Hey, there! Log in / Register

Protesters stage sit-in at Amazon office in Cambridge over technology sales to ICE; 12 arrested

Blowing the shofar against ICE

Blowing a shofar against ICE at 101 Main St., Kendall Square. Photo by Ron Newman.

Jewish protesters and their allies marched across the Longfellow Bridge during the evening rush hour for a protest against companies that sell technology to ICE, including Amazon, whose Kendall Square lobby at 101 Main St. was briefly occupied before police arrested 13 of the Never Again Action demonstrators.

Going up on the Longfellow (Photo by Nunes' Sheep):

Protesters approach Longfellow Bridge

Inside 101 Main St. in Kendall Square (photo by Ron Newman):

Protesters in 101 Main St.

Tori Bedford of WGBH has video of protesters who left the building and police talking to the protesters inside who refused to leave.

WBZ has more on the march.



I commend this group for organizing a peaceful protest but what was the point? ICE is a lawful federal organization removing illegal immigrants from our country. They have a job to do and they are doing it. We are a country with immigration LAWS (just like other countries - weird right?) If companies like Amazon choose to sell info or data to ICE than so be it. If you don't like it, then don't use Amazon - pretty simple. I don't like the fact that apple uses slave labor in other countries, so I don't have an iphone - pretty simple

I was surprised by a few things after watching one of the live streams of the march and sit in. Some observations:

The White Privilege: Basically you had a bunch of middle aged white woke folk just blocking intersections during rush hour, then occupying a privately owned building...entitled much?

The self importance: During the sit in, the chant of "the whole world is watching" rang out a few times. Really? at most there were like 4 viewers on the FB live stream.

The demands: I laughed when they demanded the Jeff Bezos change his stance on selling data to ICE, etc. Oh so a handful of activists in Cambridge are "demanding" that Amazon do something - I bet they will get right on that. We demand this and we demand that - hey relax..

Professionalism: Great job by Cambridge PD. everything looked peaceful and professional. People had a chance to vacate, others decided to stay, they were arrested, have a nice night. I was pretty surprised that it took so long for the police to boot this group out the door. Every building of that type has security. Where were they? if this was the federal reserve they would have been zip tied in minutes.

The comparisons to the Holocaust - drawing comparisons between the extermination of millions of Jewish people (gypsies, and gays) and the deportation of illegal immigrants is just beyond crazy. period. and offensive.

Either way, i'm glad it was peaceful - I just hope that those arrested realize that the legal fees and arrest record are real, but if they have an entire afternoon to protest, they probably are not worried about the money.

Stay woke.


Did they have a permit for march?

I'm guessing not.


The group refused to announce their route to police thereby snarling traffic in an area close to a major medical district. Think ambulances and rush hour.

Second, not privately owned commercial landlord (ie Amazon's building) is going to give a permit to stage a mass occupation and sit-in. It's called trespassing. The building owner and its tenants have a businesses to run.


No protestors should be allowed to block streets at any time. They should be asked once to move, and then the police should remove them if they don't comply. Why? They do not have the right to block ambulances/firetrucks/emergency vehicles.

On a related note, interesting that many of these groups say they are 'antifa', when members use tactics reminiscent of the Camicie Nere. Ironic that.

No protestors should be allowed to block streets at any time. They should be asked once to move, and then the police should remove them if they don't comply. Why? They do not have the right to block ambulances/firetrucks/emergency vehicles.

On a related note, interesting that many of these groups say they are 'antifa', when members use tactics reminiscent of the Camicie Nere. Ironic that.

ICE is a lawful federal organization removing illegal immigrants from our country.

On paper, yes.

But it appears from an increasing number of reports that the organization is bedeviled by a truly toxic culture and may be internally rotten from top to bottom. That's completely independent of whether or not you believe (as I do) that the mission of enforcing our immigration laws is a legitimate one that should be pursued with vigor.




"But it appears from an increasing number of reports that the organization is bedeviled by a truly toxic culture and may be internally rotten from top to bottom."

So, when did this 'toxic culture' develop? Let me guess...November, 2016. Before then it was a noble organization struggling with a difficult task. Unless you can establish that opinion as fact, it's just an opinion. Cite the reports. Maybe something that isn't the Wapo or Reuters?

I've posted plenty of pics here before, during the 'babies in cages' blowout. They were all taken in 2015, by a Texas rep.

