« the latest in homeland security | Main | not for nothing... »

ted rall: if you build it, they will riot

Let's revisit my little essay on how 2004 could be 1968 all over again. Well, let's visit it through the eyes of Teddy Boy.

"Next year in New York" is already the rallying cry of more than 150 groups planning to protest Bush's coronation. United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the biggest demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, has applied for a 250,000-person permit to march past Madison Square Garden, where the convention is being held, on the event's first full day.

What's this? Rall is actually proving one of my points; that next year will be the boiling point for this whole left v. right war.

Everyone from radical anarchists to moderate environmentalists expects the NYC/GOP ideological collision to spark the biggest American protest march since the end of the Vietnam War.....Activists are talking, some with barely hidden glee, about the possibility of violence. "It'll be Chicago 1968," a well-connected progressive leader predicts, referring to the "Days of Rage" riots during that year's Democratic National Convention. "Things are gonna burn, people are gonna die."

Well, yes Ted. That's exactly what I was saying and now I have proof of people actually admitting that. But Ted goes on:

As much as I relish the idea of a million angry Americans turning the tawdry Necropublican National Convention into a Seattle WTO-style fiasco, the potential for mayhem is terrifying. As a Manhattanite, I hope that the Republicans will seriously consider moving their convention somewhere else.

Just like Rall to cower in fear. He's afraid of his own people. Even though he "relishes" the mayhem they cause wherever they go, he's basically admitting that they are terrifying.

The risk of convention-related terrorist attacks should be reason enough to not hold it in a city that paid the highest price on 9/11.....A revival of 1968, with cops fouling their batons with the blood of young people, wouldn't do anyone--left or right--any good.

Stop right there, Ted. Fouling their batons with the blood of young people. Let's go back in time a bit, shall we?

"It'll be Chicago 1968," a well-connected progressive leader predicts, referring to the "Days of Rage" riots during that year's Democratic National Convention. "Things are gonna burn, people are gonna die."

So, they're planning on causing havoc and destruction and possibly death, but if the police beat them back, they will be in the wrong.

Riots would make everyone look bad--New York, the GOP and the demonstrators. The resulting property damage could exceed the cost that would be involved in moving the convention to another city--a price that the well-funded Bush campaign can easily afford. The Bushies would be better off today if they had taken my advice on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the economy. They've haven't listened yet--but that's no reason not to start now.

So, New York is supposed to back out of hosting this convention because a bunch of activists can't keep their emotions in check? This sounds like a threat to me when read all together: Move the convention or your city will burn and people will die. In the passive-aggressive world of leftist activism, if New York City becomes a victim of crazed rioters, it will be the fault of the Republicans for holding the convention there. He beat her because she deserved it, eh Ted?

Yes, I'm afraid of the mayhem as well. But that's coming no matter where or when the convention is. It's coming not just to New York, but to California and all the states in between. The anti-everything crowd is not a happy one and they are just absolutely trigger-happy at the prospect of clashing with authorities. They want it to be 1968 because right now they just look like a loose band of hippie wannabes. A 1968 type riot, with a few smashed heads and maybe a death or two would make them feel relevant again.

New York City does not cower. Maybe Ted is a pussy, maybe Ted is scared of what his very own fanbase is capable of. But New York is not afraid. And New York certainly does not need to take his advice, nor do the Republicans. We'd all end up hiding under our beds if we did.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ted rall: if you build it, they will riot:

» The 1968 Bluff from Matthew J. Stinson | weblog
Michele fisks a Ted Rall column promising blood in the streets at the 2004 Republican Convention in NYC. Michele is worried that Ted's boasts about the left's intention to make New York "Chicago in 1968 all over again" might not... [Read More]

» Here's a meme . . . from e-Claire
. . . that I want to keep an eye on. Michele thinks that 2004 will be the year of the face-off between the Right and the Left. Today she cites Ted [ptui] Rall's scrawls as support for her point.... [Read More]

» Woven Web #2 - Links Out of Control from angelweave
I'm sorta caught up with all of you. And here I prove it. I've been reading. And it may not be a Sac, but it's something.... [Read More]


So we could basically sum up Ted's argument as follows: "Not in my backyard... please?!"

I love it: if riots--which are being planned by protesters almost a year in advance--happen, it'll be the GOP's fault for having a convention there. Sure, Ted, and those 70 women deserved to be taken advantage of because they dared to have apartments.

Got it.

No way does NYC back out. We really do need the boost the convention would bring to the area

hey goddess
todays web post
is dedicated to you

What I hope is that the improving economy will provide jobs for all these angry people, and they'll be too busy working to come mess up my city. And I hear that non-rioting Republicans can better afford the hotel prices here. We all win!

However, I have no clue as to who would hire these angry people. They don't seem like the types I'd want to work for me.

Ok, lemme get this straight. The RNC wants to pay to hold a convention in NYC, which I'm sure the shopkeepers won't mind.

A bunch of unemployed, socially deviant thugs hopes to trash the town when the Republicans come through.

So the best bet is to appease the criminals and move somewhere else?

Gee, I would have thought that the people obeying the law had the edge here, but I guess in the twisted appease-iverse you should do whatever the attacker tells you to do.

Sounds like an excellent time to repeal the Sullivan Law.

Also sounds like a good reason for spending some tourist dollars in New York.

