Sort of like in this rambling paragraph.

Greg wrote a somewhat rambling essay expressing dismay and outrage about the state’s illegitimate use of instruments like the “Patriot” Act, and its assault on our Civil Rights.

You, although you later claimed to agree with Greg, wrote a rambling reply touching on a number of topics, which several took to mean you disagreed, and which in toto seem to be a collection of red-herrings, chosen carefully and specifically to entice Greg.

Of course, I cannot speak for your motives. And this is only one out of probably millions of blogs… especially leftish and consequently more lively blogs… where this happens : When I read from the beginning and keep reading until the end, the Topic gets swallowed up in the marshmellow.

It’s a good way to keep ignorant peasants in line.
It’s a poor way to argue a point.

Also, it reveals more about the disorders in the accuser’s mind
than about the associates of the victim.

1.

But you have to give them credit for this one, with the Weber. Unless you’re not in on the Weber culture thing, then. (People in South Minneapoilis routinely use Molotov Cocktails to light the Weber.)

Huh! Whaat? Cos glass chards in your roasted meat is considered a particular delicacy in South Minneapolis? Sorry, clearly I don’t get. Unless you mean Vodka+Rum, in which case … I still don’t get it.

2. LOL @ Vanellicized.

3. As to counterexamples to “Mass! Protest! Always! Works!”, China and Burma come to mind. I am somewhat ambivalent about Tibet. The current Chinese regime, while clearly responsible for cultural, and political repression, appears to be an improvement over the feudal theocracy it replaced. Those desiring a restoration of said theocracy (relabeled as democracy, but are you really going to vote the “living Buddha” out just cos he’s repressive/incompetent?) have participated in peaceful protests which have been brutally repressed. But I doubt the “mass” aspect of these protests. I suspect there’s a significant anti-clerical faction that won’t truck with these guys.

4. Your disagreement with Pierce R. Butler on Ted Kennedy: Pierce has at least articulated the basis for his particular conclusion. You clearly think he is wrong, and have chided him for his conclusion on the basis that he’s misinterpreted the situation based on limited understanding. But you’ve refrained from justifying your contrary conclusion so far. This makes reading your posts on this sub-thread a waste of time for those of us who are even less familiar with the particulars.

@Pierce:

Have I lost my senses to suspect that an individual who apparently dumped his principles, and his nominal allies, to gain a position of greater personal power should not be counted on in other fights?

Not to comment on Kennedy in particular, but I suspect a certain skill in backstabbing is a necessary qualification for even a chance at electoral office. There are no absolutely trustworthy allies. We have to calculate anew the backstabbing pdf* for each ally on every occasion.

* Probability Density Function.

Note also my comments on random imposition of disproportionate punishment. This is obviously known to protesters too. Outcomes are far from known upfront and large subsets of them are playing the odds. Initially they are testing the authorities’ punitive appetite and abilities. When these turn out to be large, their subsequently participation is based on the hope that theirs won’t be the skull cracked open today. An inability to swallow the restrictions that staying away would require accepting is what stops them from staying home. But if every single person expected to experience brutal violence, long term incarceration or death, very few would actually show up (for a non-violent protest at least).

Which leads to the part of my response that you’ve left unaddressed, regarding both the rnc8, and HLG. Even if the provocation was deliberate, albeit consisting of perfectly legal acts, miscalculating the precise extent of the authorities’ overreaction does not in any way make you “deserve” the full extent of said overreaction. In fact, your usage of both “deserve” and “indignant” engenders a response of “I do not think it means what you think it means”. Other than that, I suspect we are largely in agreement.

…how “Amerikkka” is a police state, full of injustice perpetrated by the “authorities”. Were they lying in their teeth?

I’d say it was more akin to a millionaire complaining about the ravages of poverty on discovering that s/he’s worth only half as much.

… ideally, the police should be like robots, …

I think the word you’re looking for is “professionals”.