http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X12G4DJ0mas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubzJRsG5aU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJlpREST5DA

Long story short: all this past week, protesters at the G20 in Pittsburgh have been intimidated by riot police and have had sound wave weaponry which has been used against insurgents in Iraq used on them as they have, for the most part peacefully protested.

Is there any justification of this?

9/27/2009 3:33:58 PM

Is the reference to Iraq supposed to be making fun of Republican18's nazi comparison? I hope so. If you meant it seriously we have issues.

And is there any justification? Probably not. I can understand how having a bunch of important world leaders surrounded by thousands of angry protesters would put everybody on edge, and I understand that it's difficult to pick out individuals who might be violent out of a crowd of otherwise nonviolent people. That said, I'm pretty confident that most of the police response was ham-fisted, much of it was fueled by disdain for protesters, and in general they need to start having these G-20 things on a private island somewhere.

9/27/2009 4:02:48 PM

They shouldn't have been protesting in the first place. I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm going to assume this has everything to do with xenophobia and nothing to do with any real criticism of the effects of globalization. Perhaps they simply didn't like the fact that a black man was representing the United States. I mean, these people were committing acts of violence, how long are going to let this go on before we get serious about protecting the leadership of this country?

9/27/2009 4:31:15 PM

Quote :

"Is the reference to Iraq supposed to be making fun of Republican18's nazi comparison? I hope so."

you are wise, young paduwon.

Quote :

"They shouldn't have been protesting in the first place. I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm going to assume this has everything to do with xenophobia and nothing to do with any real criticism of the effects of globalization. Perhaps they simply didn't like the fact that a black man was representing the United States. I mean, these people were committing acts of violence, how long are going to let this go on before we get serious about protecting the leadership of this country?"

An obvious attempt to create a parallel, but your wording has me confused.

I guess I missed the time that the right wing protestors got chased around by riot cops and intimidated, unless you count the horrible, ghastly, evil, unconstitutional tongue lashing they got from talking heads at MSNBC. The horror.

9/27/2009 4:45:19 PM

To be fair, anti-globalization protesters have a demonstrated history of getting out of hand a little more readily than the tea party types. Partly this is because the first group tends to be composed more of young, passionate idealists without too much to lose, and the latter is composed of older people who have jobs and money that they don't want taken away or jeopardized by a brush with the law.

9/27/2009 4:51:01 PM

It's true, but I don't exactly err on the side of ganging up on them and using sound wave blasters like that. free speech? innocent until proven guilty?

9/27/2009 4:53:27 PM

I was more interested in pointing out the irony that there is a great deal of overlap between those who protest the G20 and those who want "government to do something" about health care. It is hard to be statist and anarchist at the same time but some people want to attempt to pull it off.

They may rationalize it by saying that health care is designed to protect the needy and that these people are only greedy, but state power is state power no matter if it is ceded willingly or unwillingly.


In all honesty, the treatment of the G20 protesters was abhorrent based on those videos and, if they are the full picture, I wholeheartedly oppose it. I'm a fan of suspicion of power which drives my opposition to Barack Obama, my opposition to the collusion of state and private capital (though I do not oppose the concept of globalization), my opposition to government mandated health care, and my opposition to "sin taxes". These protesters, so long as they remained peaceful, should have been allowed to protest. Period. But you can't ask of the state one day and then turn around to protest it the next

9/27/2009 4:58:15 PM

Quote :

"They shouldn't have been protesting in the first place."

9/27/2009 8:40:09 PM

Quote :

"I was more interested in pointing out the irony that there is a great deal of overlap between those who protest the G20 and those who want "government to do something" about health care. It is hard to be statist and anarchist at the same time but some people want to attempt to pull it off. They may rationalize it by saying that health care is designed to protect the needy and that these people are only greedy, but state power is state power no matter if it is ceded willingly or unwillingly."

I know some self-described anachists who are not of the bizzare anarcho-capitalist variant and I can assure you that they weren't out campaigning for Obama.

You see this through a right libertarian lens. The large dividing factor you see between you and these people is economic. There are those who are on the side of non-government solutions, and everyone else wants a government solution. Have you read much on the theory of the radical left? I guarantee you that the health care system most people outside the democratic mainstream who aren't avowed communists wouldn't be a bureaucratic command economy type system, but rather more of a co-operative direct democratic consensus system (idealistic yes, but no more idealistic than thinking that markets are always rational). You might disagree, but to say it's impossible to be on the left without supporting statist solutions and to say that left-anarchists are contradictory is a bit silly. Let's put it this way: anarchists would be more likely to skip the socialist stage of history in Marx's model, if they even believe in it in any way at all. There is such a thing as libertarian communism (I mean, in the end, communism occurs after the withering away of the state, right)?

