August 01, 2000
Constitutional Rights, who needs em?

The United States Government killed Iraqi citizens today.

(It's still) time to end the suffering in Iraq.

I'm back from Philly. Lots of protesting, lots of people, lots of fun, lots of illegal activity, by protestors and cops. Though the intent of the protestors was to disobey in a civilized manner, I would be truly dismayed (but not surprised) to hear that the police were consciously violating the rights of people in downtown Philladelphia this weekend. I got frisked without my consent this afternoon (which I hear is unconstitutional), but I can say that that certainly wasn't the worst of it. Apparently, this is fairly common.

NYTimes Slams Nader (again):

There is precious little debate on globalization and no debate at all on Ralph Nader's Presidential campaign on the op-ed page of the Times, a page that is ostensibly designed for debate.

On a higher level, this is my biggest beef with the media: no debate. When talking about protests, you'll find full page articles talking about what protestors look like, how much fun they were having, what the police did, how many people showed up, where they marched, etc. etc. I guarantee, however, that you'll find the least amount of information in such articles about the actual issues at stake. No debate, but worse, no one knows why 5,000 people showed up in Philadelphia, ready to be arrested for something they believe in, besides the text of a few banners.

Does this strike anyone else as totally skewed and just plain wierd. Even more so that it happens across all media, not just in certain organizations, but in the NYTimes and the tabloids alike.

The Philadelphia Independent Media Center has comprehensive coverage of the arrests, protests, and lockdowns, as well as position statements from protestors, news, and editorials.

I've been discussing politics lately more than usual. Anyone have any feelings on this? I'm interested to hear:

posted by dru in blog