attitudes by have discussions with them, and by your actions, but without the absolute protection of freedom of speech we cannot have the conversations this country needs to have. Freedom of speech is not a nice cozy comforter, its confrontational it can be vile and angry but it must be there or we have nothing, without the first amendment our claims to liberty are a sham. Yeah the kid should have shut the fuck up for a sec while the young 'uns meandered by but its not illegal for him to continue, and if they're going to claim it is then I want the print out of what I can't say, just so we're all clear.

If I walked down the street singing Anal Sex Balls Deep, is that ok, does it help if I pause for the F word?

Attempting Democracy

I'm in a local paper today. The-Leader ran the story, I'd provide a link but their website sucks and only includes two articles a day, I think its a decent paper I just don't like their website. I didn't get quoted which is fine by me, but I'm in the picture, the big guy to the left in stripes, thats Me!

We have grown tired of being ignored by our representative, a group of us left our info at his office several weeks ago and have heard nothing back. We have called, left messages, e-mails, one woman wrote an old school paper letter. One member did have a meeting scheduled for yesterday but it was canceled by Kuhl so we decided to go anyway. All we were planning to do was to formally invite him to a meeting we are holding as a part of the Take a Stand campaign.

I can't claim we were total innocents as we felt like throwing in a visual joke at Randys expense, we wanted to get bullet proof jackets in response to his flap about "packing" to defend himself from peace protesters. Unfortunately no one had one and when one person attempted to buy one they were warned that bullet proof vests are illegal in New York. So to try to make the joke anyway the purchased a couple of paint ball chest protectors, which always seem to have cheesy batman-esce muscles sculpted into them. It looked particularly stupid on a guy my size. Oh well.

Now on to what happened, we stood waiting around the corner from the office about a block away on the main street as our group gathered and a couple members of the press got ready. Then a police officer came around the corner and began by telling us he has not authorized a parade permit. At this point I need to explain the scene as I haven't been sent the photos yet and the couple I took on my phone don't feel like transferring to my computer at the moment. Its about 6-8 people standing on the sidewalk the only thing that makes us obvious is the silly vests and one guy carrying a white flag to go along with the joke. No one was carrying signs or anything that could be called a protest, we weren't yelling out, no music, nothing just oddly dressed citizens talking amongst themselves. Two of the guys immediately explained to the police officer that we had not filed for a permit because all we were doing was delivering an invitation to a meeting to Mr. Kuhl. We wanted to talk to him if it was possible then we would leave, if there was press around we would speak with them. We were not there to protest. He allowed us to do that, which is good because we were well within our rights and I'm sure some would have left in cuffs rather than be chased off by over reaching police. The officer then went back to his spot directly across from the office.

A few minutes later we had everyone, we had to wait as one person purchased a new memory card for their digital camera. We walked down the street and up to the door, which was locked as we knew it would be. The secretary we met the last time opened the door a few inches and asked us what we wanted, the pleasant persona we encountered the last time was gone. We explained that we simply wanted to invite him to an event, then explained how we have tried to set up meetings with him and have gotten no where. The secretary said she would pass on the invitation and she passed the blame saying she doesn't set the schedule without telling us who does. We talked for a minute, two at most then turned around. We then asked permission from the police officer if we could stick around just for a couple of pictures. At this point a couple men in suits came out of the office. Pictures were taken and I promise they will be up at some point, then we walked away, and as we did a second cop car with two officers showed up. Back-up for us unruly citizens. A woman from The Leader then asked us questions, we had her walk with us to the end of the block as to keep things kosher with the po-po. I was more than a little concerned about the angle when her first statement was about how we should have gotten a permit. A permit to talk to an elected official, Fuck That! She talked to a few of us and I think the article was ok, there was one "quote" that I don't recall in the least and I was standing next to the person quoted, hopefully it was my bad memory and not hers as it was a fairly volatile comment.

We then stood on the street and made some quick little videos of our reactions, I'm guessing mine is pretty lame, public speaking isn't really my thing, but the others like my finish. So that how I spent my thursday lunch break, how was yours?