Something wrong with ICE? Fix it.


ICE has been locking up people indiscriminately for over a decade. This includes arresting and deporting US citizens. The locking up of children, separated from their families and not supplied with basic necessities like soap, well, that did start after your favorite asshole took over.

Looks to me like Trump inherited a real mess.

Then he worked hard to turn the real mess into a collection of atrocities.

So, when did this 'toxic culture' develop?

Generally these things don't happen overnight. Take a look at a bad police department and ask "when did it go bad?" There's never really an exact answer. ICE appears to be similar to a bad police department.

I have heard older cops lay some of the blame on 9/11/2001, to the extent that it led to a widespread veneration of law enforcement, which in turn attracted into the profession a large number of young men who chose it because they wanted to be venerated.

There's also our Mideast wars, which have created a large number of veterans who move into law enforcement. You end up with departments staffed by 25-year-old guys whose prior professional experience was serving in an army of occupation in enemy territory; not surprisingly, without strong leadership, some departments end up with some of the same bad habits you find in armies of occupation.

Let's stop with the "heroes in uniform" crap. Cops do not become heroes just by pinning on the badge. Soldiers do not become heroes just by putting on a uniform. It takes doing something extraordinary to earn being called a hero.

While we're at it, please stop thanking me for my service. It doesn't do anything for me, or for other veterans. And at sporting events or other public gatherings, quit asking for veterans to stand up. I won't do it. My veteran status is not for you to use to push your agenda.

Seems you're unclear on the concept of protests.

Jim Crow laws were legal in the South before civil rights protests.

America seemed to have good reasons to be waging war in Vietnam and bombing Cambodia before the anti-war protests.

Hell, British rule over America was wonderful too, until the protests started.


How do any of your protest examples relate to the enforcement of illegal immigration?

Protesting war? I get that
Protesting racist jim crow laws. I get that

Protesting the enforcement of our immigration laws? Nope. I agree with their right to do it, and I'm happy it was peaceful. But they are our laws.

You're just plain wrong.

"Jim Crow laws were legal in the South before civil rights protests."
Nope. Sorry. Jim Crow (based on a nineteenth century racist minstrel show, much worse than the n-word) was legal because the Supreme Court, in the Plessey decision, made 'separate but equal' the law of the land. It stayed that way until the Brown decision, overturning it. The first real test of it was when President Eisenhower (R) enforced it in Little Rock using an Airborne division. Want to know more? Look it up. Read about it. The protesters helped, but it was the Court system, a system of laws that govern us, that paved the way for it.

"America seemed to have good reasons to be waging war in Vietnam and bombing Cambodia before the anti-war protests."
Well, if you say so. When we left, the ARVN got rolled like a Flintstones car. A Chinese communist backed army can do that.

"Hell, British rule over America was wonderful too, until the protests started up"

Here, have some protesters...


All these examples show a basic truth...you want freedom? You want civil rights? Be able to back it up.


"I commend this group for organizing a peaceful protest."

but, they are all white, blocked traffic, dont have a point, make me laugh with their demands for change and basically anything else i can say to shit on them.

but I commend them.

jesus what do you say about things you actually like.

stay woke indeed.


The comparisons to the Holocaust - drawing comparisons between the extermination of millions of Jewish people (gypsies, and gays) and the deportation of illegal immigrants is just beyond crazy. period. and offensive.

So, first of all, people are not technically comparing these camps to "the Holocaust." They're comparing these camps to concentration camps specifically, and there is a large number of Jewish groups and Holocaust historians who agree with this comparison. Nobody is saying that these camps are the same as "the extermination of millions of Jewish people," what they're saying is that a government rounding up people of a minority group and housing them in squalid conditions and citizens not batting an eye was one of the first steps towards the death camps operated by the Nazis, and we shouldn't stand by as our government even dabbles in this type of mass incarceration.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from Martin Niemoeller's 1946 speech from which his "First they came..." poem was derived:

...the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?"

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note.

Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible?

The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now.


Re: amazon - its easy to boycott a retailer in your personal life. its a lot more challenging to to get the government to not spend out taxes in ways that are seen as immoral.

re: the whole world is watching -- took that one a little literally, didn't you? after years of badgering other countries about their human rights violations, you better believe the world is looking at the US for this. Whether or not the whole world saw this particular protest is not the issue, but by narrowly focusing on this one action you ignore the big picture here.

re: holocaust - true, people aren't being systematically murdered, but show me a historic reference where people are consolidated into concentration camps that was not, at best, morally repugnant. The Soviet Gulags, the ghettos of europe during the nazi reign, the 're-education camps' in China & Cambodia, native reservations throughout american history


I'll wait.


