Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Simply Joel]

Interesting, check out the breaking news about the Osama tape on http://www.cnn.com

He knows more about our country than we do.

speak for thyself.

[DVD Burner]

Interesting, check out the breaking news about the Osama tape on http://www.cnn.com

He knows more about our country than we do.

speak for thyself.

well he seem to know more than Maggie Gallagher, Ann Coulter, Saphire, Buckley and Friedman combined and showed it in about 18 minutes

[Simply Joel]

Interesting, check out the breaking news about the Osama tape on http://www.cnn.com

He knows more about our country than we do.

speak for thyself.

well he seem to know more than Maggie Gallagher, Ann Coulter, Saphire, Buckley and Friedman combined and showed it in about 18 minutes

plonk

[DVD Burner]

speak for thyself.

well he seem to know more than Maggie Gallagher, Ann Coulter, Saphire, Buckley and Friedman combined and showed it in about 18 minutes

plonk

I see steam comming outta that head of yours.

You always do that when you're not as right as you wanna be.

Besides I got the "MONDO PLONKER"

[Simply Joel]

well he seem to know more than Maggie Gallagher, Ann Coulter, Saphire, Buckley and Friedman combined and showed it in about 18 minutes

plonk

I see steam comming outta that head of yours.

You always do that when you're not as right as you wanna be.

Besides I got the "MONDO PLONKER"

and likewise, you always think you are far more correct than reality indicates.

[samtzu]

How do you guys know what the other guy is thinking, all the time? Shit, I can't even tell what I'm thinking most of the time, but you guys tell each other what the other guy is thinking.

Are you psychic? Socks? Wrong?

[Simply Joel]

Interesting, check out the breaking news about the Osama tape on http://www.cnn.com

He knows more about our country than we do.

Yep and he did'nt flower his speech with religous phrases, just blunt and straight to the point.

yeah, the Taliban in Afghanistan.... i recall women in burkas, women rounded up for teaching, women shot in the head by Taliban in a soccer field previously built by USA funds...

yeah, the good old days when women were put in there place, DVD?

[Q_]

yeah, the good old days when women were put in there place, DVD?

In the kitchen making me some pie???

[blyslv]

Advocating riots is stupid, seriously, even in jest. People die in riots, things are broken and dreams are destroyed, and it only fuels the call for more law and order afterwards.

[sparkletarte]

People die in riots, things are broken and dreams are destroyed, and it only fuels the call for more law and order afterwards.

As oppossed to, say, what's happening now?

[blyslv]

Rioting will not stop the war in Iraq. From the Vietnam war:

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

[Q_]

Rioting will not stop the war in Iraq. From the Vietnam war:

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Yeah but if you are good at it, you can get some great free stuff....

[theCryptofishist]

People die in riots, things are broken and dreams are destroyed, and it only fuels the call for more law and order afterwards.

As oppossed to, say, what's happening now?

I sympathise with your frustration, and quite honestly the way this administration pooh-poohed the peace marches doesn't make that stratagy seem particularly attractive. Perhaps it's even no longer particularly useful after 40 years, but that's another question. I certainly was very frustrated at the NPR commentators' saying things like "Well at least there aren't tanks on the street" as though a tankless coup was somehow less an impingement on liberty (not life, of course) that a tanked one. Go look up Patience's post on Detroit becoming a "donut" before you go too heavy into advocating rioting, though. And maybe I'll stop using Google to find pirate jokes and clarify what I know about Haymarket.

[Q_]

/\

Hey know, lets leave pirate jokes out of this....

[theCryptofishist]

[theCryptofishist]

In any case, the most common trait shared by Chicagoans in the late nineteenth century, whether they were of American or foreign birth or ethnicity, was that they were not actually from Chicago. Not only all eight defendants in the Haymarket trial, but virtually all the police who arrested them, the several attorneys who prosecuted and defended them, the jurors who delivered the verdict, and the judge who presided over the case, were born and in most instances raised outside this young city. Six of the defendants, two of the lawyers, the superintendent of police, and the two officers who led the investigation were immigrants from abroad. Even Carter Harrison, the mayor at the time, was a Kentuckian who had only settled in Chicago when he was thirty years old. All this points to the provisional nature of this enormous new metropolis, and to the instability that is one of the sources of Haymarket.

Dang, just think what social unrest could do to BRC.

[theCryptofishist]

The proper role of violence as a tool for revolution consumed the attention of the Chicago anarchists and their enemies, and is obviously of relevance to the Haymarket bombing. In the view of all eight of the anarchists the state put on trial, government and the capitalist owners were merely "force-propped authority." They maintained that although they did not believe in violence for its own sake, armed action in self-defense against this authority was necessary. To adopt such a tactic would be to speak the only language the existing order understood.

