28-09-2002 00:40									#91
	Tired of ads?

From the URL posted on the bottom:

Following Sept. 11, many of us feared that the war on terror would result in massive government restrictions on free speech. And almost immediately after the attacks, a fistful of public critics of the war (Bill Maher and two small-town journalists) were indeed fired, boycotted, or suspended. Most of that hysteria died down soon enough—but not at our universities. A year later, on college campuses, we are still suspending professors and beating up students with unpopular viewpoints. And what's more, we do all this under the pretext of fostering openness and free expression. Wartime censorship is alive and well, but it's happening only in our colleges, our "laboratories of democracy."

These firings and suspensions were not initiated by the government, and consequently they don't implicate the First Amendment. They threaten a broader democratic ideal of free speech: the long-cherished belief that words don't hurt but censorship does. Call it patriotism or call it "academic sensitivity," but censorship is still censorship, even when it's invoked to shore up some gauzy dream that universities are a Technicolor rainbow of love and tolerance.

Long before Sept. 11, there was a growing perversion of what both freedom and speech mean in our universities. The university as a bastion of unfettered political dialogue morphed over the last two decades into the university as quasi-parental hug-factory that must ensure that students don't feel harassed by words they don't want to hear. Universities have become the arbiters of which words are threatening, hateful, or offensive, a game the courts wisely got out of years ago.

Virtually every stupid speech-related decision made at a university in the year since Sept. 11 was intended to "protect" fragile student sensibilities. Thus, the student newspaper at Berkeley was disciplined by the student Senate for running a cartoon immediately after the hijackings showing the World Trade Center terrorists arriving in hell rather than paradise. Condemned for having fostered anti-Muslim "intolerance," the editors were ordered to apologize on the front page of their paper and attend "diversity training" (the second-worst invention of the last century; the worst being speech codes). A professor at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, Calif., received a letter of reprimand for offending students by claiming in class that Muslims who fail to condemn terrorism are effectively condoning it.

Perhaps the most famous example of overzealous academic censorship is the decision of the University of South Florida to fire, then un-fire, and then ask a court whether they may constitutionally re-fire a computer engineering professor, Sami Al-Arian. His ever-changing list of offenses includes: an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor after Sept.11; saying, "Death to Israel" at a conference in 1991; and affiliation with a think tank associated with terrorist activities. Although the school itself found no evidence to support the latter charges, the university president contends that death threats against Al-Arian put the entire campus at a safety risk. No one talks about firing Alan Dershowitz, and he likely receives more death threats in a day than Al-Arian will in his lifetime. Fraternities and beer bongs also put campuses at a safety risk but no one has tossed them onto the streets.

Perhaps the most distressing new form of campus censorship has come with the increasingly generous academic definition of what constitutes protected student protest. Last week, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to speak at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. When hundreds of anti-Israel protesters staged what turned into a riot, the speech was canceled. Never mind that protesters punched and kicked prospective listeners who were lined up to hear the speech or that the protesters shattered windows, upended newspaper boxes, and hurled furniture. Less than a handful were arrested; instead, the university responded with censorship, declaring a temporary moratorium on "all Middle East-related student activity on campus."

Ahmed Abdirahman, a spokesman for one of the groups that organized the protest, was quoted in the Montreal Gazette saying, "As responsible citizens, we have to be here to say physically to Netanyahu that his hatemongering isn't permitted in Montreal." Apparently to "say physically" is not the same as "assault" in his book. It is in mine.

The idea that physical brutality can be used effectively to interfere with political discourse should terrify any believer in democracy. Canadians—who don't have a First Amendment but do have a long and impressive history of protecting speech—mostly recognize what happened last week for what it is: Violence dressed up as a politically correct protest.

In a similarly disturbing incident last May, anti-Israel demonstrators at San Francisco State University staged a counterdemonstration to a Jewish peace rally. A group of Jewish students were surrounded by at least twice as many pro-Palestinian students screaming, "Hitler didn't finish the job," "**** the Jews," and "Die, racist pigs." When the faculty on hand failed to intercede, campus police had to form a barrier, and the Jewish students were escorted from the area. This protest was not speech. It was violence.

