Anarchists or agents provocateurs?

[rc-am]

doesn't a state of emergency make us all anarchists?  if it becomes illegal
to possess a gas mask, for instance, isn't it nuts to argue that people
should confine themselves to legality?  does the principle of self-defense
(even max's principle of commensurate justice) vanish in order to placate a
media that will in fact never be placated?

and in any event, those who counsel good behaviour would not now be in a
position of having the presidential welcome mat out for them if it were not
for the spectre (and indeed presence) of a more implacable movement.   i
can understand the temptation to denounce sections of the movement in order
to get an invitation to the table, to say 'we're not like those hooligans,
talk to us', but such a tactic is still beholden to the militancy of
others.  just for once, isn't it possible to leave the rhetoric of making
distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' protestors to clinton et al?

the agent provocateurs were in uniform firing rubber bullets and tear gas,
and sometimes in camouflage beating up on people they'd designated as
targets.  is this violence? is graffiti and burning rubbish in dumpsters
violence? let's not lose any sense of proportion and perspective, folks.

Angela
_________