|
« HEY KIDS! | Main | INDC Preview » April 24, 2004
INDC Rally: Into the Gates of Mordor and John Kerry's Pro-Choice Party
Posted by Bill
How brave is your faithful scribe? How daring, dashing, breathtakingly courageous? Brave enough to enter Mount Doom itself in order to score tickets to yesterday's pro-choice rally for Kerry? You betcher ass! I walked into the downstairs lobby and could immediately feel the hair on the back of my neck start to stand at attention. What am I doing? Is cracking on John Kerry really worth risking everything?! Baby jeebus, I don wanna diiie! I slapped myself. Hard. Then I took a deep breath and forced my shaking hand to press the button for the dreaded seventh floor.
It is from this conference room that John Kerry plots the destruction of the American way of life. When I walked in, I immediately distracted the man-secretary by asking politely for the tickets, all the while surreptitously snapping a precious few reconaissance photos. The quality was low because I had to move quickly; the Kerry-ites fast became suspicious as my Republican flesh began to smoke and sizzle from its close proximity to the source of all that is liberal and French-looking.
After grabbing the tickets, taking some pics and weathering some looks of mild suspicion, I beat a hasty retreat. But was I really safe, or was I merely leaping out of the frying pan and into the fire?
WE INTERRUPT THIS POST FOR A DISCLAIMER: I loosely consider myself a Republican, but I am also pro-choice. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad in the comments section after this post, please try not to confuse criticism of the messengers with that of the message. I refuse to do a long treatise on the subject during this post. Thank you.
Security, security, security.
I found the security tent a bit lacking. I'll skip the details for national security purposes, but I'm pretty sure that I could have snuck in with a beltload of Semtex and a cellphone detonator ...
Along the back street behind the rally, the Secret Service parked a fleet of greyhounds to block snipers. The logistics involved with repeatedly setting up events like this boggles the mind.
I staked out a nice spot almost immediately in front of the podium, second-row.
The pro-choice groups were handing out shirts at the event, and rally participants felt the need to immediately change into them, showing disturbing quantities of flesh, including some brief shots of woman and man-boobage. I felt like I was at Burning Man or the Love Parade, except there was no MDMA, and all the naked people were really old and unattractive. The worst of it was blessedly not caught on film. Blllllleeeeeaaagghhhhhhhh!
This lady was a load of laughs. She had to go to the bathroom about thirty minutes after staking out her prime groupie spot for the rally, and proceeded to shout at every worker that walked by "Where bathroom! WHERE BATH-ROOM!" Otherwise, the following snippets were overheard while mixing in the crowd: * Rallyguy: "I'm actually from Midland, and I met Bush. He's a real personable guy, real nice. He's just an idiot." Rallygal: "Well, he went to Yale." Rallyguy: "It ain't hard to get all C's." * (Chants) "Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! (chant stops, pauses) God I wish McCain would have run ..." But McCain's pro ... oh nevermind. * "I bet all the Democratic Secret Service people love him to death ..." * Rallygal2: "Did you see those Pro-Life trucks around the block? Those pictures are really gross ... Rallygal3: Yeah, that's what they WANT you to think ..." * "Whatta we want? CHOICE! When do we want it? NOW!" (Rinse, lather, repeat)
This illustrates why I feel pity for politicians - because at every moment, every event, there's some asshat like me constantly snapping photos in an attempt to catch them doing something dumb. This is the third time that I've been in close proximity to the senator, and he is well-represented by the impression that you get on tv: somewhat awkward, but also imbued with quite a bit of natural confidence. That being said, some of his "uh-huh" faces were rather amusing. I've never seen Dubya, but I'm sure that watching him has its own special entertainment value. Video of the rally can be found here.
Representatives of NARAL and ...? (I could not load the video from Kerry's site, and no information about the speakers was gleaned from johnkerry.com or the NARAL web site) Both of their speeches were hyperbolic and included the assertions that choice was the most important issue in the campaign, and the most fundamental issue that determines the state of women's civil rights - worldwide! Um ... stoning of women in the name of Islam? Acid attacks on women? Female circumcision? Making the assertion that abortion is a key issue for women in the US is highly arguable; projecting your self-centered focus on abortion to the rest of the world is foolish. We all have our predilections and pet causes, but I was struck by the cliched realization that many folks' entire political belief structure is based around total party allegiance that stems from only one or two issues. It's understandable, and I don't expect that a pro-choice activist would be very pleased with Bush, but the relative importance of very mild erosions in access to abortions seems to pale in comparison to the threat of the inevitable nexus of WMD and terror. These folks agree about the fact that we are at war; they're just a bit confused about who constitutes the main enemy to their way of life; especially concerning the rights of women. If you bought what they were selling, you'd think that George Bush was on the cusp of introducing legislation that would institute mandatory burkha-wear in public schools.
He wasn't the worst that I've ever heard him, but it was definitely a bit stale. Notice the looks of carefully projected interest and satisfaction on the faces of his wingwomen. Now watch as their expressions change ever-so-slightly ...
... when shouting erupts from the right of the crowd in front of the stage. Good Catholics don't kill children! Good Catholics don't kill children!
To his credit, Kerry only paused for a second, imperceptibly shook his head and pressed on. From my vantage point I could only see that members of the crowd were forming a wall with their placards to block the voices and line-of-site of the party-crashers. Drawn by the conflict, I immediately ferreted over to their position.
This is a confusing image, but focus on the red circle placard in the center; behind it is the face of one of the protestors. The woman in the pink shirt to the left is the other one. What were most likely NARAL representatives linked arms and formed a human chain around the two people, dragging them towards the exit.