Many anarchists were obsessively enthralled with the possibilities of dynamite as an instant equalizer, since it was inexpensive, accessible, portable, and terrifyingly effective. This explosive allowed a single anarchist to carry fearsome destructive power in the pocket of his coat. The threat created by the mere existence of dynamite was in itself a wonderful weapon. "Dynamite is a peace-maker," read an article in the Alarm in April of 1885, "because it makes it unsafe to wrong our fellows." Anarchist rhetoric repeatedly and almost mystically invoked the primordial power of dynamite. Their reverence for it in speech and print was the major evidence used against the defendants at the Haymarket trial.

Dang, the NRA cribs of anarchists.

[theCryptofishist]

The Chicago police had scarcely gathered their dead and wounded before they embarked on a fierce roundup of every real or imagined radical in the city. A terrible crime had been committed, and the perceived perpetrator was not so much a particular person as anarchism itself. The police received active encouragement from a frenzied and frightened public, as well as from State's Attorney Julius Grinnell, who reportedly ordered, "Make the raids first and look up the law afterward!" The result was both a latter-day witch hunt and the first "red scare" in America. Although only eight men would stand trial, dozens found themselves "in the toils of the law."

[theCryptofishist]

Not far behind the scenes were the Chicago businessmen who were special targets of anarchist invective. Among them were men like Marshall Field, George Pullman, and Cyrus McCormick Jr., who had been on special lookout for "troublemakers" since at least 1877 and who were well aware of their own central roles as villains in radical rhetoric. They donated money to the families of the police who marched on the Haymarket, and also to Schaack's investigation. As Schaack described it, they wished to see "the law vindicated and order preserved in Chicago." That the police conducted their arrests and searches without warrants seemed of no particular concern to anyone but the accused. What small sympathy Parsons and Spies ever enjoyed among the general population had been shattered by the bomb, while the martyrdom of the policemen cried out for repression and revenge.

[theCryptofishist]

[quote]More surprising—and disturbing—were the responses of some of those who had supported clemency or believed a great injustice had been done, but who still wondered if the harsh punishment brought certain positive results. Lyman Abbott, a one-time lawyer who had become a clergyman and the influential editor of the socially aware Christian Century, had opposed the death penalty for the anarchists and described Haymarket as "tragic," but he later said that it "served a useful purpose" in that it "put an end to the [communist] International in America and awakened the complacent and self-satisfied nation to the existing perils." In his reminiscences of the case prepared almost a half-century after the trial, attorney Samuel McConnell, a leader of the clemency movement who was elected to the Circuit Court in 1889, observed that "the hanging of these men did do away with the hysteria which had pervaded the body of the people." He added, with regret, that perhaps the public did not care who was hanged, as long as someone was, to ease its anxiety.[quote] Bolding my own.

[theCryptofishist]

It could be argued that Haymarket has in fact been invoked more effectively by the forces of social control than of liberation. In spite of the intelligence, refinement, and broad human sympathies that were recognizable by anyone who got to know the accused, Haymarket was responsible for the wholesale stereotyping of radical dissenters of many different kinds as crazed bomb-throwers and enemies of the people. Anyone with unpopular political ideas would be branded an anarchist, which was taken to mean a dangerously disaffected person who would seek to remedy his own baseless discontent by doing violence to public order and "American" values. The bombing became a focus for free-floating xenophobia, leading to the imposition of restrictions on political radicals and on immigration in the early decades of this century. Meanwhile, it was not until well into Franklin Roosevelt's second administration that the eight-hour standard became federal law.

[sparkletarte]

Meh, I'm not advocating rioting exactly, although I really don't understand why there aren't more riots in the US. I'm more for doing shit that shuts down the government. Or creating a different version of the mainstream reality, that's what I'm really into, creating alternatives. Perfecting my own little bubble to live in, hahaha.

I am not frustrated, although I would be if I was American- I think a lot of the politics of the US is incredibly stupid, hypocritical, bullying, and, well, blatant lies.

Yeah, I really don't understand why there aren't more protests and riots in the US. It's quite puzzling from the outside looking in, to tell you the truth. The fucked up shit that goes on there is at least as fucked up as it is in the countries Bush tries to 'save'.

[theCryptofishist]

No arguement there.

quotations and images from
http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/overview/main.htm

[samtzu]

Violence begets violence (as Bushie and friends are discovering in Iraq) and should only be used as a means of self defense... seriously. I won't attack someone who I perceive as a threat unless I know that they are going to try to attack me and kill me (and, by extension, and based on severity of the threat, my family, tribe, family, country, etc.). Preemptive strikes must be done only as a last resort, as a means of survival.

