Rambling Rhodes

Hey Ryan, I officially support the protesters in Lebanon and Iraq. I support them whole-heartedly, and I'm saying so on the internet.

(waits for a while)

Huh. That's strange. My "support" doesn't seem to have made any difference. Who'd'a thunk?

And let's not forget your proud history of supporting protest. You know what my favorite part of that post was? The part where you wrapped up by quoting the Iraqi who said, A US-led force will encounter NO resistance from the Iraqi people or the army. I can think of about 1,500 American troops (and god knows how many dead Iraqis) who might beg to differ with that assertion.

Of course you'll insist that I'm putting words in your mouth™, or that the situations are completely different©, or that Atrios's "support" might be meaningful because he's widely read. Whatever. As suggested by my views on "support", I don't have anything at stake in this.

What do the pro-democracy protesters in Lebanon have to gain? They can become a western-style democracy; they can have a political system just like ours, riddled with corruption and run by the apathetic, the cynical and the incompetent. And if they should decide that their political system has broken down and that protests are called for again, we'll know they at least achieved their goal of a Western-style democracy: Ryan Rhodes will stop "supporting" them just for coming out and satisfy himself with posting snide fiskings of journalists who report their activities.

Huh. That's strange. My "support" doesn't seem to have made any difference. Who'd'a thunk?

That's cute. Lazy, but cute. You know how when you're going through a tough time, maybe an illness, maybe an unemployment stint, and people offer up words of encouragement, and that encouragement, in turn, makes you feel better and maybe a little more inclined to keep fighting your illness, or send out another round of resumes? Same goes for supporting the actions of protesters. No, I'm not standing within their ranks waving a flag, but I can offer up some fucking goodwill and a "here's hoping," to their efforts. I see their actions as a good thing, for crying out loud.

It's also lazy but cute how you try to maintain that my fisking of Jill Nelson's crappy column somehow negates support for Lebanese protesters. You had to dig deep into the barrel for that one. Notice in that post you cite I never called into question the people's right to protest. I questioned the numbers, and mocked Jill's crappy prose, but I didn't say they couldn't protest. I may have disagreed with them but, by all means, they could protest away.

they can have a political system just like ours, riddled with corruption and run by the apathetic, the cynical and the incompetent.

As opposed to their current political system, which assassinates political leaders with opposing viewpoints. But, hey, at least they're efficient, not like our crappy U.S. Democracy tht you just can't stand, right?

Ryan Rhodes will stop "supporting" them just for coming out and satisfy himself with posting snide fiskings of journalists who report their activities.

Hey, if it keeps me armed with pathetic journalistic material to disassemble, why not?

Bored today, Joshua? Oh, right, you're leaving in five months.

You had to dig deep into the barrel for that one.

Not really. I just thought to myself, "Hm, which protest would Ryan have been likely to pooh-pooh in a manner similar to what he's criticizing here? Oh, I know, probably the largest anti-war protest in history." And, sure enough.

Notice in that post you cite I never called into question the people's right to protest.

Well, that works out because neither was Atrios. Argue with me about something else I didn't say, Ryan. I'm sure you'll win.

As opposed to their current political system, which assassinates political leaders with opposing viewpoints.

As opposed to? Talk about lazy debating. How 'bout "as opposed to a political system that works." Criticizing what's happening isn't the same thing as approving of what came before. I know that might be a little subtle for your binary brain, but I think it'll do you good to wrestle with the distinction.

But, hey, at least they're efficient, not like our crappy U.S. Democracy tht you just can't stand, right?

Oh shut the fuck up.

What was I pooh-poohing again? The protesters or Nelson's column? Go back and look at that fisk. I think the answer is pretty fucking obvious. But nevermind that. Yup, because I disagreed with the largest anti-war protest in history, I have no right to encourage positive-leaning protests in the Middle East. Right. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense, except it doesn't.

And besides that, do you think there's maybe a slight difference between people protesting in a country where the right to peacefully assemble has been granted them for over 200 years, and Middle Eastern nations where protesting government policies is a fairly new and growing phenomenon, despite the very real threat of retaliation? A slight difference? A difference that might, I don't know, indicate a shift in the mindset of Middle Eastern populations? And it's that kind of shift that Atrios thinks is worrisome. Oh, the worry!