You can make out the guy's face with the placard over his mouth.
This is a good shot. The protestors are the man in the blue and the woman in the pink.
I was following the surge along, trying to snap pictures on a failing battery, when I felt a push and saw a hand in my face. One of the women in the foreground of one of the previous shots began blocking me and shouting: "You can't take pictures of that!" I'm not sure what angered me more - their attempt to block the photos or the fact that she put her hands on me. Me: (with quite a bit of aggression) Get your *expletive* hands off of me right now, and yes, I can take pictures! Her: Are you with THEM?! Me (Pushing past her and continuing to snap away): No, I'm not with them! Her (Continuing to follow me): You can't take pictures of me, I've gotten death threats, been on death lists!" Me: I don't want to take pictures of you ...
It's of course understandable that these people had to be removed, but I'd be curious to know the legality involved with the crowd forcibly removing them. I was surprised that they weren't asked to leave by professional security personnel. An amusing footnote - I spied one of the secret service dudes on the perimeter chuckling about the hub-bub.
Pro-Life protestors were circling the block with blaring loudspeakers and graphically-adorned trucks. I disagree with these people; I think that the reality of life renders abortion as a much less black-and-white issue. That being said, if one has strong religious convictions that define the beginning of valid life as taking place at conception, I can understand the vehemence of their argument. I disagree, and personally find the rhetoric of these folks scary; but I understand. Somewhat. This issue will merit a more specific consideration in a forthcoming INDC post.
I'd had enough and my adrenaline was surging. I'd been slightly annoyed by the hyperbolic rhetoric, put to sleep by Kerry's cadence, amused by the musings of the crowd and filled with white-hot anger at being pushed and blocked by the NARAL woman. Definitely time to go home. I kept an eye on the news coverage last night, and I don't think that any major outlets made mention of the disruption. You get the inside scoop here at INDC.
Update: A fellow weblogger has more details on protestors forcibly removed from the event that you may want to read. Posted by Bill at April 24, 2004 10:00 AM | TrackBack (1) CommentsBill, you rock. Come up to Boston for the DNC convention, won't you? Moonbats aplenty in the land of the bean and the cod. Posted by: Dr. Kate at April 24, 2004 11:41 AM I love it when you cover these events, Bill. I'm not sure I've got the self control to do it myself without ending up in DCMPD's Hospitality Hut. Posted by: Boyd at April 24, 2004 12:46 PM Thanks Boyd, Kate ...I've gotten a couple negative pieces of feeback over at Dean's world ... such is the risk of mixing humor with religion/abortion issues. Shrug. Posted by: Bill from INDC at April 24, 2004 02:34 PM Awesome coverage...definitely, one of your best posts. Posted by: Tanya at April 24, 2004 05:53 PM * (Chants) "Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! (chant stops, pauses) God I wish McCain would have run ..." That's probably the funnies thing I've read all day. I'm pro-life, for scientific reasons, by the way. :o) Can't wait to see the rest of your photos. Posted by: Jewels at April 26, 2004 05:17 PM Well, when do you think life begins? It isn't just religious, it's also scientific. Posted by: che at April 28, 2004 01:09 AM I think that life begins the second an egg is fertilized, maybe even before ... I just haven't come to the conclusion that it has as much value as a fully formed human. Science is leading us farther in a direction that supports the pro-life argument, I'll give you that ... Posted by: Bill from INDC at April 28, 2004 01:33 AM I don't see the issue here......women DO have a choice from the pro-life's viewpoint!! 1) Don't have sex As an adopted child, I'm glad my natural mother DIDN'T have a choice!! Posted by: Allen at April 29, 2004 02:03 PM I got a rather good laugh from most of your site, but I thought you might be interested to know that there are some of us who oppose abortion not on religious grounds but rather on legal grounds. The court decision to allow abortion was inherently flawed, as it never once discussed the primary legal issue, is the fetus a person? If the fetus can be classified as a person one cannot have legalized abortion, as it would be specifically forbidden by a Constitutional Amendment, one that does not allow any person to be deprived of life without due process of law. The word person has two different common definitions. One is defined as a person if one is human and/or an individual. While there are those who might argue that the "legal" definition of the word person may vary, you will note it only does so in a vain attempt to justify abortion and still maintain laws that protect other people from assault and murder. Without abortion no such convoluted "legal" definition of the word would be necessary. I also point out that Thomas Jefferson himself stated that the wording of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written in the common vernacular and should be interpreted that way, as complex legal definitions were an antithema to the intent of the document itself. Scientific evidence clearly shows the fetus to be both a human and an individual from the moment of conception. This cannot be disputed based on scientific evidence. So it should be protected as a person until someone can prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt in a court of law, that it is not a person. Anything less is a legal double standard of epic proportions. So while I certainly understand how there are those that might oppose abortion based on religious grounds, I point out that there are many of us who have thought the matter through quite logically and based our decision on the facts alone, contrary to the propaganda often used by the pro-abortion side of the argument that we are all simply a bunch of religious zealots looking to impose our viewpoint on others. I realize you were not looking for a debate on the subject of abortion, but felt obligated to post this anyway, hopefully you will re-examine the facts as I have and reassess your current opinion on the subject. Posted by: Todd Robbins at April 30, 2004 02:22 PM Todd, I wasn't making a sweeping generalization that all pro-life arguments are religious, just making the claim that the individuals at that rally were religious. As a secular humanist, understand and appreciate the argument that you propose. Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at April 30, 2004 02:30 PM |