Milwaukee people voice their anger for war while reclaiming streets

pseudonym, 24.09.2005 23:49

A few dozen people gathered on the corner of farwell and brady streets to show their opposition to wars through drumming and sign holding. Hundreds of people in cars slowed to gawk at signs and honk in support. Nearly an hour of drumming and rapport building culminated on half of the group spontaneously taking the streets.

Waving signs, chanting rhymes.

Drumming for peace.

Opposing war and murder, having fun.

Opposing imperialism and war IS fun!

The night is ours!

Reclaiming the Streets

Barricades in street; Black bloc in background

Those that stayed behind continued chanting and holding signs for at least another hour. Some of the signs said "Reclaim Our Streets" "Only You Can Liberate Yourself" "We Hold A New World In Our Hearts" "Fuck the War" and the king sized "Democracy in Iraq = 100,000 Dead Iraqis". Around 8pm several people marched into the streets lighting fireworks and smoke bombs as well as dragging dumpsters and construction barricades into the street to block traffic. For a few minutes citizens reclaimed the world they live in and brought the illusion of war to the streets of Milwaukee. There were no known arrests.

This is just the beginning. . .

Reclaim the Alienation 25.09.2005 - 16:37 I like the idea of a reclaim the streets. I've heard of them being quite fun and festive. From the sidewalk, this one looked angry and militant, which is neither good nor bad (or both) . It's good if it allows the participants to express themselves and feel satisfied or effective. It's bad if they want bystanders to join in, because they wont if everyone's wearing a mask, dressed in black and "fucking shit up". I'd love to have a reclaim the streets with an atmosphere that drew people in as it went along. I'm not trying to discourage this type of action, I'm just saying it's not what everyone wants. Alien> is it really alienating? 25.09.2005 - 17:17 is it really that alienating? I mean just because some people would want to participate and some wouldnt doesnt meant it has to go as far as to be alienating. I think several different forms of activism are necessary, this is just one of them. I hope i'm not coming off as attacking or rude, just my opinion sweet muscles> under the construction equipment, the beach! 25.09.2005 - 18:49 We are perfectly aware that not everyone wants to care about (or even admit) the destruction our lifestyle's cause. At the same time, we will not compromise for their complacency. Those who covered their faces and pulled things into the street did so for security meassures and to increase the spectacle of their actions. They wanted to desrupt the destructive normalcy of our horrid lives. I think that goal was accomplished for everyone who witnessed it (spectator and spectacle alike). What is more alienating, an action that does justice to how we feel and what is necessary given the immediate nature of the situation or an action that makes us feel bored and tactically useless? Militancy is not for everyone, we agree. We embrace the diversity of tactics approach. Many of those in the bloc are not limited to dragging things into the street and lighting fireworks. Please refrain from criticizing us whenever we step out of the paternalistic awning of the peace movement. (a) non eeeee mouse> the awning 26.09.2005 - 13:43 Alien has a point which I don't think should be relegated to a criticism from "stepping out under the paternalistic awnings of the peace movement." This may not be his exact interpretation but I should eludicate my own position. If the point of a reclaim the streets is to give participants something to be proud of and happy about for themselves, than one cannot deny the masterbatory element to the action. This may be good (after all, we need to do things at times which demonstrate our own ability to effect our environment in a positive way). However, this is not all there is to a reclaim the streets--that is to say, if reclaiming the streets was meant to have people join up with the group as it went along and not frighten them off--than it should be considered with definate gravity whether or not it was such a success. It may have felt good, but what did it really accomplish in terms of making people interested. Were more than a few interested? We should not do actions simply because they aren't boring. We should do actions which participate in a larger process of movement building. Of course, not everyone will be involved in militant actions, and we shouldn't appease everyone. But at the same time, scaring the shit out of people, annoying them on thier drives home, and moving a few dumpsters into the streets will do nothing to solve the "immediacy of the situation" unless it contributes to changing people's minds in order to build a larger movement. Just because something is more militant, doesn't mean it does any more to contribute to altering the immediate situation than a specifically non-violent action. If, from one person's perspective--especially one so clearly in favor of reclaim the streets as alien--the action could have scared off people who would otherwise have joined in, it was a regressive action. Even if it made the participants (of which I was one) feel good. It is worth discussing and debating this issue in depth, not dismissing. One possibility is to drop the black bloc theatrics. In some situations it works out wonderfully. In others it is simply silly. Certainly wearing all black is not necessary: we can show the same solidarity without a color-coated uniform, and we may not appear to be as alienating. I would say it would be worth it to take off all the black if only one or two more people would be interested as a result. But perhaps this is a bad idea? There are many possibilities for doing militant actions without alienating people who might otherwise join up (its a fallacy to assume everyone is either a brazen militant or peace action protestor and there isn't anyone in between--aren't these people in between the people we want to convince to join us, so our reclaim the streets aren't always 20 people?) One last point: asking someone to "refrain" from making a criticism goes against much needed discussion of what we need to do to progress and improve--and goes against the essential nature of a diverse, consistently fluxuating and democratic movement (as well as the spirit of indymedia). No criticism should be "refrained" from making. I think we should invite criticisms from all over the spectrum. antfarm> what i think 26.09.2005 - 15:38 from my view of what happened saturday night it apeared that many of the protesters who chose not to enter the street were overwhelming in support of those who did and for personal reasons did not. I recall hearing many cheers and kids saying they would have loved to join along but could not risk arrest at that time. and the protest continued for a couple of hours after the action, which seemed to me as their support for those who did and that they were not alienated but inspired to continue on with the demonstration. and also showed many people there that it is entirely possible for the events to happen and possibly in the future will push them to be more than spectators. funkstar> Peace 26.09.2005 - 15:41 so i was there on saturday, I am all for reclaiming the streets, that night i didnt go into the streets though becuase i was responsible to get several people home. however i can attest to the fact that even after the bloc took it to the streets, random people still came in large numbers. not everyone was militant. there were just as many people being peaceful. it takes all sorts of activism to build a strong movement Bob Dole> But what happened next?? 26.09.2005 - 18:15 Although I fully agree with every persons right to freely express themselves, doesn't it cross the line when your freedoms/actions result in the diminishing of someone elses rights. Someone had to clean that mess up...and it sure wasn't the persons that made it. Also, people that were trying to go about their day (which I would think we all would agree is their right) were disrupted from doing so. Is that right?! Does it make it OK when you are expressing yourself and other innocent persons have to be displaced or inconvenienced. I am quite sure none of the bloc pulled the garbage cans from their own homes, or messed up their own homes, inconveniencing themselves, in protest of war. I am glad I don't work/live down there. :( Joe> complacency isn't innocence 27.09.2005 - 10:52 sorry "Joe" but the entire reason militancy is necessary in some circumstances is because the flood of complacency in our own country. Frankly the fact of the matter is, if people are so upset by dumpsters being dragged in to there path that they feel like victims, it only goes to show what a bunch of spoiled, cushy living weiners we all are. The people dying at our hands don't have time for us to not be "infringing" on the every day persons life, because that persons every day life is the reason they are dying in the first place. sexytime> alternatives 27.09.2005 - 12:21 presumably alien did not know that there were two other local "actions" in conjunction with the rally in DC. the most well attended was the catholics against the war in cathedral park, with maybe 300+ in attendance. even as far as traditional parade style marches are concerned, this was a very tame affair, but it was also much more well attended. while this action offended no one, it also seems to have attracted almost no direct attention at the time. not only did it not attract the same attention it would have if there had been yelling and noisemaking on a busy corner, but some participants were left with a feeling akin to disempowerment and futility. i wish others who felt that way had also attended the Brady street action, but they were mostly oldsters at the cathedral square, and the stand for peace on oakland and capital. i did see many younger people honking thier horns and flashing peace signs at the stand, but there were few involved with either of the other scenes. while there is something to be said for activities that aunt edna can attend w/out fear of getting her hip broken, there has been very little in the way of expressing outright rage in milwaukee for decades. it ought not wait for race riots for this to happen. there's more than one way to do it, and it takes many different kinds of peeps keep the world moving. my take on it was that it was a whole lot of fun for such a quiet riot. no one got hurt, no property was damaged, and the ratio of spectator to participant was spectacular compared to any such actions in milwaukee quite some time. if alien, or others, are interested in events with more decorum, they should contact peace action wisconsin, the green party, food not bombs, the catholics, or one of many other orgs with a set leadership and organizational responsibilities, and get more involved with them. i, myself, was the only one who attended all three. i support all who protest the war, and was disappointed i saw no one else at any two of these three events. the mass of the movement has taken alien's concerns too much to heart for far too long, meanwhile, many have felt too much impotent rage for far too long. from where i sit it was well done, a balence between rage and harmony was struck, and much thought and experience were in evidence. it was a lot like the entry for planet earth in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, "mostly harmless", but i had a lot of fun despite entertaining alien's concerns, myself, at the time. monte monte> e-mail:: mnl@uwm.edu Homepage:: http://www.gp.org/ Nice photos 27.09.2005 - 15:46 The photos were great but what impressed me the most is that you guys scrambled the faces. Smart thinking. People need to start doing that more often before posting on indymedia. Keep the struggle alive. Dan> Come on, people 27.09.2005 - 17:36 It's unfortunate that as soon as someone posts something other than, "Yeah! This is awesome!" It's attacked. Let's break down the attack "sexytime" posted. >sorry "Joe" but the entire reason militancy is necessary in some Are you implying that's not his name? You signed your post "sexytime"... >circumstances is because the flood of complacency in our own country. The fact that people like their lives isn't a crime. Just because YOU don't like the way things are doesn't mean you get to screw with other people. If I don't like your haircut, do I get to punch you in the face? I know that's not a fair example, but it's along the same lines. I think this action was disruptive and generally not a great way to go about things: can I now come to your apartment and fill it with garbage? Great, thanks. >Frankly the fact of the matter is, if people are so upset by dumpsters >being dragged in to there path that they feel like victims, it only goes to >show what a bunch of spoiled, cushy living weiners we all are. No, not fair. If anyone feels like a victim it's because some jackass blocked his way home with a bunch of fireworks and trash cans. You're right that having a street blocked off isn't a problem compared to what people suffer daily in other parts of the world, but it's still annoying. I'm guessing that the extent to which people felt like victims was in relation to the extent of this annoyance: no one is crying and screaming over it - they just don't like it. >The people dying at our hands don't have time for us to not be >"infringing" on the >every day persons life, because that persons every day life is the reason >they are dying in the first place. Oh yeah? Saved a bunch of lives by putting crap in the street, did you? Please put forth a scenario for me in which putting stuff in the street and lighting off fireworks results in any positive outcome. (Other than you having a good time, which I'm guessing is the only reason this was actually done.) >sexytime> You're super hot. Right now. Dave> Mostly Harmless 27.09.2005 - 17:47 I think the actions of a few made me very frustrated at the drum/insult circle before the Reclaim the Streets. The way people reacted to the "abortion causes war" woman was disturbing. Screaming "mother Thresa is a fascist whore" in her face over and over is not theraputic. On another topic, pleez don't take my earlier comment as criticism, it was merely observation. As far as the action, I'm glad that another protest is possible, an alternative to peace action and religious groups. Whoever took the time to print up fliers and make banners, thank you. Alls I'm saying is, actions like these can be celebratory and festive. I believe that inside everyone, even Dubya himself, is a tiny voice saying, "take to the streets and have fun!" I also went to the Catholics for Peace and Justice Vigil. Don't underestimate them, they can be just as hardcore as you. alien> hilarious 27.09.2005 - 21:24 its amazing how glaring the faults of your arguements are "dave". You went as far as to pick apart me referring to someone as "joe" as opposed to joe which more or less shows your desperation. Lets look at some tactics which has "infringed" on the "rights" of the whiny crybabies that comprise the elite.. Sit ins, civil disobedience, street lock downs, blockade and countless similar actions are the reason why things like segregation and apartheid ended. War machines and emperors won't be brought to there end by people waving there flag and holding signs in a most apologetic and entirely ineffective display of "resistance". sexytime> merely anti-bush, not enough! 27.09.2005 - 21:39 “If I don't like your haircut, do I get to punch you in the face? I know that's not a fair example, but it's along the same lines.” Dave, how is this even close to being along the same lines? Haircuts don’t destroy homes, kill women and children, or force capitalist “democracies” on people at gunpoint. People must come to terms with the fact that our lifestyles cause terrorism, our complacency with war, government, capitalism, etc is causing the destruction of this world. Sadly, moving garbage cans and construction equipment out of the street may have been the most we can expect for a reaction for a lot of people. “You're right that having a street blocked off isn't a problem compared to what people suffer daily in other parts of the world, but it's still annoying.” Anyone who thinks moving trash out of the street is in anyway more of an issue than any civilian crushed under the boot of the US deserves to be annoyed. Why is this annoyance an issue, because it won’t win people over or because they don’t supposedly deserve it? If people are annoyed, maybe that could be positive. Any reaction at all is a better than none. “Oh yeah? Saved a bunch of lives by putting crap in the street, did you?” Our protest is a dress rehearsal for insurrection. If we can build on actions like this, we can start to realize our potential to reclaim not only our lives, but our communities. The problem is obviously much deeper than just wars, but what causes wars. If we want to end war attaching these problems more directly and presenting that as a viable option will eventually lead to that. anarchist rebels of milwaukee> Quick reply 28.09.2005 - 11:52 I think Dave misconstrues constructive criticism and debate for attack. One can deconstruct some of his position in a critical manner not for attack but for discussion. “The fact that people like their lives isn't a crime. Just because YOU don't like the way things are doesn't mean you get to screw with other people.” This is an appeal to relativism. People may very well enjoy their lives as consumers, apathetic to our political system and unaware of America’s imperialist crimes. This only makes them more complicit. The way most Americans live their lives is in fact a crime: consuming the majority of the world’s resources, supporting or ignoring American wars. Would we not agree that German families of the 1930s were complicit in the rise of the third Reich if they did not actively oppose them? The ways we can oppose the American empire today are exponentially better and safer. We have no excuse to not oppose American imperialism in every way possible. “I think this action was disruptive and generally not a great way to go about things: can I now come to your apartment and fill it with garbage?” This comment doesn’t have much to do with the protest. No one’s personal property was abused, was it? The chant “bombs are dropping while you’re shopping” brings the reality of the situation into sharp focus: most Americans spend their days unaware of the destruction we’re causing. Perhaps the slight annoyance of the rally might cause someone to think about it. “No, not fair. If anyone feels like a victim it's because some jackass blocked his way home with a bunch of fireworks and trash cans.” If this makes someone feel like a victim they have very little recognition of the way most people live. “I'm guessing that the extent to which people felt like victims was in relation to the extent of this annoyance: no one is crying and screaming over it - they just don't like it.” The protest was not organized to make non-participants happy, but as a method of clogging the system to prevent the war. Obviously one action, or even a coordinated series of actions will not stop the war immediately. But it has been well demonstrated that massive rallies without civil disobedience have no effect on the administration whatsoever. The largest coordinated worldwide rally ever took place on February 20th, 2003, and the Bush Administration ignored it, calling 12 million people a “focus group.” Thus a change of tactic is in order. How long will the war continue if we clog the streets every day? How long will corporations support the war / administration if they are suffering economically? Disruption was indeed the very point of the protest. I don’t know why people assume the participants in the street protest feel their one action will end the war. But these actions, continued over time, can have an important effect. Besides, if people who felt victimized had participated they would have enjoyed themselves much more… “(Other than you having a good time, which I'm guessing is the only reason this was actually done.)” Actually, one participant came up to me, mentioning it being a “life-changing experience.” This speaks for itself. Gandalf> crimes and crimes 28.09.2005 - 12:54 Is it not generally accepted that one may commit a crime to prevent a greater crime? Is it not justified that one may use force to prevent someone from beating them? Can a man or woman not fight back (fighting a crime in itself) to prevent someone from raping or murdering them? Anyone who makes the argument that illegal protests shouldn't take place must feel the state has a monopoly on violence. Such a small action as reclaiming the streets in order to play a part in stopping the greater crime of occupation should not only be justified, but celebrated. nmc> back atcha 28.09.2005 - 13:12 First off, I didn't mean to piss people off, sorry if I did. When I first read this, I thought it was an ineffective protest against government policies, but upon reading the answers posted to my earlier comments I realize it's the average citizen this action was against. Second, I'd like to react to two of the posts after mine: (Thanks to folks like gandalf nmc for thougtful answers) -------------- FROM SEXYTIME: -------------- >its amazing how glaring the faults of your arguements are "dave". You >went as far as to pick apart me referring to someone as "joe" as opposed >to joe which more or less shows your desperation. Lets look at some >tactics which has "infringed" on the "rights" of the whiny crybabies that >comprise the elite.. Well, no, I just found that odd. I'd comment on your uses of quotes in other places but I've learned my lesson. I'm really not desperate to make an argument here, just trying to converse. Sorry if I came off as... militant :). Note that you got upset just from me posting something to a message board that you thought was dumb, or wrong, or poorly researched. Pretty small thing, eh? >Sit ins, civil disobedience, street lock downs, blockade and countless >similar actions are the reason why things like segregation and apartheid >ended. War machines and emperors won't be brought to there end by people >waving there flag and holding signs in a most apologetic and entirely >ineffective display of "resistance". That's true. Very true. Sit ins, for example, worked very well in some situations. There's definately a history of civil disobediance leading to great things, but the reason this smacked different to me was I didn't think you were directly effecting those you wanted to. ---------------------------------- From ANARCHIST REBELS OF MILWAUKEE ---------------------------------- >“If I don't like your haircut, do I get to punch you in the face? I know >that's not a fair example, but it's along the same lines.” >Dave, how is this even close to being along the same lines? Haircuts >don’t destroy homes, kill women and children, or force capitalist >“democracies” on people at gunpoint. People must come to terms with the >fact that our lifestyles cause terrorism, our complacency with war, >government, capitalism, etc is causing the destruction of this world. Yeah, awfully streching it there. My point was just that you seemed to be disagreeing with policies the government practices, not that you had a problem with joe schmoe driving home. (Because its the average person that you're effecting.) So the average person gets messed with for nothing they did to you. But upon reading your answers, I now realize that it is in fact the average citizen you're upset with. I did not understand what your goals were earlier. >Sadly, moving garbage cans and construction equipment out of the street >may have been the most we can expect for a reaction for a lot of people. >“You're right that having a street blocked off isn't a problem compared >to what people suffer daily in other parts of the world, but it's still >annoying.” >Anyone who thinks moving trash out of the street is in anyway more of an >issue than any civilian crushed under the boot of the US deserves to be >annoyed. Why is this annoyance an issue, because it won’t win people over >or because they don’t supposedly deserve it? Well first off, I'd argue that no, they do not deserve it. These are people just trying to go about their day. Besides, if you can argue that terrorism is caused by our actions (and thus not the terrorist's fault), then why can't it be argued that the normal lives of American citizens are caused by their surroundings, and thus not our fault? That's circular, and somebody needs to break the cycle, but I doubt these sorts of actions will do it. Second, no, I do not think these actious will win people over. >If people are annoyed, maybe that could be positive. Any reaction at all >is a better than none. I suppose that may be true. But you could get a reacion without causing such a disturbance. If I came home and you were standing in front of my door with a sign that says "You're causing terrorism right now," it'd be a hell of a lot more effective than me having to move a traffic barrier so I could keep driving while a gang of kids runs off screaming in the background. I see what you're saying, that this disruptive behavior forces people to pay attention, but I doubt they're getting the message you're hoping for. >“Oh yeah? Saved a bunch of lives by putting crap in the street, did you?” > >Our protest is a dress rehearsal for insurrection. If we can build on >actions like this, we can start to realize our potential to reclaim not >only our lives, but our communities. The problem is obviously much deeper >than just wars, but what causes wars. If we want to end war attaching >these problems more directly and presenting that as a viable option will >eventually lead to that. So, help me out. What exactly is the change you want to see? And how does running around in the street lead to that? I'm also not clear on how this is "reclaiming" streets. When I first read that I assumed you were trying to clear out drug dealers or something. Is the America you envision one where there's constant chaos outside? I don't understand how you get from A (lighting off fireworks in the turn lane) to B (whatever B may be... Anarchist America where we all drive electric cars maybe?) Dave> under the leaves, the peach.... mmmmm 28.09.2005 - 20:56 “I now realize that it is in fact the average citizen you're upset with” I want people to take the way they live their lives seriously, because if weren’t so detached from the consequences our actions have we would have a hard time commiting them. I know people don’t have the best means to learn about these things, it’s actually in the interests of governments and people in power for average people to not know the consequences of our lifestyle. I think at the same time this requires a level of forced ignorance (denial) or what’s called cognitive dissonance. People ignore facts that challenge the dominant ideology that has been building up in their minds from the day they were born to justify the way they live. But what we were taught in kindergarten about America has never been reality. Every picture of a dead Iraqi civilian or dead solider for no apparent reason, but genocide and control of resources as a reason is a challenge to this ideology. How many people need to die, how many rainforests need to be clear-cut, how many billions of animals should die in a constant holocaust before we will act? I will not wait for everyone to agree with me before I will act. In this country people operate under the assumption that other people should make their decisions for them. This detachment is the trigger for the gun. No one in their right minds would kill someone who’s done nothing to them, pour toxic waste in their own back yard, clear cut a forest, etc. We, as society, are aware of this detachment and we’re apparently fine with this. Letting other people make decisions for you is like playing Russian roulette with the world. Our world if organized on a much more decentralized and personal scale would be much less destructive. This is an argument for anarchism. People should have a say in how problems they are affected by affect them. Anything else that calls itself democracy is a betrayal to the idea. ”So, help me out. What exactly is the change you want to see? And how does running around in the street lead to that?” I want to see a social revolution and the destruction of all hierarchy. The means create the end. We need to organize non-hierarchically and work to solve problems that affect us directly, in the most direct and personal way as possible. Giving people that option, as this protest attempted to do is a move in that direction. This is practice for an ongoing struggle. Anarchism is not utopian, but practical. We work to transform all our social relationships, so that they operate with a level of mutual respect, consensus, and sharing. On a micro level anarchism is already a large part of our society. If our problem is obeying authority/hierarchy, then the solution has to be our empowerment. If we all ignore authority it no longer exists. Again, the immediacy of these problems demands action. We will not wait for our “representatives” to bargain with our enemies for a compromise that will never bring us justice. anarchist rebelz of illwaulkee> near by 30.09.2005 - 21:01 as for the comment about fucking up "our own shit" I did pull garbages out from my own house. that one girl> suggestions? 03.10.2005 - 13:29 I can agree with both sides of this debate. On one hand there does need to be more direct action. Going to rallies where people sing Vietnam era folk songs does not connect with younger activists. Sometimes holding hands and singing can be empowering. Other times it can't. On the other hand, if people are too militant and get in people's faces without thoughtful, constructive conversation, you will never have more than 20 or 30 people at a protest. The "movement" will become marginalized and lost. Some middle ground needs to be found. The only way I can see change occurring, or at least to get more people on the side of creating better world for EVERYONE (including the complacent commuter being disturbed by garbage cans in the middle of the street), is the long, hard, and yes, boring task of community organizing and not being so reactionary to every comment that is posted on a blog or shouted back at you at a protest. Let's start organizing and educating people by flyering, putting out zines with information on why we are so pissed off at the government/multinationals/etc., instead of name calling and being mad that the 9-5 commuter that we are supposed to be siding with doesn't give a crap about a bunch of kids dressed in black acting like hooligans. PS- blocking out people's faces on these pics are fine and dandy, but police can also identify you from your tatoos. blocking one's face with a handkerchief is not your only protection against identification. wyrm> hmmmm 04.10.2005 - 13:46 Dear wyrm, There's no reason to think that people can't do both community organizing and actions. How many times does this need to be said, for peopel to understand that people not limited to direct action just because they do it once every two months. a herd of kittens> agreed 05.10.2005 - 09:26 Kittens- I agree, its been said over and over again. But apparently some people are not listening or do not agree. They choose to side one way or the other and see issues as black and white. For proof just read all the debating and arguing above. I don't know the solution, it was just some suggestions and how I feel about the issue of direct action. I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the contemporary American anarchist movement. Peace wyrm> ? 06.10.2005 - 14:47 Where in the above arguments does someone suggest we should either engage in only direct action or community building? I think the above arguments deal mainly with the efficacy of direct action as a tactic. nmc> You Guys are fucking stupid 11.10.2005 - 10:36 I really hope that this shit you guys did comes back and really bites you guys in the ass one of these days. If you think out country is so messed up then why dont you do something about it. Dont go fucking up our streets. How about you guys get a damn job, go to school, and try to get involved in the political would to make a diffrence. All your doing is making a mess of our streets, our city, and our country and i work pretty damn hard and pay taxes to keep this place clean. Grow the fuck up! G. W. Bush> ........... 13.10.2005 - 17:47 I can't tell if that last comment was a joke or not. If it isn't, you should read the rest of the replies to this article and offer something other than name calling to the debate. a herd of kittens>