it was great to see protest and hear there'd been civil disobedience in annapolis yesterday. after all, the men who built all these big brick houses made that possible. they weren't really expecting freedom to assemble to apply to people of african descent, but 200 so years later it does!like everyone, sometimes i get depressed about the way things are in this country and the world; but two times i get excited about america are when i vote and when i witness or participate in protest. that's when I'm reminded of the great possibilities for people of this country. the protest in annapolis was gentle, warm and hopeful. the participants did not express any criticism of local police but gathered in solidarity with national complaints. the police chief and other local officials joined the march, in fact.
once in a while, in a democracy, people have to endure a nuisance because others have freedom to protest their living hells, right?
id like to draw attention to the many ignoble comments made on (local paper) the capitol's coverage of the march. for anyone who questions the need for resistance, this comments thread should explain a lot. ironically a number of the commenters reference their second amendment rights while complaining about the first amendment freedom exercised by the protest. by the way, the first amendment doesn't guarantee freedom of assembly after applying for and being granted a permit. it guarantees freedom to assemble. that point aside i find very accurate description of the situation here.
the verdigris man peering down on the crowd is chief justice roger taney, the judge who issued the dread scott decision.
this was the culmination of the march.