FISA

I can't believe I actually legally became affiliated with such a pathetic weak willed bunch of do nothings as the fucking democratic party. My outrage is limited only by the fact that I don't have a government official within arms reach. the program that this law legalizes has already been declared unconstitutional and so this law should be overturned in the courts but it still means that the formerly illegal and unconstitutional program is now just unconstitutional for a few years until this reaches the supreme court and then of course thats a huge gamble. Now had this been a few years ago I would have simply said until this reaches the supreme court but today I have no idea which way this would go.

For those who don't know what I'm ranting about let me explain real quick, remember that huge scandal about the NSA wiretapping American citizens without bothering to get warrants that almost never get denied, ones that don't even need to be asked for until within 3 days after you start listening in on people. Yeah you might not it was quickly forgotten in the midst of so many scandals that put whitewater to shame as small fry stuff. The reality is that the FISA courts main way of protecting us wasn't by blocking warrants (who wants to be the judge who got it wrong?) but its mere existence meant that some slight caution had to be used when deciding who to listen in on. Now we have forgone anything that might be called oversight.

I'm too pissed off to continue right now, plus I just read something silly that should get my mind at ease.

Freedom Vs. Freedom

Ok heres the situation as I understand it. My little town of Elmira, NY had a gay pride parade a little over a month ago. Now I'm all for equal marriage rights and just equal rights in general but as a straight guy I wasn't there, had some friend really wanted me to go I could have been talked into it but as things were I wasn't there so I really only have the same info as everyone else on this despite it happening in my town. Although I do have insight into the general attitude of the town. So there is a gay pride parade in the public park adjacent to the church I used to attend, not that it matter but the church considers itself "open and affirming" meaning they didn't care about sexual orientation or anything else like that and we definitely had at least one lesbian couple that regularly attended back in the day. Man I get side tracked easily.

Ok so gay pride celebration in the park and sadly the usual haters showed up to "pray for their sins" or some crap like that. Now the part I'm unsure about is if they tried to disrupt the celebration or simply stayed off to the side, and unfortunately thats a pretty important piece of the puzzle because these poor misinformed deranged folks absolutely had the right to counter protest. I should point out that the idea that they simply were off to the side praying for them comes from some uber-conservative news site, I had been looking for atheist/humanist organizations in town when I spotted this and it got me thinking. At first I laughed at the silly christian protesters that got arrested at the gay pride rally, but then I realized that as much as I enjoy reveling in the defeat of those I oppose, I can't celebrate the stepping on of the first amendment.

What matters is the exact actions that were taken, if these people did as the conservatives like to claim and stood on the other side of the street with signs and prayed, even if they did it loudly then fine, I disagree with them and had I been walking by I would have gone over and questioned them. But they have that right, without question they have that right, permit or no permit. On the other hand if they went into the park and were trying to disrupt the celebration then they deserve to get arrested and I hope the leader at least is fined accordingly, your rights end where mine begin, or the phrase I prefer, "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. "

Unfortunately there is a large amount of gray area in between those two and thats when we are forced to rely on the police to make a judgment call on the spot and later for a judge to decide if the action was criminal or not. Personally I would prefer the police err on the side of freedom of speech but it seems that typically they would rather arrest an innocent person rather than risk something turning ugly then being blamed for not stopping it when they had the chance, AKA CYA (cover your ass). I can't be too upset with them because their job is to protect and serve, its the law makers job to protect our rights.

Oh here is how the Local News described the actual protest.

On June 23, the seven protesters, dressed in bright red T-shirts and carrying Bibles, walked through the crowd and to the front of the stage after Elmira Mayor John Tonello delivered a speech celebrating diversity.

Six of the protesters lay face-down in the grass and the seventh, Barry Keller, sat reading the Bible.

The T-shirts read "Liberated from Sin" on the front, around a white cross, and "By the Blood of Jesus" on the back.

Police officers in the park called for additional help and arrested the protesters.

(Here is the News article but they archive stuff quick so it won't be there for much longer, sorry.)

