Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


May Day; May Day!

May 2, 2012 @ 8:43 am (Updated: 8:44 am - 5/2/12 )

spaceneedle
Some cities saw otherwise peaceful May Day demonstrations disrupted by anarchists using a tactic called the Black Bloc. (AP/Seattlepi.com, Joshua Trujillo)

Some cities saw otherwise peaceful May Day demonstrations disrupted by anarchists using a tactic called the Black Bloc. These are actually white males who dress in black, and carry metal poles which they use to smash windows of what they consider corrupt businesses.

And of course we all condemn this, but it turns out, the anarchists themselves are debating the Black Bloc. Yesterday some of them even chanted "This is not helping."

So I started searching anarchist websites:

And I found a debate among Canadian anarchists:

"If we're going to talk about violence, we need to be talking about corporate sponsors. We need to be talking about the police," said activist named Harsha Walia, who's been quoted on anarchist sites for her passionate defense of window smashing, even though she knows it tends to backfire.

"In terms of the fact that the Black Bloc reinforces and legitimizes the police state, the resistance will legitimize the police state, and if that argument is going to be used then we may as well never be on the streets," said Walia.

Plus, she says, the Black Bloc actually IS peaceful:

"As far as we know not a single individual and not a single animal has been harmed in Black Bloc tactics, what has been harmed is lifeless windows," said Walia.

Personally, I believe that anarchists were put on this earth to remind us what de-regulated young males are fundamentally like.

And I think anarchists would be much more impressive if they roamed the streets creating jobs.

Although I suppose, if you're in the glass replacement business that's exactly what they did. For a day anyway.

More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (111)


  • Add A Comment

  • artimus wrote...
    I'd sure like to see anyone proven to be amongst the window breakers
    May 2, 2012 10:01 am
    ...and rock throwers in yesterday's disgusting display punished to the fullest extent. After a lengthy jail term in a real penitentiary I'd be all in favor of about 5 years on a road crew picking up trash along the side of the freeway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Artimus, i think the punishment should fit the crime...
    May 2, 2012 10:16 am
    I think the people that smashed those windows... should be forced to pay to replace the windows... and The people that work in those buildings and the people who's car windows were broken should be allowed to break every piece of glass these people own :)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    white males?
    May 2, 2012 10:03 am
    I saw some brown males and a couple of females too. How is that even relevant?

    Per the rest of this conversation - until people stop wanting to pay WalMart prices for items here, we'll never see those jobs return to the US. As Steve Jobs said to President Obama - "They are not coming back." Heck, I'd say half those window smashers are carrying an iProduct that children in Asia are selling their body parts for.

    Anarchy is powered by some half baked child's dream that neglects to take into account basic human nature. It falls apart once made reality.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleJack wrote...
    They're nothing but black-hearted vandals
    May 2, 2012 10:41 am
    using social activism as a bogus cover. If they cared one bit about improving anyone's life, they wouldn't vandalize because they'd know it would overshadow legitimate issues that inspire legitimate May Day protests -- which is, of course, exactly what happened.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    SeattleJack
    May 2, 2012 10:53 am
    I'm not sure what The May Day protests are about but in general i disagree with protests and marches... i think they're largely innefective and allow people like these anarchists the ability to hide in a crowd and cause damage.. There's a political process in this country that allows people to change things... if there's a true issue that needs to be addressed... why are may day protestors or any protestors for that matter not trying to get someone elected to office that will help their cause instead of messing up downtown traffic?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    I gotta' agree where you're coming from, delvin
    May 2, 2012 11:15 am
    The vast majority of Wall Street bankers add absolutely zero value to our economy. Sure, they move money around. But they produce nothing. They're like ever-hungry ticks that suck the life out of the economy, little-by-little, as they spread economic diseases like the derivatives markets and hedge funds that do not have anywhere near the capital to back the investments.