And, Binary Brain would be a cool name for a rock band, or an IT company.

What was I pooh-poohing again? The protesters or Nelson's column? Go back and look at that fisk. I think the answer is pretty fucking obvious.

Here, let me clarify:

Hm, which protest would Ryan have been likely to pooh-pooh in a manner similar to what he's criticizing here?

What has Atrios supposedly done wrong? Not supported the protesters. The point isn't that you fisked the reporter: the point is that when the U.S. (and a score of other countries) had the largest anti-war protest in history, you didn't support it-- not just the subject matter, but the protests for their own sake. In fact, you had nothing at all to say on the matter except to fisk the reporter. So what's your beef with Atrios?

And besides that, do you think there's maybe a slight difference between people protesting in a country where the right to peacefully assemble has been granted them for over 200 years, and Middle Eastern nations where protesting government policies is a fairly new and growing phenomenon, despite the very real threat of retaliation?

The situations are completely different©!

Heh.

Seriously though: my point is, as usual, that you apply your criticisms and praise unevenly. I don't see you suggesting that we should all support the pro-Syrian protests anymore than you suggested that we should support the anti-war protests; you disagree with those agendas so you don't support their protests. You say you're supporting democracy and free speech, but you only voice your support when the agenda of the protests supports your preferred political agenda.

Also, just as an aside:

the right to peacefully assemble has been granted them for over 200 years

You know, it's great that the right to peacefully assemble has been granted to us for 200 years. I remember this time back in 1999 when I peacefully assembled with about 30,000 other people in Downtown Seattle. As often happens in a situation like that, some of the 30,000 people I was there with turned out to be assholes so the cops ordered us to disperse. Since most of the group I was with lived due east of Downtown, on Capitol Hill, we started to head home—only to be met by a line of police who charged us with 3' billy clubs and fired shotguns loaded with rubber bullets and sandbags into the crowd before trying to herd us into cordons for mass arrests. Lucky for me the group I was with was coordinating via cell phone with people who were watching the whole thing on TV, so we managed to slip through a hole in the police lines and get to a local theatre where a lot of us were volunteers. We hid out until the cordon line had passed us by. Then we headed back out and got out of downtown.

It was a pretty exciting day. I got shot in the ass with a rubber bullet while I was running away from a line of charging cops. I got to see a cop grab a woman who was chained to a pipe formation by the hair and hose pepper spray into her face from a range of about 18 inches. Cops arresting journalists for photographing them; firing kinetic energy batons at protesters from ranges of less than 5 meters. Women who were caught up in the mass arrests that day were taken to jail and strip-searched by male guards. There are literally thousands of examples of police brutality and abuse from that day, many of them documented and photographed by journalists who were there at the time.

The next day our guaranteed right to peacefully assemble was revoked in a 1 square mile area of downtown Seattle so that people from all over the world could have conferences in our city without being disturbed by—you know—the people who live here. That night I stood on a hill two miles north and watched the green flash of stun grenades reflecting off the clouds like heat lightning.

Kind of put me in mind of Chicago in '68. Or Birmingham in '63.

And let's not forget Kent State.

Yeah, those soft American protesters. They're not risking anything when they go out. Hardly worth your notice; certainly not worth your support.

I think the real point here is that Atrios is vocally not supporting the protest for incredibly stupid, meaningless and contrived reasons. He can't say the honest reason why he won't support this protest so he has carefully crafted a plethora of red herrings so he can safely interject his unsupport without compromising his facade any more than it already is.

The point is he's a prevaricating fuck.

And Shot in the ass by a rubber bullet should be Binary Brain's first hit song.

The situations are completely different©!

Just so you know, Joshua, because you happened to preciently call what I was going to point out as painfully obvious, doesn't mean that the situations AREN'T completely different. Gosh, it's almost like you know the situations are completely different and you're using this preemtive strike to somehow soften the impact of the plainly fucking obvious.

Heh.

I don't see you suggesting that we should all support the pro-Syrian protests. . .

