7 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

1. It makes sense does it not? Those that support the breaking of the law by others do not mind the breaking of the law themselves.

   What more could we have expected from people who have such a flagrant disrespect to this nation and its laws?

   Comment by Rick — 10/31/2008 @ 12:03 pm

2. “We were just trying to get our message out. Our message is civil disobedience.”

   *headdesk*

   Comment by Francesca — 10/31/2008 @ 3:52 pm

3. I will classify this post as “petty outrage.” Or maybe, “outrageous pettiness.” I can’t decide.

   Comment by yaman — 11/2/2008 @ 11:07 am

4. …because the logical conclusion is that if people are unwilling to respect laws about paying fares on buses, it means that they are destined to be criminals who will murder your children and steal your jobs by withholding their taxes… just like all those Cal Republicans who illegally drink before they are 21.

   Comment by yaman — 11/2/2008 @ 11:08 am

5. Is that really the logical conclusion? I know you’ve read my blog, so surely you’ve seen posts like these questioning the seriousness of these protesters. Describing their behavior as “civil disobedience” demands that we judge them for that behavior and the message it sends. So what is that message? Illegal immigrants shouldn’t have to pay fares? That certainly doesn’t square with the “illegal immigrants contribute just as much as citizens” talking point. No one should have to pay fares? A possibility, I suppose, though I’m not sure what it has to do with illegal immigration. People who obey the rules are selfish? Breaking the law is fun? What message were we supposed to get?

   Comment by Justin! — 11/2/2008 @ 4:42 pm

6. You both assumed with no basis whatsoever that the people participating in this protest were “illegal immigrants.” Skipping the fare probably wasn’t intended to deliver any message, except avoiding the fare. The fact that this is the act that ended up getting media attention is only a result of carelessness on the organizers’ part.

   Comment by yaman — 11/3/2008 @ 7:32 pm

7. I certainly didn’t make that assumption, and I don’t think Andy did, either. When engaging in political theatre, the fact that you aren’t a member of the group on whose behalf you’re engaging in it for doesn’t mean that’s not your message. (”I’m Sparticus!”)

   The fact that there were coordinated efforts to avoid the fare says a great deal. Protest isn’t tuned towards accomplishing a goal in a direct sense. The protest itself is the goal, and fare-skipping was apparently part of that protest.

   You don’t claim “civil disobedience” if you don’t have a message, unless you’re dramatically ignorant, which was sort of the point I was making about their seriousness.

   Comment by Justin! — 11/3/2008 @ 7:43 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.