...where have we seen this excuse before?

The Trump administration is playing fast and loose with the definition of who's a citizen. Are you sure you want to go there?


First one is the amount of claims settled in the person's favor. It indicates a downward trend indicating possibly that they are getting better at correcting mistakes before it gets as far as a hearing.


This one indicates ICE reviews of claims. There were fewer reviews in the later years (except for 2016), but the positives (US citizen) seems very consistent.

So, the current administration compares consistent with the past, in the opinion of the LA Times.

So, AG, what's the argument again? Orange man bad?

Putting aside our humanity, shrugging and saying, "Well, that's what the law says" is not how this country even came into being. Those British taxes? That's the law bub - stay woke.

The various versions of detention laws have been challenged legally throughout this country. Also, people are dying in the ICE camps. I know we are basically reaping the kick the can mentality on an actual path to citizenship but this isn't the way. How about this, if our country worked to depose your country's regime or purposefully tanked your economy - we have to clean up the mess we created?

It is also not legal to arrest an American for yelling at you just because you are a cop with nifty military toys. There is such a lack of critical thinking or deliberate obtuseness about how power structures can be corrupted and move the goalposts on legality. Please read Kafka's "The Trial" and/or watch "When They See Us". Just because you don't see it or experience it, does not invalidate it.

Well the simple response is that people who are privileged do kind of have a responsibility to speak up for others who might not have the same luxuries or power. Participating in these movements helps send a message of alliance and support to people who may feel isolated, which in turn helps knit a stronger society. So yeah, if you're white and don't have to be at work for some reason, this is a pretty admirable way to spend your day.

In terms of the point, it shows Amazon that people notice what they do and care. Apple doesn't know that you had some private crusade in your mind that kept you from buying an iphone, and even if they did, you're just one dude. But if you got a bunch of friends together and went to their office and said you're not buying an iphone because of their working conditions, you might have a bigger impact. But the message isn't just for the company. Your community might take notice. The people in Chinese factories might even take notice and appreciate you saying something.

My point is that if you want to lead by example, people have to actually know what you're doing. Staying home and quiet and complaining on blog comments isn't going to make a difference. You should go to a march sometime! They actually are a lot of fun, you meet interesting people, and you can learn a lot!


Does this pertain to Pro Lifers too?

"The comparisons to the Holocaust - drawing comparisons between the extermination of millions of Jewish people (gypsies, and gays) and the deportation of illegal immigrants is just beyond crazy. period. and offensive."

You are not alone in that assessment: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rabbi-abraham-cooper-ocasio-cortez-is-wr...

Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

But, if you want the Democrat talking points on the matter, I'll leave you with this...

Sen. Chuck Schumer, 2009: “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally. The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe that their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, 2007: “I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into the country who will work for lower wages than American workers and drives wages down even lower than they are right now.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2008: “We do need to address the issue of immigration and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country. We certainly do not want any more coming in.”

Even Hillary... 2014: “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in and I do think you have to control your borders.”

Last but certainly not least, the Lightbringer, President Obama himself, 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undocumented, undetected, unchecked, circumventing the people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

If the Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.


you’ve proven that democrats are not actually in support of open borders ...


Fund the wall. You know, the one Hillary was asking for in 2014.

Just before she lost...


And His Orangeness The Chosen One.


Are they like John the Baptist preparing the way for our savior? Or just the pregame to the anti-christ?

And the current sack o taters for the Dems is the best we can do? Something is very wrong.

...we need a hockey season to start soon.

But I would (maybe not so) respectfully disagree with drawing comparisons to the holocaust. We're not at the stage of death camps, certainly. But there are some parallels.

We all know about Anne Frank, right? Why was someone with the German last name "Frank" in the Netherlands? Because they had fled persecution in Germany. Why weren't they in a safer country which wasn't bordered by Germany, like the United States? They had tried. But the US would not allow them to immigrate. Because it was "illegal."