Free speech does not encompass the right to fire, suspend, or riot your way into a universe in which everyone agrees with your views, even if you have legitimate grievances. The courts are well aware of this, but it seems that universities, both here and in Canada, are not. On campus, you may "speak" freely—with fists, chairs, and broken glass—so long as you are a member of an aggrieved minority with delicate sensibilities and a narrative of oppression.

This leaves the state to take on a new role in protecting free speech. The state must be responsible for busting up the monopoly that has taken over the marketplace of ideas:Â a monopoly of suffering, political correctness, and sympathy without limits. In the firing cases, the state will be represented by the courts, which will reinstate faculty fired for no reason other than unpopular views. And in the campus protest cases, the state must acknowledge that people who use force to suppress the opinions of others are not performing some sacred protected speech act. They are committing assault, not merely on other humans and on the basic promise of free speech, but on democracy itself.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071214

	28-09-2002 00:44									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I'd like people here to actually point out examples of PC oppression that happened to them.

Well I actually wrote an article in the school newspaper about it (it kinda helped that I was a columnist... Rutgers' newspaper is actually very open to various POV's). We had a table at a 'Rock the Vote' thing. We were offering cookies and had the fun people sneering at us and saying our cookies were poisoned. Greens defacing the signs we were giving out and putting them back in front of us.

The Dem Party was fine, the Greens (aka, the lefties) were the ones trying to cause problems and being PC.

	28-09-2002 00:46									#93
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You aren't one of those people that believes that the Masons are an all-powerful satanic cult, are you?

No, that would be the Chicago Tribune, at least until they discovered Reds.

The Freemasons were a very powerful political influence in the US up until about the 1820s, when members of one lodge murdered a member to prevent him from publishing a book on the order's secrets. The country turned against the freemasons in a big way immediately after the details became known (and a jury of freemasons aquitted most of their fellow brothers). But for a time, in the US, if you wanted to get ahead in business and/or politics, you had to be a mason, at least according to the Disovery Channel.

	28-09-2002 00:50									#94
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln (the second-worst invention of the last century; the worst being speech codes).

I would have to disagree. I think poison gas, fascism, germ warfare, nuclear weapons, etc., are all far worse inventions of the 20th Century than speech codes and diversity training.

	28-09-2002 00:54									#95
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Bravo, Che, for having the balls to publish dissenting views - particularly of that woman who complained about her teachers.

My own daughter was sexually harassed by a professor. She complained and nothing happened. A friend of hers was then raped. The professor is still there. News of his proclivities is suppressed because he has a big rep.

At least we seem to agree that freedom of speech should be defended. Your experience on campus is not atypical of what is happening today to those who are pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-life or pro-religion, except that being pro-Muslim is now PC.

	28-09-2002 00:54									#96
	Nitpicking Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I think poison gas, fascism, germ warfare, nuclear weapons, etc., are all far worse inventions of the 20th Century than speech codes and diversity training.

Germ warfare existed prior to the 20th century.

	28-09-2002 01:00									#97
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Well I actually wrote an article in the school newspaper about it (it kinda helped that I was a columnist... Rutgers' newspaper is actually very open to various POV's). We had a table at a 'Rock the Vote' thing. We were offering cookies and had the fun people sneering at us and saying our cookies were poisoned. Greens defacing the signs we were giving out and putting them back in front of us. The Dem Party was fine, the Greens (aka, the lefties) were the ones trying to cause problems and being PC.

defacing signs and obstructing someone elses speach is not PC, its radical, ie. politcally incorrect. if it were Poltically correct, then it would have been done by a majority, or a group in power, not by a marginalized group of radicals: that is the point of PC. Which is why conservatives, who do hold many of the reigns of public discourse in the country, crying 'PC' is sucha joke, and a bad one:

