And the things you wish were urban legend, may not be....

Republican Concentration Camps is the title of this entry - specifically, Pier 57, where some of the protestors during the RNC were held. So, when I first followed a link to this, I figured it had to be an exaggeration or outright lie. And yet, so detailed...okay, fine. Time to go hunt up other sources. I honestly tried Snopes first, primarily because while I think Bush is a madman, I'd like to think the bulk of the Republican party is not quite at that level (and that particular article cast it as their idea/control).

Nothing on Snopes, but CBS New York had this story which paints a kinder but still not kind picture of the thing. Quite a few other news outlets are carrying bits of it, mostly repeating one side of the assertions or the other, or both. It is apparently in the courts and with luck, that will force the evidence itself to be brought into the public eye. Unfortunately, what's in the courts so far is more the time people were held than the conditions.

That's about what I've found so far. Anyone have any links to stuff with more info (either evidence for or against)? I find this disturbing, as you might imagine. I suspect - I'd like to believe - that it has been blown out of proportion to the reality, but I do have to wonder how far and what the reality was, if that's the case.

Meh. Just disturbing, and no obvious way to pick out (from the opposite coast, no less) the truth.

RNC / protestors / Pier 57 round 2

My first post on this is here, if this one is not making total sense.

Of course, the New York Civil Liberties Union is a biased source, and it looks like they don't have completely sure information yet either, but here is their page on the matter thus far.

Or this take on the folks involved, from New York's "alternative" newspaper. I have to admit, the complaint about the lack of vegan food at once made sense to me, and yet boggled the mind. It all comes down to whether the folks involved deserved to be arrested, and whether the place actually did have toxic chemical problems. If the answers are 'yes' and 'no' then this article pretty much sums up what we're hearing. If there were folks rounded up who were, in fact, not involved in civil disobedience or otherwise breaking the law, that changes things a bit but could be a mistake. If, however, the accusations of how nasty the floor was made by some of the folks detained there are accurate...that's a whole different matter.

Also interesting is the back-and-forth on what it was. One article says it was a converted warehouse, another it was a bus terminal, another that it was a bus depot/garage for buses. Given the stories of oil on the floor, I'm assuming the article stating it was a converted warehouse is crap.

Tentatively, what I'm seeing is that it was probably an old bus depot, with old oil on the floor, but also with benches, water, etc. It still all comes down to "was the facility dangerous to the people in it" because, other than that, it sounds like it was just an unpleasant place to spend time. Well, that and to some degree the argument of how long people were held there, since the viewpoints vary on that too. But it's mostly the "toxic chemicals" piece that has me wondering, at this point.

More stories on it, for those forming their own view:
http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=16663
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/16134
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040909/southsound/140705.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/nyregion/08detain.html?ex=1095307200&en=2ba9eda6177e32e2&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

I suspect, now that I've done more digging, that it will be months before we know, if we ever do (but the lawsuit threats and other allegations make it pretty likely that we'll at least get more information, I imagine).

I don't like Bush. There's a cynical part of me, though, that wonders if this wasn't the sort of thing that at least some of the protestors were hoping for. It should - and probably is going to - do more damage to the mayor's reputation than to Bush's, though. Aside from the letter quoted in the first link in my original post, everything else seems to suggest that Pier 57 (whatever the conditions) was a city action, not the RNC's choice. Which is as it should be - if the RNC had had their own personal holding pen, as the first writer said, that would also be a problem. So - is the truth being hidden? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the first writer was taking the opportunity to engage in a bit of politicking via her own personal horror?

All the way down to the party yesterday....

...I saw signs for Oregon's Measure 36. "One Man. One Woman. Yes on 36." You know, before we "save" marriage by restricting it to one man and one woman, I have just one question.

How are we going to pick the one man and the one woman? And what if they want to divorce later?

Mmmm, beadwork.

I think, after I post this, I'm going to go actually get the beads out and do something (Update: Thought better of this - I am on call next week and will do it then - roleplaying is awkward when on call, as I hate having to drop out of scenes abruptly). It's been quite a while. I've been browsing beadwork/jewelry sites today.... Just a small set of links (with comments) here for anyone else interested:

( Links and comments back this way. )