Now, it's not a perfect parallel. People leaving El Salvador often fear for their lives, and feel they can't return. Mexico is theoretically safer, and El Salvador is not about to invade Mexico, but Mexico is still a dangerous place to be an immigrant. The US is safer still (the only real danger lies from white guys with guns). But we won't allow them in because … they're "illegal."

Alone see any similarities? Putting people fleeing violence in their homelands in to camps, separating children from parents, not having adequate medical care (Anne Frank died of typhus, FWIW) … it's not exactly the same, but disturbingly close.

And that is what is being protested.

By the way, before anyone says, cut the "BUT MY ANCESTORS CAME OVER LEGALLY!!!11!!!!1" bullshit …

… So did mine. They were fleeing violence in their home country. So they cobbled together some Ruples, left the shtetl, bought a third class ticket to the US, and came and said "we'd like to live here, please." There was no law that said they couldn't, so they were let in. Because it was before 1924, when the law was passed which severely limited immigration, and then mostly to northern European whites. Because Italians, Greeks, Poles, Slavs and Jews were seen as different, and the point of the act was to "preserve the ideal of US homogeneity" (whatever the fuck that meant, oh, right, white Christian people).

Guys this isn't hard. Even if you slept through first period US History, we have Google. Look it the fuck up.

Anyway, whether you came on the Mayflower or through Ellis Island, your ancestor was a legal immigrant. (Except, of course, no one exactly asked the Native Americans if the ships could land at Plymouth in 1620.)


"...your ancestor was a legal immigrant."

...a key word...


petitioning for asylum is illegal? surrendering yourself to border agents to be processed is now illegal?

the myopia shown here is staggering.


Yes, in fact, the Trump administration has made requesting asylum effectively illegal, by barring people from even crossing the border and forcing Mexico to take in people.

"...effectively illegal, by barring people from even crossing the border and forcing Mexico to take in people."

No. Not quite. If you present yourself at customs at a port of call, you can request asylum. That has not changed. If you are a refugee from a particular country, you request asylum from the next country over. You don't go traipsing through several countries until you get to the Rio Grande. Not quite talking points. It's the law and has been that way for many years.

"surrendering yourself to border agents to be processed is now illegal?"

You present yourself to a port of entry and will be met by Customs agents. You file the paperwork there. If you are surrendering yourself to border agents after you've already crossed the border, you did it illegally.

It's not a question of poor eyesight. It's a question of the law and respect for a country's borders.

Petitioning for asylum is perfectly legal.

On this site, links show up in blue. If you click the clicky on one of the blue links, you can find out about all the racist-based immigration laws which have long been part of our immigration system.

I'm pointing out that my ancestors did they exact same thing people coming to the country are doing today, yet today we have labeled them as "illegal" because … we don't like the color of their skin, or the language they speak.

My ancestor was a legal immigrant because at the time there was no concept of illegal immigration.

I continue to be impressed at how hard this is to understand.

"On this site, links show up in blue. If you click the clicky on one of the blue links, you can find out about all the racist-based immigration laws which have long been part of our immigration system."
Another clever trick, not to minimize your excellent suggestion, is just roll your cursor over the link to see that it's something you already know and is irrelevant to the current situation. See, 1924 and 1936 are nice, but old. You left out the law passed in 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of the bill.
"My ancestor was a legal immigrant because at the time there was no concept of illegal immigration."
That's just silly. Of course there was. Many people were rejected at Ellis Island and had to go back to the old country.
"I continue to be impressed at how hard this is to understand."
I feel your pain. So, I'll leave you with a quote from Senator Ted Kennedy (D MA), concerning the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, "...The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

I was reading along and considering all points until the "US is safer still than Mexico (the only real danger lies from white guys with guns)" comment.

we are a country with immigration laws (just like every other country) - if you can't comprehend that, no amount of online dialogue fix it.

good day.


it still is worth saying that sometimes standing up against something one believes is morally wrong is still the right thing to do.

I am not going to argue immigration law with you. It is not a cut-and- dry issue that lends itself to be resolved on a social media site so why bother. Trump will be gone after the next election and we can start the process of putting our country back together again. That includes curtailing the jack boot tactics of ICE and the Border Patrol and driving the right wing bigots back beneath the surface again..

Just because Amazon has a legal right to engage in a particular type of commerce does not necessarily make them morally correct in their actions. The technical legality of acts has never been a sustainable justification for the morality of behavior of people or organizations.