Take the 'pledge of alliegence' controversy: when the judge ruled it unconstitutional, all the conservative cried 'PC' and said it was the work of a nut atheist, and brought out the daughter of the guy to show sh wanted to say God, blah blah blah. How many stopped to ask the relatives of the Socialist who wrote the pledge of alliegence for a Socialist Youth Magazine about how they felt when congress, in 1954, voted to insert 'under God' into a pledga that previous to that, never had that phrase in it? An how many stopped to remember tha in 1943, during the middle of the Second World War, a court ruled it unconsitutional to force kids to say the pledge in public schools: and that the body politic in general though it a good ruling, congurent with American values? The Politically Correct in the story was how the press, aided by conservatives, sought to ridicuale and burry the man who brought the suit and the judge as 'anti-God' or 'anti-American', not the Judge, who, based on historical evidence, and previous rulings, made a very defensible and reasoned case.

	28-09-2002 01:01									#98
	Re: Nitpicking Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Germ warfare existed prior to the 20th century.

*****, *****, *****.

	28-09-2002 01:04									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap The Politically Correct in the story was how the press, aided by conservatives, sought to ridicuale and burry the man who brought the suit and the judge as 'anti-God'

In defense of the press, the father made that case himself without any help from an outside source.

	28-09-2002 01:04									#100
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned At least we seem to agree that freedom of speech should be defended. Your experience on campus is not atypical of what is happening today to those who are pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-life or pro-religion, except that being pro-Muslim is now PC.

In what setting is being pro-American, israel, war, life and so on being a oppresed majority? Even in very radical schols, can you give me an example of the administratin not letting these types of views being presented to the public?

Simple question: lest take two extremes: Bob Jones and Berkeley. Which is least likely to hapen, to be allowed by the administration? A pro-war, pro-Israel rally in berkeley, or an anti-War, pro-Palestinian rally in Bob Jones? OK, so berkeley is Public, so if someone wants, replace berkeley with a higly liberal private university. I think the point still stands.

	28-09-2002 01:05									#101
	Suffering from ads?

quote: defacing signs and obstructing someone elses speach is not PC, its radical, ie. politcally incorrect.

Actually that is a part of PC. Deeming that Republicans are evil because of what 'they represent'. And a majority on campus sure as Hell supported them, especially going by their comments.

Obstructing other people's speech is EXACTLY what PC is, and what is going on right now.

	28-09-2002 01:09									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Of course, Bob Jones is not respected as a university by most people, while Berkeley is considered one of the best unis in the country. Some fringe commie college would've made for a better comparison with Bob Jones, or you could've replaced Bob Jones with a respected, conservative university. As it is now, your comparison is a huge stretch, at best.

Wait a minute. A respected, conservative university? Hard to think of one, isn't it?

Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 28-09-2002 at 01:32

	28-09-2002 01:27									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

GePap, I have not heard of protests or riots by the right in the United States against leftist speakers on campus. I have heard a lot of the other variety though.

An example, though not on campus, was Powell's recent speech in Africa. The American and European Greens did their best to prevent him from speaking at all. I have never, ever heard of similar activity by rightsts - with one exception. That is the incident of Republican protestors in South Florida (Miami, IIRC) protesting the rigged recount by a pro-Gore elections committee. The news media noted that they have never in their entire careers seen a Republican protest.

	28-09-2002 01:29									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

I've seen them.

	28-09-2002 01:51									#105
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, I have not heard of protests or riots by the right in the United States against leftist speakers on campus. I have heard a lot of the other variety though. An example, though not on campus, was Powell's recent speech in Africa. The American and European Greens did their best to prevent him from speaking at all. I have never, ever heard of similar activity by rightsts - with one exception. That is the incident of Republican protestors in South Florida (Miami, IIRC) protesting the rigged recount by a pro-Gore elections committee. The news media noted that they have never in their entire careers seen a Republican protest.