    And they've got BOTH political parties in their back pockets...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    @Cbrew: "The Republican party is responsible for taking more rights from the people than anybody else. "
    May 2, 2012 11:21 am
    Where have you been the last few months? Ever heard of the NDAA, passed by both chambers of Congress, and signed by BO on 12/31/11?

    Oh, that's right. It wasn't blasted all over the mainstream media like the Patriot Act was. No liberal bias or favoritism for Mr. "Hope and Change" there...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    The National Defense Authorization Act? You mean the same act passed every single year?
    May 2, 2012 11:33 am
    The National Defense Authorizes Act allocates funds to the Defense department, what exactly are you referring to? What are you getting at?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @Cbrew - National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
    May 2, 2012 3:52 pm
    Obama has done more harm than Bush in taking away our liberties.

    from this source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/

    Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.

    From this source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

    On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    But then again...
    May 2, 2012 11:25 am
    ...BO did sign the NDAA with another of his "signing statements"...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Seattle Native - What are you talking about?
    May 2, 2012 11:35 am
    The NDAA is voted on every year how is that some hidden Act that nobody hears about when it's debated yearly? What the heck do you have against allocating funds to the defense department lol... i seriously don't get what you're driving at.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Who drafted the core of the Patriot Act?
    May 2, 2012 11:34 am
    Before Cbrew does any more finger pointing at republicans for taking away civil liberties:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    SeattleNative - Failed
    May 2, 2012 11:46 am
    What a failed attempt to push off responsibilities. Just like your party loves to act like they had nothing to do with the economic collapse, you aren't responsible for the Patriot Act despite the fact that the republican President of the United States Authored this act pushed it through Congress and signed it. What a bunch of liars.. revisionist history is taught to republicans eh?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    party?
    May 2, 2012 11:49 am
    I might be wrong but I think most of the people arguing with you here are either libertarian or independent conservatives.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Kata - I believe you're wrong
    May 2, 2012 11:52 am
    It might just be my perception but considering they keep trying to push the Patriot act off on to the Dems... and have defended the Repubs for it all over this blog, i would guess republicans or tea baggers
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    I guess we'll find out.
    May 2, 2012 12:00 pm
    While you occasionally make reasonable arguments you still come off as a jilted gi(R)lfriend. Having never commited to either party I find it easier to take it a bit more in stride whilst it seems it takes very little to set you off.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    kata - Fair enough
    May 2, 2012 12:08 pm
    I just don't think either party deserves my full support. I'm dissapointed with both of the major parties, particularly for the Republican party and i'm very angry that their followers have gone so far right that they're out of touch and demonizing the other side. I know that it happens with the extreme left too but i don't feel the extreme left is running the Dems right now. Extremes are always bad in my opinion. As far as things that set me off, I'm generally even keeled but i do get angry quickly when people try to get personal and attack things i hold dear, like the Military and my service. This guy above here he said i was sucking off the Government's teet by being in the Army. Yeh, because Risking your life for the country you love is taking advantage of it right? Yeh earning 40-50k a year to put your life on the line is sucking off the country's teet... That's an unbelievably ungreatful statement towards the military and our veterans. I'm being honest when i say if the man was in a room with me and said that i'd probably punch him in the face. That's just out of bounds. Anyways, i appreciate that there is a sensible blogger in here Kata, and i know it's not all conservatives that hold the views expressed in here, i try not to put these views on every conservative because i know it's not how everyone thinks, but these guys in particular... i believe they're what's wrong with America today.... They should be willing to look at the whole picture.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    your broad brush is in full force today
    May 2, 2012 12:21 pm
    What's your problem with people who live on farmland in small towns, exactly? Hmm?

