There's No Riot Going On!

Watch, as soon as I say this one will break out.

Still so far the protests haven't created any major problems. How do I know this? Articles by Gary Aldrich and Emmett Tyrrell, both of whom would love to trumpet liberal wrong doing and law breaking, don't mention them.

Both of their columns are on New York and the police state that exists there currently. Emmett Tyrrell contrasts the protests of today with the protests of yesteryear (1968 to be exact). He suggests that today's protesters are a more diverse crowd, which I guess is a good thing. He does offer this interesting line. "Violence was greatly feared at this convention owing to the huge number of Democrats who account for 80 percent of the registered voters in the city." Well, I can see why you'd want to focus on that as the potential cause of violence, but I do think there are some other factors that play into it. And even if you buy that reasoning, doesn't it still beg the question of why hold the Convention in New York City?

Both Tyrrell and Aldrich share a concern that the Police may be getting out of hand. Tyrrell comments on friendly (or "conservative") reporters getting rounded up along with protesters. Aldrich wonders why so many cops are visible and carrying automatic weapons.

Apparently authorities think this show of power sends a strong message to possible troublemakers. But I have to wonder -- protesters I've seen are rude but unarmed. Rock and bottle throwers normally don't bring along guns. If there was an isolated incident involving a firearm, the normal number of police officers could surely handle it as they usually do. If they have evidence of the possibility of guns, then they should move swiftly to arrest such persons preemptively.

Moreover, real terrorists either blow themselves up with bombs or attack with timing devices. Do authorities actually believe they will be engaged in shootouts with armed terrorists? If so, it will be the first time in American history. We should remember that at other times when officers have used their guns against crowds, they have been found to be guilty of terrible excesses. In turn, incidents like Kent State created historical moments of martyrdom, which those in authority have never overcome.

Of course the answer is to profile. Anybody who looks like a "violent" protester or a Muslim should be hassled by the police. All the conventioneers should be left alone. I'm not sure exactly how you tell a violent protester from a non-violent protester (except of course, if the protester is committing an act of violence). I'm sure that there are going to be many reports from the protesters indicating that they are getting more than their fair share of police attention.

But of course the big story, from my point of view, is that this isn't 1968.