A few points: As I pointed out, there was the protest by several groups against the University of South Carolina for asking students to read a book on Islam, carried out by conservatives. There are protest against art shows seen as 'blasphemous', protests against pro-Palestinian speakers for being 'anti-semitic' and so forth.
Besides, when in power, as most conservatives are, why protest? Almost be definition, the establishment does not protest because it doesn't need to to get its point accross- it has other means, like rpeventing certain people from speaking, a far more insidious way of limiting free speech than shouting whe someone is speaking (not to say i agree with such childish tactics).

quote: Actually that is a part of PC. Deeming that Republicans are evil because of what 'they represent'. And a majority on campus sure as Hell supported them, especially going by their comments. Obstructing other people's speech is EXACTLY what PC is, and what is going on right now.

Under what definition of PC, besides your own personal one, does this count as PC? Yes, I myself have seen those over-sensitive leftists who complain and target conservative speakers, but I find it hard to label intollerant gits as being 'tolerant', though perhaps my definition of PC then is too exclusive. The bigger point is that you were able to hold your event: other did try to sabotage it, but those in power, those that count: the admin.: allowed you to carry out your form of speech. i have never heard of the adminsitration of any liberal college blocking the ability of conservative groups on their campus from carrying out their speech: so where is the PC repression? Repression comes from those in power-being hastled by your peers is annoying, but as long as you have the recourse of going to the admin. an denouncing theirt actions,withou fear of some sort of retributioon, it ain't oppresion.

	28-09-2002 01:56									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: As I pointed out, there was the protest by several groups against the University of South Carolina for asking students to read a book on Islam, carried out by conservatives.

It was at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and it wasn't a "protest", it was a lawsuit. No Christian groups marched on the UNC campus and started breaking ****. Like it or not, violent protest is mainly the realm of leftist groups. Just look at what's happening in Washington today.

	28-09-2002 01:57									#107
	Support Apolyton

Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense.

	28-09-2002 02:00									#108
	Support Apolyton

its the lefties who are most riotous when encountered with a viewpoint they dont agree with. Look at the reaction David Horowitz got when he was on his campus tour.

many college newspapers chose not to print his arguments against AA either.

	28-09-2002 02:01									#109
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense.

What about all the anarchists who jack things up at every IMF meeting?

	28-09-2002 02:08									#110
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sardaukar oh nonsense, its the lefties who are most riotous when encountered with a viewpoint. Look at the reaction David Horowitz got when he was on his campus tour. many college newspapers chose not to print his arguments against AA either.

First of all sardaukar: As we said before, conservative don't like to be exposed to other points of view- hard then to protest.

Davd Horowitz got what he wanted- he likes getting that type of attention- in fact, that is what he craves: that way, he get to make the same argument you are making :"look at the intolerant liberals!'. He came to my university in that tour. sadly, those idiots in the left do bite when he goes on stage and incites the crowd. It is a terrible sight, since then those people in the corwd that went to listen to the man don't get to focus on his ussually tepid arguemtns. But lets not think of David Horowitz as a champion of free speech- I remember reading the little pamphlet he wrote, urging that Universities no longer teach Marx because he was evil... Horoqitz used to be one of those idiots that stand up during his speeches- and he sadly knows that type of shallow mind all too well.

quote: It was at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and it wasn't a "protest", it was a lawsuit. No Christian groups marched on the UNC campus and started breaking ****. Like it or not, violent protest is mainly the realm of leftist groups. Just look at what's happening in Washington today.

First, thanks for the correction. Second, a lawsuit is a worse way of trying to stiffle free speech- since you are trying to bring the power of the state down on those that disagree with you- a far more chilling act than screaming like and idiot- and may we add, the authorities ussually crack down on those idiots, as they did in Washington.

	28-09-2002 02:10									#111
	Inflate your Upload Space

GePap, Did you read Lincoln's article? There is no doubt that the left is censoring free speech on campus with the use of violence and other coercive means. PC is their main vehicle. I cannot help but recall the brown and black-shirted anti-communist Fascist thugs that wandered the steets of Germany and Italy that eventually brought the World so much misery and hate.

GePap, I take it you are in favor of freedom of speech. You should oppose, then, the coercive monopolization of speech on any US campus, whether by the right or by the left. All I hear you saying is that left is wholly innocent of the charge of Fascism. They are not innocent.