    And truly for pity's sake please use < p > (no spaces) paragraph markers it's killer on these old eyes.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Kata - My apologies, i am not trying to paint in a broad brush
    May 2, 2012 1:15 pm
    I understand there's a big difference between right wing nut jobs, like Rainier and other conservatives, but hard to debate with a guy that lies and makes up fake history to argue with you. Any way, i got nothing against Small towns. I'm from one, live in one, love it. Hate big cities.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    I'm shocked!
    May 2, 2012 11:47 am
    First of all that Biden, who is a joke actualy did some work! Cbrew has been infected by the kool aide! Sad, because I love our military. They are the best thing about government that actually works and they are the best! And it's not because of Obamamama, who loathes the military! Nice campaign trip to Afganistan for the day, two hours later the area gets bombed. That worked out well and 7 people killed!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    mobeta - You love the military but support the comments that Rainier said above?
    May 2, 2012 11:55 am
    The guy literally called me a drain on the Government because i was a soldier, he's a !@#$ing disgrace. ..... I'm sorry dude but i don't care what party you are, if you don't support the Military, the people that are put in harms way for this country i will automatically think you're a d-bag regardless of party. I don't think Obama is Anti-Military either. The facts are the Pentagon's budget has increased every year Obama has been in office, don't believe me, look it up. As for the site the president was at in Afghanistan getting bombed... ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? YOU'RE NOW BLAMING HIM FOR GETTING A MILITARY BASE BOMBED!? ..... come on dude... really? seriously? you can't be that naive.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    Obamamama is guttin the military DUDE!
    May 2, 2012 12:13 pm
    What the heck are you talking about? He has cut the military BIG TIME and just cut 600 million out of the budget you moron. Where is the *^&$( have you been? Just shows you don't pay attention. There was no reason to go there, none at all. It was a total photo op for a couple of hours like he's the big man who killed Bin Laden, shameful! It just so happen to be bombed just after he left, no coincidence? I'm sure they were going to bomb there anyway right where he was! He should be impeached for being an imposter and fraud about himself to the American people. Other than that, he's a joke! A little boy trying to to pretent he knows what he's doing or does he really know what he is doing? Like trying to bring down America. He is doing a good job doing that!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    mobeta - The reports i've read say that Defense Spending has increased every year since Obama took office
    May 2, 2012 12:35 pm
    I've researched it online and seen it on the news, Defense spending has increased every year since Obama took office, according to reports the "cuts" repubs keep referencing are actually just the rate of the increase in spending that has been slowing... Believe me i want a strong National Defense, i Don't see the Military losing a lot of funding, and don't forget, Bush put in motion the base consolidation projects to help reign in defense spending. It's not a bad thing to reduce spending as long as you don't reduce our capabilities... looking at the defense budget, it does not look like we're in any danger of that happening... the budget SHOULD go down considering we've pulled out of Iraq.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    You are so wrong!
    May 2, 2012 1:22 pm
    Dude, start reading about the budget! Oh that's right there isn't one for the past 3 1/2 years! You don't see it but you can read it you dump smack. Come on! Get educated on this stuff. I'm tired of your nonsencical discussions. Get the facts! I'm out. Waste of my time with you!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    mobeta
    May 2, 2012 3:18 pm
    Come on. Show us the numbers and you don't get to include the price of the two wars when showing "cuts".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Cbrew, read the provisions in the NDAA that BO's administration INSISTED to be put in the Act
    May 2, 2012 11:38 am
    Particularly Sections 1021 & 1022.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    SeattleNative - Still don't see it guy
    May 2, 2012 11:49 am
    You have a problem with detaining Terrorist suspects? I'm confused, aren't Conservatives for the war on the Terror? Why would you be opposed to detaining suspected Terrorists?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    here's the truth for the first page of posts
    May 2, 2012 3:35 pm
    The big money mostly supports democrats. They might like conservative ideas, but they know they can buy democrat politicians and get favorable treatment. So the paradox is people who are striving vote conservative because we want government out of the way, and the beggars, bums, government employees and those who have made gazillions already vote more government, ie democrat.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @Cbrew
    May 2, 2012 4:01 pm
    @Cbrew - National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 May 2, 2012 4:52 pm Obama has done more harm than Bush in taking away our liberties. from this source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/

    Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.

