Thank you for that. I did ask whether Glenn was himself protesting in either city, and I alluded to his post from Denver -- so yes, I was aware that he reported from Denver. I missed the police involvement angle in the Denver post, howver. He didn't mention protesters in that post so it didn't occur to me that he was connecting his experiences with the police in Denver to the protesters' experience with authorities in St. Paul.

I do still believe Glenn would do well to speak to his opinion of some of the content of the protesters' grievances, and of the doings in the Republican convention itself, if only to comment on their overall message. The events he and others report in the streets and in homes across the Twin Cities this week are absolutely incredible. But Glenn has repeatedly stated that it is imperative for our country that Barack Obama be elected president, and I believe that not entirely without connection to what he believes is necessary to begin to remedy some of the lawlessness that in part leads to what he is reporting this week. Unfortunately he has rarely chosen to eloborate on the reasoning behind those statements, so i can't be sure. My personal suspicion is that he harbors so much ill will toward Obama because of FISA that he does not want to advertise his enduring belief that Obama remains the vastly better choice on liberties issues. But we can't be sure until we hear from him.

As grim and consequential as the events in the streets in Minnesota this week are, I don't believe he would submit that focusing on them to the exclusion of a concentrated political effort toward a positive outcome in the election will lead to a redress of the very problems that are at the root of the events themselves. But I'd like to hear more from him on that. That was the point of my initial post here.

Ignorant armies

Ah, L.W.M., guess what? I was peeping at the videos -- more from a prurient nostalgia than any high political purpose, I admit, but I was also hoping to catch a glimpse of what the dialectic has been up to lately -- when I just happened to stumble across you, sword in hand, with your teeth bared, and your back to the dismal swamp. (Shouting William Timberman! and Paul Rosenberg! while you lay about you is bound to attract attention, you know. :-)

Anyway, I wouldn't mind addressing the extent to which I agree or disagree with you on this issue, but as you know, I'm no longer here. If you'll contact me at my last name followed by the appropriate symbol, then cableone with a dot and a net, I'd be happy to fill you in, if not right away.

(AZ's primary is today, and I'm scheduled either to dance with a lampshade on my head at my Congressional candidate's headquarters tonight, or cling, weeping in sympathy and disillusion to my fellow button wearers, depending on the outcome. After that, though, I'd be happy to fill you in if you'd like, and if you have some drop box somewhere on the Intertubes where I could send what thoughts I have.)

-- William Timberman

I think I will drop you a line but I can almost guess where we will agree and disagree. What with my having worked both sides of the street, so to speak. I am, after all, a "statist lackey!" now. Eveverybody stick it to me! I'm da man!

And now I have to agree with Dumbo, marginally.

Viewed simply as a set of goal oriented behaviors and actions, there is no difference between a kidnapping or hostage taking and an arrest, except the obvious ones that make one a crime and the other a lawful act. Think about habeas corpus in the light and you'll see my point. I'm with Chomsky on this. I welcome the day we can all live in a world without dominance hierarchies, nation states, militaries and police forces. People, you just ain't there yet.

And who decides what "interference" and/or "obstruction" are? You see the problem numb-nuts?

Yes, I do see the whole picture much better than you, perhaps even better than Glenn or anyone else who hasn't studied and worked in the field. Since Glenn is concerned with this, as many people are, I hope he devotes some time to researching these issues. It is not just a constitutional question anymore. There were no such thing as "police" when the Framers wrote the Constitution and bill of rights. All this has developed in the post-framing era.

It is all well and good for you people to keep busy tilting at windmills, I suppose. Considering the sum total of you collective wisdom and impact, you haven't been much help getting more and better Democrats elected. In fact, you have done your best to screw that up. Haven't had much success there, either.

The events [Glenn] and others report in the streets and in homes across the Twin Cities this week are absolutely incredible. But Glenn has repeatedly stated that it is imperative for our country that Barack Obama be elected president, and I believe that not entirely without connection to what he believes is necessary to begin to remedy some of the lawlessness that in part leads to what he is reporting this week.

Why in god's name would you believe that? Glenn is no Obamamaniac. (He is more concerned that McCain not be elected.) The reality of what has been happening in the Twin Cities is an independent issue and atrocity no matter who the GOP nominee was, or even if Glenn wished to fellate Obama.

Reporting From 'The Front Lines'

by Molly Priesmeyer: The Minnesota Independent

"Embedded" with the anarchists?

Why does this fail to inspire me with the prospect of unbiased reporting?

Some light reading material

http://www.law.utk.edu/FACULTY/4thamend.pdf

If you find anything interesting you can pass it on to Glenn.