August 26, 2004

• Sure wouldn't want to ruin that grass, it's just for lookin', not usin'. Can'tcha see the sign?
• Save the grass? From what? Being walked on?
• What the fuck did you expect from fuckwads. Their just fuckwads being more fuckwadian. Stupid fucking atarded fuckwad fucks.
• Interesting. I seem to remember that the welfare of the grass in Hyde Park was a major issue when our Government tried to ban the big anti-war protest, way back before the liberation. The grass, and I believe there was also some concern for hedgehogs. That's the thing, you see - some foolish people may call them "warmongers", but they're actually really really caring people.
• Unfortunately, this is at least in part, about the grass. Manhattan's ultimate and soccer players aren't allowed to play on any of the real grass fields in Central Park because of the damage our cleats would do to the grass. We've been marginalized and pushed into the crappiest, dustiest fields in the park. Now, while there is precedent to keep people off the lawn, there's still places for them to assemble in the park. I'd gladly give up my crappy ultimate field for a few days of protest. And lastly, to quote John Stewart, "If the worst thing we have to worry about through this whole thing is some divots, I'll be so, so happy."
• It's not for nothing that the 70s-80s are known as Central Park's "Dustbowl Days". At great expense, it was fixed, and now there are a lot of established rules that keep it from going back...it's not like they just made this stuff up. Post a bond, guys. That way, if the great lawn is messed up, no one else has to pay for it. Hell, MoveOn could raise the money for a bond ($100k? $300k?) in about two hours. (Mind you, Central Park is about a mile from the convention site, while the designated protest area is about a third to half that distance...otoh, Central Park is close to all the major news HQs.)
• 1. The designated site is not big enough for 250,000 people if I recall. 2. There is NOT a precedent to keep people off the lawn. Anyone go to see Dave Matthews Band there? 3. Shouldn't the people of New York be allowed to decide? The taxpayer's money built it, it's them that own it. 4. Why can't they charge the organizers IF it gets damaged. There's no reason to bar someone from using a park "in the event that it would get damaged"
• 5. What's the point of having a city park if people aren't allowed to use it?
• genial: the Dave Mattews Band posted a bond. You post a bond so that you CAN charge the organizers "IF it gets damaged", instead of trying to squeeze a couple hundred thousand out of ANSWER or some other org that sprung up over night. And how is there no reason to stop someone from using something if it might be ruined? shawnj: Plenty of people will be allowed to use it, have been allowed to use it, and will be allowed to use it. We're talking about one part that's especially well maintained, was restored at great cost only recently, and is simply not being opened for use by 250k protesters.
• It's the right sort of people, shawnj.
• Where's a link to Georgie and his goons making a huge mess of Queen Lillibet's garden when you need one? *trying to post, eat toast, and rush out door all at once, predicts sub-par results for all 3*
• Having that much grass is just idiotic. There are better groundcover plants than the standard grasses which we see all over people's lawns -- we have herbs and ivy and clover in different parts of our front and back yards, and the only grass we have is some tall, decorative stuff the former owner of the house left behind. Best of all -- I don't have to mow anything, and local animals actually like wandering into the yard. Why do so many people assume that only one plant may be grown underfoot? The ban on protesters is obvious, silly, and will only further polarize people who already hate one another and feel that the 'other side' is using unfair tactics to limit free expression.