    From this source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

    On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.

    This is worse than the Patriot Act in many ways as you can be locked up forever with no trial and no proof all the the gov has to do is feel you might be a terrorist. With the Patriot Act they could only monitor conversations of suspected terrorists without no proof or warrant, but under National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 they can lock you up for life. So stop supporting Obama as he is worse the GWB concerning our civil liberties.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    Nice Rick
    May 2, 2012 5:42 pm
    I like facts and you provided. It's a very spirited debate that got out of hand. Many have not had enough life experences to know what's going on. I have found that with maturity you become more conservative when you have been burnt enough by government and the fleecing of the U.S. and it's citizens. Hope to see you on more blohgs. Dave Ross is a whack pacifist that is infected by the lib desease that infects America weak minded sheep over the cliff mentality that needs to be dealt with by pure confrontation. Enough of us sitting back being PC. Come at them with both barrels (gee, I might get in trouble sauing that) and put our foot on their throat and choke them out. Oh, I might get in trouble for that too. Too bad! This is friken war!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @mobeta
    May 2, 2012 5:59 pm
    I am very liberal with social items i.e. I feel government needs to stay out of our private lives but also offer support for people that need it. I am a fiscal conservative when it comes to excessive government waste and spending. I opposed the Bush and Obama bailouts. I oppose the Patriot Act and of course, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. IMO both parties are only for the elitists while both pretend to support the people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Rick (4) & Cbrew....really?
    May 2, 2012 6:11 pm
    You're debating which president was worse, Bush or Obama? they're both terrible...Obama is worse, but that's like saying you'd rather be tortured to death or just stabbed to death.

    Both went a long way to undermine our freedom and the nation. Bush isn't president and is no longer threatening to the nation...the reelection of Obama does hang over our heads. As much as I don't care for Romney, we must get rid of Obama if we value liberty and the nation.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick (4) wrote...
    @rational
    May 2, 2012 7:13 pm
    You are correct that both GWB and Obama are terrible Presidents, and I as well as don't really like Romney. Honestly, I have not decided to vote for in 2012, but I am currently leaning towards Romney. As usual, I will vote for who I feel is the lesser of the two evils. As long as the two political parties exist we will never get a person that supports the people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Rick (4)
    May 2, 2012 9:28 pm
    Up to a point I was undecided regarding my vote as well. I couldn't bring myself to vote for a racist and congenitial liar like Obama, but I had promised myself that if the republicans picked another establishment candidate I wouldn't vote at all. So I had started this cycle expecting to not vote...but my mind was changed after watching Debbie Wasserman Schultz on TV a few months ago. She spewed the most amazing series of lies and defamation that I decided I'd vote for "ABO"...anybody but Obama just to remove power from the lying democrats. That is a reaction to the lies of the democrats and is in no way a real endorsement of the republicans...but at some point one group proves they are so evil they must be denied power as much as my one puny vote in WA state will afford.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mobeta wrote...
    Romney
    May 3, 2012 9:05 am
    Let's see, a guy that was successful in the private sector and made the American dream and didn't inherit any of it, turned around many businesses that created tons of jobs, turned around the Olympics that became a great success,has executive experence (Obama had none)and ran a state, married for 35+ years to the same woman, has 5 great productive sons, has lived a great moral life plus we know where he came from. Let's see Obamamama, not sure where he came from, no private sector experence, never had a private sector job in his life, had all of his schoooling paid for through grants as a foreign student (hmmm?) and became a community organizer (occupy wall street that he supports) with Acorn, was a sentor for a year and never brought one bill to the table, voted present for all votes, never produced one job in his life, never had to do a budget and still never haas in 3 1/2 years being in office and has divided the American people more than any other time in my lifetime (yes, I was here during Jimmy peanut Carter) that it will create more division than ever before! Yea, the comparisions are close arn't they? Gezzzzzzz!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }