Boviosity!

Normal? This is San Francisco after all. But we enjoy that old double-edged sword called freedom, which includes the freedom to be idiots. Just like flag-burning, this kind of hateful political expression (kind of like some talk radio, or weblogs for that matter) is all protected by Amendment #1. The intent of the protestor is to get your goat. However, I would support the freedom of the police to look away while others open a can of whup-ass.

It's provacative, all right. Hey, they got tall buildings in SF, too. What's that pointy thing?

My point: Absent a loud and demonstrative rebuttal, I reserve the right to believe that the people marching alongside him share his viewpoint, and to judge their other stated positions with that belief firmly in mind. They're not just deluded, they're not just indulging in conspiracy theories driven by their irrational hatred and fear of GW Bush. They're on the other side.

I REALLY LIKE SHOUTING ALL RIGHT! I THINK SHOUTING IS WONDERFUL!

While I respect your right to believe just about anything, guilt by association is probably not the way to go. Back in the day many people were against the Vietnam War, and may have been at the same anti-war rallies. We know some would paint a broad stroke and call all the soldiers baby killers, but others would limit their protest to the higher ups that kept the war going. Here too, there is a difference between each protestor and their motivation. Simply being anti-Iraq war doesn't automatically result in Bush fear/hatred, or every other possible opposition variation for that matter. But then, you knew that already.

I AGREE WITH HIM!

Who's shouting, Joe? I guess we're past the point of discussion and on into mockery, which is a pity because I would enjoy pointing out the gross disparity between "permitting a pro-terrorist sign-carrier to go unchallenged" and "simply being anti-Iraq war." In other words, our friend Gumbie seems to be responding to something that wasn't said.

Do these people love "peace" so much that they won't even challenge a buffoon whose message is going to be used to paint them badly? Makes sense from people who believe that Iraq was at peace before the US invaded, I suppose.

The comedic (?) intro to my last message merely referred to your allowance for a "loud and demonstrative rebuttal." Lighten up.

If I'm mocking anything, it would be (a) the assumption that no one present at the rally challenged, or was at least disgusted by, the more extreme messages (b) the notion that anti-war protestors are, by definition, buffoons (or as a whole believed that Iraq was a groovy place before the US invaded).

Me personally, I keep coming back to what GWB said in a press conference a couple of months back-Iraq had to be addressed in terms of 9/11. Despite what we have thus far uncovered, the best intelligence at the time pointed to a dire threat (and a strategically undeterred one). We just can't afford to dick around and hope for the best anymore. As far as the possible AlQueda connection, why let them get together in the first place if we can prevent it? As to the soundness of such a policy, I refer to the recent revelations by Libya we won't have to worry about anymore, that we didn't even know about. But the great thing about a free society, all viewpoints are heard. I find myself thinking about the missing world trade center protest sign in the context of art as well-remember piss art? It is all protected speech. Anyway, this has been a robust and thoughtful discussion. -ff

Speaking of piss art, I happened to watch the Anna Nicole show recently (not my usual thing) and in one part some guy came to visit that really wanted to take pictures of her. Probably more now that she is post-tonnage. Anyway, the photographer was none other than Andres Serrano, the piss art guy.