Yeah, even though I link to the article about the opposing protests right there in the text. Do I lend my support more to the liberation protesters? Well, duhhh, yeah. It doesn't take a fucking brain surgeon to figure out which side I'll support.

You say you're supporting democracy and free speech, but you only voice your support when the agenda of the protests supports your preferred political agenda.

Yeah, because if I happen to have a preferred political agenda, that means I don't support democracy and free speech. Whatever. The Syrian supporters can protest all they want, I support their right to to so. Doesn't mean I support their message, particularly when they wave banners saying "No to outside intervention," right alongside pictures of Assad. How ironical.

Yeah, those soft American protesters. They're not risking anything when they go out. Hardly worth your notice; certainly not worth your support.

Uh huh, because, again, the protests that took place in New York are entirely tantamount to WTO protests that were infiltrated by violent nutjobs. Nelson's column rolled out the hyperbole by saying those anti-war protesters risked "treason," which, how many people were tried for treason as a result of those protests? Look, I'm sorry you got shot in the ass, man. Find a way to keep those douchebags who incite riots out of your ranks, and wondrous things might just happen. When they decide to stop turning their right to peacefully assemble into a non-right to loot stores and overturn cars, well, maybe it won't be necessary to cordon off a one square mile radius.

Gosh, it's almost like you know the situations are completely different and you're using this preemtive strike to somehow soften the impact of the plainly fucking obvious.

Said the man who has repeatedly compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor.

Look, I never read Atrios; have no strong opinion about him one way or the other. My impression is that he felt like he needed to say something about the protests because it's a big deal, but he didn't want to be mistaken for agreeing with the people who are claiming the protests as a Bush victory in the Middle East. You came out and launched what I took to be a pro free speech criticism of Atrios for his post. So my argument was based on the, "If you're so pro free speech, why aren't you supporting all comparable protests?" angle.

Then just now I noticed this little gem:

In some convoluted way, "Atrios" thinks that, because Lebanese protesters may potentially be putting themselves in harm's way, nobody else has a right to support or encourage them.

Which, since he didn't say anywhere that I can see that "nobody else has the right" to support the protesters, kind of makes the whole thing moot; you're blowing ass, end of story.

Nelson's column rolled out the hyperbole by saying those anti-war protesters risked "treason,"

You know, for all you're acting like Nelson pulled this fresh out of her ass, we both know that Michele over at ASV and plenty of others were, in fact, using the world "treason" to describe those protests. Was Nelson engaging in hyperbole? Sure. But it's not like the exaggeration was all hers.

Find a way to keep those douchebags who incite riots out of your ranks, and wondrous things might just happen.

That's just about the stupidest fucking thing I think I've ever seen you write. An analogy you might be able to grasp: "If African Americans would do a better job of policing themselves, cops would stop shooting unarmed young Black males who had committed no crime." It's the responsibility of the police to arrest people who are actually committing crimes; that doesn't give them license to fire LTL weapons indiscriminately in the general direction of people who are committing crimes, then blame the bystanders they injure. And dozens of civil court rulings on literally thousands of cases support me in that opinion.

And the violent douchebags in question failed to incite a riot—unless you count what the police did as rioting. When the Black Brigade assholes started breaking windows at Nike Town the rest of us didn't join in; we stood there and chanted, "Shame on you! Shame on you!" Now you'll excuse the fuck out of me for not actually physically intervening to protect the property of Nike Inc., but the Black Brigade certainly didn't succeed in inciting any riots among the protesters I was with.

In case you haven't noticed, my opinion of A Small Victory has diminished considerably precisely because of the hyperbole that was going on over there, although from a couple recent forays over there, it looks like she's not doing the politics thing as much any more.

As to the rest of this, all I can say is: it's 8 p.m., I have a pizza to eat, and a video game to play.

Forget about the anti-war protests.

What about protests that brought down the government in Argentina. I seem to remember those being described in the "liberal media" with far less triumphalism than the current situation in Lebanon.

Oh, and while I generally agree with the Black Bloc tactic being fairly idiotic, the fact is the cops were starting to use tear gas and rubber bullets at certain intersections before any windows were broken. So it's pretty much a myth that the cops were reacting to "violent protestors."

By the way, does pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein count as a violent protest?