	28-09-2002 02:13									#112
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Second, a lawsuit is a worse way of trying to stiffle free speech- since you are trying to bring the power of the state down on those that disagree with you- a far more chilling act than screaming like and idiot- and may we add, the authorities ussually crack down on those idiots, as they did in Washington.

As much as I dislike frivolous lawsuits, they're still a socially acceptable means of protest. Going out and breaking **** because you don't like something isn't. If you keep the protest peaceful, then go to it. I have no problem with non-violent protests. The recent trend towards violence by some leftisit groups worries me, however.

	28-09-2002 02:19									#113
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: First of all sardaukar: As we said before, conservative don't like to be exposed to other points of view

on what concrete basis can you make that assertion? Most conservatives now-a-days are happy with an open debate no more, no less. Sadly, conservatives have had the specter of Mccarthyism in their closet. But that should never justify a swing in the other direction .

I'm a history minor. There are whole classes devoted to flat-out assertions that the US is an imperialist state and must be scrutinized in a racial and gender-based context. i took one of these classes, and wasn't even allowed to initiate a debate on whether the US was actually an imperialist state to begin with! It was deemed "inappropriate" and "out of context" by my instructor.

quote: Davd Horowitz got what he wanted- he likes getting that type of attention- in fact, that is what he craves: that way, he get to make the same argument you are making :"look at the intolerant liberals!'.

Horowitz did nothing more than tour campuses and present his viewpoint. The attention came to him, he didn't look for. and I want a link on your pamphlet, too

sorry had to edit this

	28-09-2002 02:33									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, Did you read Lincoln's article? There is no doubt that the left is censoring free speech on campus with the use of violence and other coercive means. PC is their main vehicle. I cannot help but recall the brown and black-shirted anti-communist Fascist thugs that wandered the steets of Germany and Italy that eventually brought the World so much misery and hate. GePap, I take it you are in favor of freedom of speech. You should oppose, then, the coercive monopolization of speech on any US campus, whether by the right or by the left. All I hear you saying is that left is wholly innocent of the charge of Fascism. They are not innocent.

Let me start by warning about the charge of 'fascims': fascism is a ddeveloped political ideology, which in theory has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, though perhaps in practice. It is generally a very poor word to use in this context. If you want to use such a word, use authoritarian or dictatorial. They are still highly charged, but far more valid than 'fascist'.

Now, yes, I do support campus freedom of speech, and where i differ greatly from you is in what I see as the greater danger to freedom on speech. I don't think the left is cooercively monopolising speech because they lack the power to do so. Its all about power. Can conservative grtoups, in all US universities- get the approval of those in power to stage an activity to promote their views? The answer is yes. Now, what about the protestors? To me that is an issue of university discipline, not 'coercive' monopolizing of views. I would have no problem with Universities passing rules against protests designed to actively interfere with other's speech, since to me that is rude and denigrates the mission of the university.

Power in the university lies with the administration and with the faculty- not the students. To me, any act by those in power to limit other due to their political views is fundamentally far more dangerous than any actions by the powerless mob. In his post, Che was able to show liberals denyed employment based on their political beliefs. I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint. the example the Imran gave was of a conservative denyied a job becuase he held an opinion considered 'liberal' by many, not because of his beliefs in conservative economics, aproval of the president, so forth.

A violent individual protestor is wrong, but they do NOT endanger my freedom, academic or otherwise, as the non-violent acts on those in power to deny an outlet for views they dislike. A dozen annoying, loud, screaming radicals can't do the damge one quite school administrator can, to freedom of speech. Which is why lawsuits are more dangerous, becuase, again, it is trying to use the powers of the system to stiffle free speech.

	28-09-2002 02:39									#115
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sardaukar I'm a history minor. There are whole classes devoted to flat-out assertions that the US is an imperialist state and must be scrutinized in a racial and gender-based context. i took one of these classes, and wasn't even allowed to initiate a debate on whether the US was actually an imperialist state to begin with! It was deemed "inappropriate" and "out of context" by my instructor.