Ouch, thats still in the gray for me but its damn damn close to my being in agreement with the cops. It sounds like it was a quiet and non-violent protest which is why I'm not in total agreement, had they not done it right in front of the stage I would say they were ok, but I'm just not sure, I really would have had to been there to know for sure. Also by arresting them it has helped their cause considerably. Civil disobedience is still a great way to get your voice heard.

So this particular case, well I don't know, I wasn't there. But I think its good to look at cases like this, had it been the other way around my biases may sway me to say that the protesters absolutely had the right to be there but thats what makes these such a great tool for learning where your own boundaries lie. Unless of course you among the gay-bashers then its a pretty easy decision.

How often do you see the opposite? Have you ever seen "God loves gay" or "butt sex for jesus" protests in from of churches on sundays? I haven't, although I do know where you can get a Jesus is a Homo T-shirt, maybe it's because some people just have a little common decency, they know it would be rude to go out of their way to annoy those folks when they are trying to have a good time. If only the other side could agree to that then their would probably be a lot less trouble. Then again the other side thinks that the simple idea of having a gay pride rally is an attack on them, which its not. Then they claim that they don't have straight pride events, but these folks have never been a minority in their lives and don't realize that folks who are driven to the fringe by society like to get together to support each other, and they cna have a straight pride rally if they want, but I doubt many people would show up, and I bet it wouldn't be nearly as festive. Oh and if a group of gays came in with the previously mentioned shirts while reading from Gay Pride in the middle of it then they would probably be arrested too.

Hmm... I also just though about this description, "The protest leader, street pastor Julian Raven," street pastor. This sounds suspiciously similar to some christian protesters we had at a concert about a year ago. They refused to say what church they belonged to or even what denomination, by not having anything concrete as a group it makes it hard to fight them because they can always claim that, well that wasn't us "real" christians wouldn't do that, they can't be held accountable, except by judges.

Three Bad Rulings

Been a rough week in the supreme court, three rulings have come down in ugly ways. Attack ads by corporations and Unions are Ok because those entities have freedom of speech. People in school on the other hand do not have that freedom as they can be punished by the school for what should have been a protected act that occurred OFF school property. And lastly you and I have no right to challenge what are tax money is used for, even if it is used in a n unconstitutional manner, like for instance money going to religious institutions. Fuck.

So by democracy of by and for the people that means that the people have the right to vote, they don't have the right to ensure that their vote gets counted, or to verify that it was counted correctly, if the elected person that may or may not have won then decides to pass unconstitutional laws then you do not have the right to question that law, and while in school you have almost no rights at all, but a corporation has all of your rights but cannot be punished, are often subsidized and rarely pay any taxes at all. Ya smell that? Thats freedom baby.

I love this Man

If I were gay I'd be begging scientists to figure out a way to make little Rude-Trout bastard children because this man writes like no one else. I'm of course talking about the Rude Pundit. One of several blogs that I check up on every day. His latest one covers the latest court rulings, the FCC case and the Gitmo cases. While I talked about these briefly yesterday I wasn't able to come up with words that conveyed the true sense of what was going on, The Rude Pundit found those words. And defines the exact difference between a person thats being an asshole vs being a dick, it's really quite informative.

Fuck your censorship

Court rebuffs FCC on fine for indecency. Ok this is kinda minor because its not free speech, its broadcasting. The court said that if a person says a vulgar word in a non-vulgar context then the FCC can't fine them. Its funny that the defense said well if Bush can swear to Tony Blair, and Cheney can tell Leahy to go fuck himself on the senate floor no less then why can't Bono blur out a four letter words when he wins a gloden globe. The court would have been correct to say that U2 sucks and doesn't deserve the award and so his outburst is irrelevant but instead agreed with the industry. Basically this is a pretty weak case about major corporations getting fined and therefore I'm not terribly concerned although I'm always interested in the first amendment rights. The fact that the used the Pres and VP's potty mouths as examples is funny but here was my favorite part of the article.

“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”

Ah yes the famous, "no you're stupid" defense I haven't seen this classic used since the Smith v. Brown argument of 4th grade at which time it was deemed juvenile. Seriously read that, I'm not divorced from reality you are, in so many words. I mean this is a member of the FCC commission in question, that should tell you something about the folks running the FCC.