[Edited on September 27, 2009 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2009 9:47:06 PM

From what I have been reading, only a few protest groups of the many present were even bothered, and these are the ones that are making the headlines.
Again from what I have been reading and the people I have talked to (LEO in Pittsburgh), there was a reason this happened. Groups were required to get a permit to protest. A few groups decided they didn't need a permit. The police let them be for a few hours before telling them to disperse. They gave them over an hour to leave before moving in. The reason they moved in was that people started to vandalize property, including trying to burn park benches and destroy anything not bolted to the ground. The protest wasn't the problem, it was when property was being destroyed, the police were forced to act. Then people get upset that the police used anti-riot gear. If they had left in the previous hour as instructed, or not become vandals, there would not have been a problem.

9/27/2009 10:54:42 PM

Full disclaimer:

This post is not Soap Box worthy.

But imagine if eleven protesters approached a line of riot police in full football gear: I'm talking full-contact scrimmage... helmets, shoulder pads, knee pads, thigh pads, etc.

Instead of speaking through a megaphone, holding vague placards, or falling back in line... they'd be tossing around the football.

It might catch the riot police off guard.

Down and set upon the line of scrimmage... would they penetrate the defense? All-out hail Mary pass? I think it would be worth a try. A touch down for the revolution, per say?

It's time to take a stand... the all-American way.

[Edited on September 28, 2009 at 5:08 AM. Reason : gaf]

9/28/2009 5:04:01 AM

^ I like it

Quote :

"Groups were required to get a permit to protest"

and several permits weren't granted, not to mention the "protest zones" were set up blocks and blocks away. I think the freedom to assemble is a little more broad than only being allowed to assemble where and when our "leaders" want.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/09/aclu-sues-pittsburgh-over-g20-protest-permits.html

9/28/2009 8:46:10 AM

Quote :

"You might disagree, but to say it's impossible to be on the left without supporting statist solutions and to say that left-anarchists are contradictory is a bit silly"

anarchists that dont support completely free markets are not anarchists. Those guys you knew in college who smoked a bunch of pot and wanted to live in an anarchist society where everyone else payed for their healthcare were not anarchists. Socialism requires laws, which is in direct opposition to anarchism. Anarchism being the ultimate extreme of libertarianism. "Left anarchists" are simply socialists or communists.


re: protesters: Protesting globalization is retarded, but as cool as those sound cannons are, they should be used solely on stuff like riots in progress (same with tear gas). Using them to break up crowds is overkill. Unless they're breaking shit and lighting it on fire I dont see how they could possibly justify the use.

[Edited on September 28, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : a]

9/28/2009 9:33:35 AM

THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF NAZI GERMANY, FOLKS.

STRAIGHT. OUT.

9/28/2009 9:33:54 AM

^^^were you saying that about this guy:


or were you happy that there he was only allowed to excercise his rights in a predetermined area far away from the pres?

9/28/2009 9:41:36 AM

^umm, he was allowed right outside the convention center wasnt he? He wasn't harassed by police was he?

The G20 protest zones were set up blocks away from the place where the meeting was taken place. Where the world "leaders" and elites wouldn't have to even see the protests.

when protesters attempted to march to the convention center where they might be able to have a meaningful protest the police blocked their way, used tear gas and arrested some of them.

I cant even draw a similarity between the two situations

9/28/2009 9:54:59 AM

He was in a designated zone far away from the president, and would have been stopped by the cops/secret service if he had tried to peacefully protest his way too close to the president, no?

9/28/2009 10:50:52 AM

If by "far away from the president" you mean right outside the building the president was giving a speech in. And yes he would have been stopped if he tried to get close to the president, as would anyone (even if they didnt have a gun and were peaceful)

I'm not arguing that protesters should be allowed inside the same meeting room as whomever they are protesting, but they should be allowed outside the building so that their presence can be known, instead of being put in chain linked fenced areas blocks from the meeting place (as was the case at the G20).

9/28/2009 11:33:05 AM

Quote :

"Those guys you knew in college who smoked a bunch of pot and wanted to live in an anarchist society where everyone else payed for their healthcare were not anarchists."

LOL yes good internet sir, you have these folks pinned. Certainly you know quite a bit about these people. Crust punk kids for Obama indeed!

Quote :

""Left anarchists" are simply socialists or communists."

we've had this argument, but if you're going to ignore centuries of non-statist communism and socialism (in theory, mind you), and the fucking definition of communism, straight from the communist manifesto itself (remember, the state withers away), then it's useless.

non-coercive communal living is an idea both of the left and of the non-statist. you're defining things based on an overly simplified definition which most people believe but is wrong. go read proudhon or bakunin, or even henry george or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

I don't subscribe to this idea fully (well, except George, who fits me almost perfectly), but it's some buried treasure of political theory, even for minarchists or civil libertarians.

[Edited on September 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/28/2009 4:15:59 PM

I like how the cops had to use tear gas to make a bunch of 19 & 20 year old students go up some stairs.

9/28/2009 9:27:45 PM