My sense of worth comes from knowing that unles the Republicans pull another coup (and they're getting ready in many states, such as South Daokta, to pull the same garabage at polling places and voter rolls that they did in Florida), of making sure Bush and the rest of his coup cronies are as far gone from the government as we can make them.

Oh, almost forgot...

Ted Rall is a commie asshole pussy!

Damn, that always feels good.

What "garbage at polling places", Joseph?

You mean disenfranchising minorities? Oh wait, that didn't happen.

You must mean trying to throw out military ballots. Oh wait, that was the Democrats.

No, no, I remember, attempting to count only the heavily Democratic counties...no, that's not it.

Ah! You must mean forcing the Florida Supremes to FOLLOW THE GODDAM LAW. Yeah, that's it. The filthy, cheating bastards, how dare they make the SCOFLAws follow the law!

How the hell can they pull these protests together? I mean with all the stifling of dissent and trampling on of rights by Ashcroft and his thugs, I would expect to see everyone that has ever checked out "The Pentagon Papers" rounded up and executed long before Bush's "coronation." Sheesh Ted, get your rhetoric consistent!

"A revival of 1968, with cops fouling their batons with the blood of young people..."

About 1968, I think it was Jerry Pournelle who said, "It's not SMART to throw a baggie full of shit at a police officer."

terrorist (n): one who attempts to shape public policy or political discourse throught the application or threat of violence

"It'll be Chicago 1968," a well-connected progressive leader predicts, referring to the "Days of Rage" riots during that year's Democratic National Convention. "Things are gonna burn, people are gonna die."

Looks like we need to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

if the (not very well liked in NYC) RNC wants to hold their convention NYC, they damn well better be able to do it without threats, veiled or otherwise. those that accuse the BOOGEYMEN (read AG Ashcroft, et al.) of trampling free speech and the deomcratic process have alot of nerve to threaten violence against the same.

not in my city you dirty fucking freaks.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Again, remember Rall's prediction that the 2004 election will be cancelled. What possible event could transpire which would allow the 2004 election to be cancelled?

maybe Ted is scared of what his very own fanbase is capable of


At the risk of coming off like those who warned that President Clinton risked his life every time he appeared before audiences of well-armed soldiers on Southern military bases

Nothing else in the article even remotely threatens the President. Why did Rall include this line?

I almost forgot. Who held Ashcroft's job in 1968?

Joseph, and DZD---

Chicago 1968 had a lot to do with swinging the election that year in Nixon's favor.

Y'all might want to at least consider the possibility that the nation would like to see the NYPD get a little stick time in on the dirtyunamericanhippiefucks.

Those people, like Ted Rall, who openly relish the prospect of blood in the streets, a la 1968, might just find themselves surprised at the political fallout from premeditated mayhem perpetrated by the Left.

These bipedal piles of foecal matter thrive on violence. They're hoping to be beaten, shot, bloodied, violently pummeled. They want to wave the bloody shirt at the camera.
But what if they were not bloodied, but humiliated.
I have long thought that the ideal way to deal with violent, egotistical shmucks---gangbangers, for instance--- is to utterly humiliate them. Those fuckers are proud of their hardcore, violent image. They thrive on the 'street cred' of being locked up, roughed up, dressed in prison greys.
But suppose, instead of simply stuffing them in a squad car and driving them off, you first stripped them down, dressed them in pampers and baby bibs, chained them togethor single file behind an ice cream truck, and force-marched them on a little parade through their badass neighborhoods? Have that little icecream jingle playing, with someone on a bullhorn telling the 'hood what bad little boys they've been....
That 'street cred' would vanish like flash paper in a David Copperfield act.

In a similar vein--- suppose these "hardcore" protestors were met, say, with riot hoses loaded with indelible dye? A nice baby blue or garish pink that'll last for a week or so. Add a little synthetic skunk-scent for good measure. The military's been working on a new "slip and slide" spray goop--- made to deny a charging crowd any footage-- that'd work nice too. Grease them pigs, soldier!

When they're carted off, wrap 'em in brightly colored straightjackets instead of cuffing them, and cart 'em off in open-air paddywagons.

And for their overnight stay in the cooler, feed 'em jars of baby food.

Deny them any possible shred of pride they might have in their confrontation with "the man."

Our society made a mistake when it stopped putting criminal fools in the stocks. Sometimes the only way to make a fool change his ways is to treat him like the fool he is--- and hold him up to be mocked by every passerby who sees him.

"Chicago 1968 had a lot to do with swinging the election that year in Nixon's favor."

The Democrat candidate, Humphrey, was just as pro-war as Nixon was. By 1972, the Left had taken over the DNC. Nixon was out by 1974, we completed our final withdrawal from Vietnam and Cambodia by 1975: 2 million souls given up to Big Commie.

That, and the legacy of mystique surrounding 1968, was their victory.

Maybe the NY mounted police could give the protesters a Seinfeld welcome. Remember the farting horse episode, where Kramer was driving a Hansom cab? He fed his horses big cans of beef-a-reeno that he got cheap at Costco, and they came down with a really foul case of diarrhea, gassing out the customers.

The mounted police could buy a couple of cases of beef-a-reeno, give the protesters a Krameresque hello and fertilize the grass at the same time. Another plus - peacenicks wear thin cloth shoes (no leather, it exploits animals)

Um, can we get Rudy back for 2004? Please?

Seamole - that would have been Ramsey Clark.