|
|
<< Why Greens Still Don't Get It | Main | A Progressive Alternative to the DNC >> February 16, 2003New York Says No to WarNear Rally site View down First Avenue It was a glorious day, bitter cold and wind burn included. The city declared that no march would happen, so New Yorkers marched from all over the city and as they converged on the Upper East Side, trying to weave their way through police barricades, they ended up taking over not only First Avenue, but Second Avenue, Third Avenue and Lexington Avenue, while derailing traffic all over the East Side. Due to police blockades, many marchers on those side streets found themselves unable to move anywhere-- east, west, north or south--creating mass frustration. You have to wonder at the stupidity of the anti-march edict which prevented the organizers from creating an orderly march in favor of this chaotic, far more dangerous and frustrating set of street takeovers and blockades. The crowd was in a good mood, largely cooperative with the police, so the consequences were minor, but if the crowd has turned nasty at being penned in by police incompetence in planning, the police would have had a situation of mass riots that they would have been unable to control. On First Avenue, the march extended from 51st St. all the way to 72nd St. In fact, it would have extended much farther but the police ran out of the metal barricades to pen protesters in and began dismantling the pens in order to encourage them to crowd together rather than move beyond the twenty blocks they had occupied on 1st. More than half the crowd never made it onto First Avenue, stuck as they were on the other Avenues, but many could hear the rally being broadcast over WBAI. Forget the police estimate of 100,000. Double the crowd shown in the picture above and it's not even in the realm of credibility. 300,000 to 400,000 marchers is pretty much the best guess but with all those turned away by the police on side avenues, it might have swelled even larger. It was the largest political rally in New York City since the 1 million person Nuclear Freeze march back in the early 1980s. This is the city that suffered the attacks of 911, that saw loved ones die, their economy shredded and the heart of their skyline ripped out. And in mass numbers, that city said No to War, that war on Iraq will not make them feel safer, but will rather be a recruitment tool for more terrorism and more death. And they were joined by millions more around the world. Without question, a glorious day. Posted by Nathan at February 16, 2003 08:31 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsDid you go as well? Posted by: Martin Wisse at February 16, 2003 11:26 AM After your saying why Greens still don't get it, and after your observing that Nader was essential to Bush's victory over Gore, and after your effectively acknowledging that Naderites are enemies of Democrats, you say, "Not that I'll drop [Naderite] Ampersand's blog link, but I'll criticize his arguments." This is plain stupid: you can criticize the enemy's [this Naderite's] arguments and still not promote his blog. Why don't you promote the blogs of Republicans who criticize Bush? Because they're still Republicans, and still barriers to us progressives winning power. Your discrimination favoring some enemies and not others is stupid: all enemies of the people are enemies of the people, and Ralph Nader is one of the most dangerous enemies of the people--without him, we would have Albert Gore, not G.W. Bush, as U.S. President. Nader even remains to this day unapologetic. He always said that Gore is as "bad" as Bush; Nader isn't just a liar; he a very dangerous liar, and he has suckered enough fools like ampersand in order to give us President G.W. Bush. So, you must be only half a sucker, then, to be prejudiced half-way in his favor. If capital punishment were sound policy, G.W. Bush should be the first person to be executed, but Ralph Nader should be the second to be. The're both very dangerous men. Do you think that Stalin wasn't dangerous because he condemned Hitler? At least Stalin ended up being a crucial compnent in defeating Hitler and not in bringing Hitler to power. Yet you are prejudiced in Nader's favor and (presumably) not in Stalin's. Get some smarts, Nathaniel Newman! Posted by: Eric Zuesse at February 17, 2003 12:56 PM Of course I don't treat Nader (or Ampersand) the same as Bush. My difference with Bush is on policy, while my argument with Nader and the Greens is on tactics. My goal is to convince Green-leaning folks to come back to reasonable tactics. As for linking, I link to some interesting conservatives, so why wouldn't I link to interesting Green-leaning folks like Ampersand, especially one who is willing to link to contrary views like my own and thereby give his readers a chance to consider their options? If I have confidence in the arguments against voting Green, I would much prefer to mutually link with Green folks and expose people to both sides of the argument. I have faith that reasonable (if high-spirited debate) will lead to the best voting result far more than trying to censor or hide Green arguments. Posted by: Nathan Newman at February 17, 2003 01:14 PM pissing Posted by: roma at August 24, 2004 06:46 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|
