sauces for goose and gander

lawlessness is a fascinating condition. right here in lowell we have a lively debate about ours, and from oakland and from china today we have curiously related stories, one in which "our" police are finding it necessary to arrest 400 people for protesting too much, and the other in which "theirs" are expressing feelings that the press is being unfair to their own efforts to keep the masses in line.

here in this country, of course, we're a bit conflicted whenever protests are made, since we like to celebrate our ability to make them, yet we also like to point out when those protests are ill-behaved and against our particular politics. (lots of folks hating on the "occupy" folks, yup). in oakland, apparently, they've felt their particular band of rowdies has taken things too far, and found it necessary to put 400 of them in the hoosegow. fair enough. quite a few americans today are saying "it's about time", of course, and quite a few others are outraged. it's how we roll. yet, it's a fair bet if 400 tibetans had been arrested yesterday as well, there'd be a much more consistent reaction, and more than a fair bit of editorializing about the chinese government's repressive and heavy-handed tactics against legitimate dissent, and the "occupy the occupiers" folks would find themselves instantly and vehemently opposed to the chinese, even while feeling the opposite about the east bay constabulary.

i don't worry so much about the contradiction. here in lowell we have people throwing rocks through business windows, and it's pretty clear everyone who is reasonable agrees that there is no place for it. (ok, not a protest rock, but i hope you follow the point). the police continue to be near-universally respected (basically by all but the lawless) and if they arrest someone, chances are good that everyone reading about it in the paper the next day is going to nod their head that a right thing was done. even the single continuing story of civil disagreement (regarding vesna nuon) has produced respectful dialogue, even if not complete accord. (i'm with the cops on this one--there are proper moments to take them to task for their behavior, and while drunk and during the incident is not one of them, though i also might not disagree with the point attempted to be made, though i can't say about this one either way because i wasn't there and i don't know the particulars well enough to have an opinion, other than we have a great department, and every reason to have faith in their continuous improvement). and i'm glad mr. nuon has been able to make his point, too, and don't begrudge him his seat on the city council, even while i regret that it's taking $50,000 out of the public purse to settle this.

so how do we judge "right"? we clearly need police to keep our peace, as clearly does oakland. but we also feel that, in the case of tibet, the chinese have taken things a bit too far. so how do we ensure the line is drawn correctly?

i would suggest we do it via rigorous defense of our constitutional protections. (yeah, it's about that). patriot act? nope, gotta go. not because we don't have need to police our citizenry, but because we need to police our citizenry the right way. franklin's admonishment that those trading liberty for security deserve neither and lose both is not just some empty platitude. living memory can recount near-countless episodes of governmental malfeasance of the most horrible kind, and mr. nuon being cambodian recalls one particularly heinous example. we need to remember that while we are attempting to "protect" our nation, that we are not destroying it in the process. i like to feel that the oakland protesters are going to get a fair day in court. i like how our ideals would have us do it.

how about you?