There was a time when buying and selling slaves was legal - should people not have protested against the slave trade because it a) didn't involve them directly or b) it was legal?

In the 60s and 70s, Dow Chemical and Dupont manufactured and sold a defoliant used by the military that contained dioxin - the main ingredient of Agent Orange (which has since been proven to have killed and disable thousands of GIs who served in Vietnam). Many people protested Dow and Dupont's activities - where they wrong to have done so?

You are pretty judgmental of other people and their motives…you don't know them yet you characterize them based on some criteria you conjure up. You dismiss their cause based on your own personal opinion not facts. Just what was it that you have done in life that empowers you to be the judge of all causes and things?

What a sad and meaningless commentary you offer.

So you feel this way about Pro Life marches too, I assume.

...going to a Pro Life march this weekend, PatriciaXXX?

Jews and Jewish-Americans have so many concerns and troubles of their own.

It's inspiring to see these folks stepping up to fight the injustices we're all witnessing.

I applaud and thank them and hope pray God blesses therm in all their endeavors.


Glad to see ch.4 didn't sanitize this yet, showing the protesters blocking traffic near MGH at rush hour as an ambulance with lights and siren on tried to get through the gridlock this group was causing. ch. 4 also reported that protesters refused to tell police their route, causing added pandemonium. Motorists seemed quite frustrated. These disruptive acts by the left will only increase next year on each coast. The Dems will have to own it.


I saw ambulances approach the march on two occasions. Both times, protesters and police cooperated to break the march line and let the ambulances through.


Gridlock causes backups...even in intersections you cant see.


you said they did a good job though... in fact you commended them.

stay woke.

Corporate media DID sanitize their coverage, but with the bias that Oafish approves of. They have an arsenal of tools to slant a story. If you expect them to favor the Establishment position, you won't be disappointed.


On the news I saw, there were indeed no people in the street and in fact there were a couple directing the protesters.

Problem was that traffic was so snarled due to the protest that the ambulance trying to get to MGH was significantly delayed.

No problem with the protest and your message, but next time pull a permit so the cops can route you and coordinate emergency services.


No problem with the protest and your message, but next time pull a permit

You most obviously do have a problem with the protest. You don't seem to understand civil disobedience so I really, really beg of you to read Letter from a Birmingham Jail, it will at least help you understand who YOU are in this discussion. HINT: You ain't the guy writing the letter.

Here's the VERY opening line:

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely."


That Barney Frank has conversations with.

I had no problem with the Nazis last year having their little luncheon on the Parkman Bandstand. I was one of thousands of counter-protesters on the periphery.

Not totally my cup of tea, but I joined a very small protest at the request of a friend against tearing down a historic building.

I peacefully enjoy the Gay Pride Parade from the sidewalk every year I am in town.

You have this delusional belief that people who hold large, unpermitted protests or who disrupt permitted events are somehow committing acts of civil disobedience when in fact all they are doing is breaking the law and causing a dangerous situation.

let me ask you, what if instead of Jews against ICE, the protesters had been Trumpicans for ICE - would that have been an OK protest? I'm sure not in your book. What if the Nazis show up at the Gay Pride Parade with bullhorns etc. and try to disrupt the festivities, a few with fisticuffs? I'm sure you'd have a problem with that (as would I). This is a slippery slope and it's why people far smarter and more mature than you get to make these calls. More importantly, your personal beliefs don't get to decide who gets to protest/counterprotest or otherwise PEACEFULLY march after securing required permits.

Then realize how uniformed your argument is. All your inconsistency about "unpermitted protests" somehow NOT being "civil disobedience" is addressed there. You've confirmed you don't even understand what "civil disobedience" means. Hint, it doesn't mean following the law, if you're following the law, it's not disobedience!

As I've said over and over again, it's a really good letter, you should read it if only to keep from embarrassing yourself again, JD.

Also, now borrowed insults? When people are making a fool of you, it's probably best to just keep quiet and not try to lean on the much more well earned snark of Mr. Frank. Have a nice day, "major leaguer."

You argue for civil disobedience. Then I point out that civil disobedience is fine, it's uncivil disobedience I have a problem with.

Your counterpoint is that uncivil disobedience is civil disobedience. Huhhhh???

