I’m not sure if this is a General Questions issue or a Great Debates but, since it’s obviously a controversial subject, I figured I’d start here and save the moderators a headache.
By the way, you guys may want to read the following:
It’s from Salon, which means you’ll have to wade through some ads, but I think it’ll be worth your while.
I wound up going to some political meetings and getting on some newslist where there are far lefties and Naderheads involved. What a bunch of schmucks. If there isn’t going to be serious violence at the convention, I’ll eat my toes. This distresses me no end as, with President Jesus McChimp on the ropes, the last thing we need to do is hand Minister of Propaganda Karl Rove a Christmas present to scare mid-America with (this would be somewhat ironic as the one thing far righties and far lefties have in common is that they both hate liberals). Still, some of the protesters are telling me that I’m actually all wet. I’ve been told that my associating far-lefties such as anarchists with violence proves that I’m ignorant and, ahem, white. OK, so an anarchist once assassinated President William McKinley. Is it fair of me to stereotype on the basis of one splashy incident? I’ve also been told that all the violence associated at the big protest rallies was really the work of authorities and that protesters are just a bunch of innocents caught in a web of international deceit. Frankly, I don’t think so. Based on what I’m seeing, these boneheads don’t need a lot of help from instigators or overly-aggressive police to act out big time — not that that sort of thing hasn’t been known to happen.
So here’s what I’d like to do, and it’s a big one: Get a general handle and how much violence at rallies is actually the work of protesters or the police. At the 1968 DNC, it’s generally agreed that the violence was the work of the police and FBI infiltrators. But what about more recent ones like Seattle, Genoa and Montreal? How does one go about assessing that?