Having said that, I agree with the Tarte One.

I'm more for doing shit that shuts down the government.

This is what Ghandi and MLK did when they stressed non-violent revolution. They turned the tide of public opinion, and by doing that changed the course of law, by boycotts and sit-ins. However, they had people behind them, willing to lay their lives on the line to reach their goal, and those people had subsumed their will to one. This means sacrifice on the part of each individual... and generally no reward for the individual but a general bettering of the common good. That is nebulous even when it is affected.

The only way there will be an honest and true revolution in the US is if a core of the people begin in earnest to give their own will over to reach a goal that will benefit the many. But it takes a real leader to coalesce the vision for that core, and I don't see one coming to the front any time soon. *sigh* Maybe some day...

Until then... I'm off to Tisha's Bar... see ya' there.

[cowboyangel]

hey Joel....when are you ever gonna get your head outta the fuckin political fuck bag and get yourself a big drink down at the bar before your head turns brown?

'bout the time you get your head out of the clouds and feet on the ground

my feet have been on the ground way too long now.....need some playa dust separator

[DVD Burner]

Ok chime time again. The days of being nice and things will work out are over.

The sooner people see just how Bush&Co. are the sooner you will see violence be gets violence.

Osama is right about one thing, you attack them and they will attack back.
the problem is right here in America.
Bush and Co. has convinced a very select few (having others belive they are the majority) that this Angelo-American war is justified when the reality is America is what created the Taliban and others by killing their people on their land amoungst other things. (like paying the Taliban for running a pipeline through Afganastan.) Americans can no longer use the excuse that Americans are not doing wrong around the world.
They should not boo hoo when they shit on other people, create poverty and devistation and expect it not to blow up in their faces.

America (specificly certian Americans.) really need to start worrying about their welfare because once Bush is back in office it wont be a religious war anymore.

People should be thinking about it very seriously.

[cowboyangel]

will someone please read this and answer the question if you get a sense about what Christopher is saying? I've got some ideas
may have to read it 2-3x

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... s=hitchens

[tisha2]

This is what Ghandi and MLK did when they stressed non-violent revolution. They turned the tide of public opinion, and by doing that changed the course of law, by boycotts and sit-ins. However, they had people behind them, willing to lay their lives on the line to reach their goal, and those people had subsumed their will to one. This means sacrifice on the part of each individual... and generally no reward for the individual but a general bettering of the common good. That is nebulous even when it is affected.

The only way there will be an honest and true revolution in the US is if a core of the people begin in earnest to give their own will over to reach a goal that will benefit the many. But it takes a real leader to coalesce the vision for that core, and I don't see one coming to the front any time soon. *sigh* Maybe some day...

Until then... I'm off to Tisha's Bar... see ya' there.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE IMPLICATION HERE???

[cowboyangel]

This is what Ghandi and MLK did when they stressed non-violent revolution. They turned the tide of public opinion, and by doing that changed the course of law, by boycotts and sit-ins. However, they had people behind them, willing to lay their lives on the line to reach their goal, and those people had subsumed their will to one. This means sacrifice on the part of each individual... and generally no reward for the individual but a general bettering of the common good. That is nebulous even when it is affected.

The only way there will be an honest and true revolution in the US is if a core of the people begin in earnest to give their own will over to reach a goal that will benefit the many. But it takes a real leader to coalesce the vision for that core, and I don't see one coming to the front any time soon. *sigh* Maybe some day...

Until then... I'm off to Tisha's Bar... see ya' there.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE IMPLICATION HERE???

go to the bar for political solutions?



ah well, there will be a revolution in this country and fairly soon, because there is gonna be a rather large financial collapse. When that happens...people loose jobs, they can't pay their bills, there's rioting in the streets and the only remedy is to model society after Burning Man- that is why they watch us, everyone watches us and more want to participate..because what we do "works" wait and see...wait and see....

[CoworkerLurker]

This is what Ghandi and MLK did when they stressed non-violent revolution. They turned the tide of public opinion, and by doing that changed the course of law, by boycotts and sit-ins. However, they had people behind them, willing to lay their lives on the line to reach their goal, and those people had subsumed their will to one. This means sacrifice on the part of each individual... and generally no reward for the individual but a general bettering of the common good. That is nebulous even when it is affected.

The only way there will be an honest and true revolution in the US is if a core of the people begin in earnest to give their own will over to reach a goal that will benefit the many. But it takes a real leader to coalesce the vision for that core, and I don't see one coming to the front any time soon. *sigh* Maybe some day...

Until then... I'm off to Tisha's Bar... see ya' there.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE IMPLICATION HERE???

He hopes to lead an honest and true revolution from your bar?