Finally, a valid example of intellectual oppresion! I don't disagree with you at all that it was wrong for the porfessor not to allow you to make such an argument.

quote: Horowitz did nothing more than tour campuses and present his viewpoint. The attention came to him, he didn't look for. and I want a link on your pamphlet, too

Horowitz, ahead of time, put out an ad with his views, which are controversial, then chooses certain universities where he knows he will get this type of reaction. That is his style, he began as a trouble making liberal, and has truned into a troube making conservative. H is a showboat. gain, it is sad that so many empty-headed protestors bite.

And since sardauker, you values intellectual freedom so, I can hardly see what ypou would want with a pamphlet calling for censorship. But if you are so open-minded that you want to read this, well, unfortunitelly, the last time I saw it was3 years ago, and my close-minded self didn't keep a copy.

	28-09-2002 02:40									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint.

I posted a thread here a while back about how Stanford denied an assistant football coach here at Nebraska their head coaching position because of his conservative Christian views on homosexuality. It's not a professor being denied a job, but still a university denying a person a job because their views conflicted with the predominant views of the largely liberal campus. It cuts both ways.

	28-09-2002 02:46									#117
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Lefties only get violent when attacked. By definition, that is self-defense. What about all the anarchists who jack things up at every IMF meeting?

When less than one percent of the people in a movement do something, I think it's unfair to say "lefties do this or that" Even most anarchists don't start trouble, though there doesn seem to be a larger percentage of people within the anarchist movement with testosterone poisoning. (At a dedication of the Haymarket Martyr's Memorial about four years back they almost got their asses kicked by a bunch of Teamsters for trying to mess things up.)

	28-09-2002 02:51									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm not saying that all leftists are violent. That's totally untrue. I'm just saying that most violent protestors seem to be leftist.

The only really violent protests I can think of that are perpetrated by the right are anti-abortion ones and even these rarely go beyond heckling. The right just doesn't have anything comparable to the violence that has been occuring at WTO and IMF meetings.

	28-09-2002 02:55									#119
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Che was able to show liberals denyed employment based on their political beliefs. I have yet to see anyone show me the story of a conservative porfessor denyied a job due to their 'conservative' viewpoint.

http://www.issues-views.com/index.p...03/article/2039

quote: Horowitz, ahead of time, put out an ad with his views, which are controversial, then chooses certain universities where he knows he will get this type of reaction

We'll agree to disagree. Horowitz chose mostly large and prestigious unis to speak, which also happen to be predominantly liberal and invite mostly liberal speakers. i dont think even he expected the vehment reaction he got.

quote: And since sardauker, you values intellectual freedom so, I can hardly see what ypou would want with a pamphlet calling for censorship.

only to know that he actually wrote it.

	28-09-2002 03:04									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The media doesn't cover most aborition/anti-abortion rallies. Trust me, pro-lifers can be very vicious. But they are well trained, and don't do it in front of cameras or when a police officer is looking (though sometimes they do get caught). Friends of mine have been punched. Several friends complained of being pinched hard (I know, small complain, but it's still personal violence).

The main reason why leftist demos tend to turn violent is because cops really don't like us, and they are far more willing to crack our heads than to crack the heads of people on the right. Well, lefties also have a tendency to fight back (which isn't really a smart thing to do, but it is necessary at times).

For example, at one demo during the Gulf War, cops would walk up and down the line, pointing at people and telling them they were next, then giving them a beat down. My friend was grabbed by a police officer. She's a small woman, and when he put his hand over her mouth and nose, she couldn't breathe, at all. So she bit him. For that she got a chunk of her long, beautiful hair ripped out of her head. Yeah, she bit a cop, but you have to breathe.

If six kids trash a Starbucks, is the proper repsonse to beat and arrest hundreds and use poison gas on thousands? Is it to attack unsuspecting neighborhoods? the day after the big demos in downtown Seattle, the police attacked the Capital Hill district--alterno/gay area-- of Seattle. There was no demo going on, no protests, but a lot of protesters were staying in the neighborhood. The police just closed off the area and started beating and arresting people.