And if you read your sacred letter you will see that Dr King also would have had a problem with this protest. Due to racist practices, they weren't permitted to have marches, so they marched. Had they applied, I'm 100% certain this anti-ICE group would have received a permit, though likely not in the streets at rush hour for safety reasons outlined above. Perhaps you should re-read the letter. This time try to understand it to the fullest extent possible for a dining room table.

Have a nice day table.

Always grateful for someone that puts out a link that proves my point.

Much appreciated for bringing the Letter to the table, Table.

god damn, you’re dense

Read the letter, check back in.

Very specifally says the anti-ICE protest would be inappropriate.

Or are you the chairs to Petes table?

It takes a very special sort of person, one with blinders firmly affixed, to read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and think Dr. King would've been on the side of the cops and NOT the people protesting ICE because they weren't following the letter of the law.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action";

I really thought you were a little more aware than that, JD, but apparently all you have are the rejoinders of a child.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Please point out the injustice perpetrated on these paraders that would have violated their First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. Without such evidence, Dr. King tells you that you are expressing disrespect for the law and behaving like rabid segregationists.

You should go find berkleealum (aka - Mr. D.R. Chairs) and you can enjoy coffee in your echo chamber together.

Yours truly,

A Proud White Moderate

Hahahahaha...Your inability to hear or grasp the overarching point of MLK's letter, followed by your hearty embrace of the sobriquet for the group that was tsking him for being too controversial (EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, SIR), followed by your childish parroting of insults at those who try to correct your obliviousness...I mean, if you had an ounce of self awareness you'd be laughing too. Mr. proud white man.

Thanks for he laugh, JD.

...for his own evil intents.

Mr. Table,

The overarching point is clear. And he offers specific exception to that overarching point which is clearly understandable to anyone with an 8th grade reading level.

And in case you haven't noticed. the white moderate of 2019 is far different from the white moderate of 1959. By 1959 standards I'd be a liberal commie pinko. By 2019 standards, I am sure I am someone Dr. King would be proud to call a friend and sympathetic to the standard he bore.


Still a proud (2019) white moderate.

So when normal, everyday gridlock blocks emergency vehicles that's OK. But if a protester of a cause you oppose blocks traffic, they are indirect killers, eh?

If you honestly believe anything which impeeds ambulances is wrong you should be advocating to ban all vehicles from at least one travel lane on all roadways. That would effectively ban cars in Boston.


"Motorists seemed quite frustrated" -- heavens to Betsy! I bet the protestors never considered that they might be inconveniencing others as a way of drawing attention to the thing they are protesting. So good on you for bringing this up.


I’m confused, FISH. You often express concern about ambulances being blocked, putting people’s health at risk, but I can’t recall ever seeing your concern posts about children dying while in ICE camps. I must have missed those.

I never heard so much concern about children dying and locked up in cages at ICE camps until Trump became president. Even though the policy was put in by the prior administration.

How odd.

Yes, the Obama administration put refugees into custody. No, they didn't have a policy to keep them there as long as possible as a warning, to the point of refusing to distribute vaccines or letting children be sexually attacked. The only people locked up for long periods of time were people with criminal backgrounds.

And even with that, if you failed to read complaints about ICE, you were probably too busy fulminating about how the president was obviously un-American because he used Dijon mustard and wore a tan suit that one time.

I see it semi-regularly to regularly around here, but that was one of the more severe cases of selective memory displayed in a while.

We get it. Obama was the greatest thing to ever happen to the Earth and Orange Man Bad.

With the horn seems like a totally rational human.

This is what I imagine all protesters are like.


I should have explained the significance of the shofar in Judaism, especially with the High Holy Days coming up. Here, have a link.


I didnt know, now i do.


- Not Jewish, not ignorant, knows what a shofar is.

you also know when to use the singular of "women" ...

...on days ending in a Y.

What are they protesting? I don’t understand.

Are selling various sorts of technology to ICE and DHS that can make their camps more efficient (in addition to being the Sears of the 21st century, Amazon makes a lot of money from back-end technical stuff, including "cloud" services). They're protesting that, saying it's sort of like when IBM kept right on selling tabulation equipment to the Nazis.


Amazon employees have protested the selling of facial recognition technology to ICE as well.

People who like to do protest marches, also like to do sit-ins.

i’m shocked, SHOCKED to find that people don’t like “peaceful” protest either


The sit-in demonstrated how ICE is supposed to work.

Some people trespassed a place they were not authorized to be. Police promptly removed them.