Mike Rotkin, by the way, was on the side of the cops when they were caught infiltrating a community group organizing an unpermitted New Year's Eve parade. It was a scandal that made national news.

The Santa Cruz City Council led by Rotkin circled the wagons in order to protect the police. So as for civil liberties, he's all for them, as long as people stay in their place and he gets the liberal vote.

Check out "Police Spying Aftermath" at http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/last_night_diy/media#spying where there are dozens of articles many of which quote Mike Rotkin as saying: If they didn't want to be spied on, maybe they shouldn't have been contemplating doing anything illegal.

So having Mike reference civil liberties is a bit egregious.

There'll be a Q&A at this thing so feel free to bring your Q's & A's, but please mind your P's & Q's. ;)

Becky Johnson commented:

"Its a bit sickening that Rotkin and Andrea Pritchett will be on the same bill. Rotkin who participated in the cover-up of the police murder of Happy John Dine and the Copwatch Maven together on the same panel."

"Rotkin who supports the sleeping ban. Rotkin who approved the bank-breaking police retirement package. Rotkin who approved the $13 police station. Rotkin who supports the downtown ordinances. Rotkin who hides the business of the public safety committee."

I would add to her list the following items that Rotkin also supported:
     Massive increase (seven fold) of P&R homeless sleeppolicing in the Pogonip to the tune of $700,000 (2007)
      Cutting out the P & R Commission from any meaningful power to rein in P & R boss Danettee Shoemaker when she decides to close down any area patrolled by P & R or "set closing hours" (2006)
      The "Party at Your Peril" law of 2005, which vastly increases fines for "unruly parties".
      Threats and arrests of activists at City Council for trying to use the public comment period (2004-5).
       Cutting off public comment on the Police Surveillance of Political Events guidelines, and having those guidelines written by Chief Skerry, and announced by Mayor Mathews last summer with no public City Council process
       The "Parking Garage Paranoia" Trespass law (2006) which targeting homeless people without shelter, banning everyone from entering a public parking garage unless they have a car or bicycle there.  And limiting even those to 15 minutes before incurring a fine.
         Refusing to abide by the "Jones" decision in Los Angeles this year, banning authorities from arresting homeless people for nighttime survival sleeping in the absence of alternative shelter.
          Prompting a Metro Driver's Strike and in the mid-90's scabbing\
          Maintaining a five-year closure on medical marijuana clubs in the City (2000-2005 through a severely restrictive zoning law), and refusing to bring to city council or tn endorse Measure K (lowest priority for adult use of recreational marijuana in private)
           Dissemination of false and misleading information supporting the City's institutionalized hate crime against the homeless--the city's complete ban on all homeless sleeping on public property 11 PM to 8:30 AM In 2000, Rotkin was the main force on the City Council that helped defeat the Safe Sleeping Zones proposal.


Check out more of Rotkin's two-faced horrible civil liberties positions by using the search function on indybay.org/santacruz and going specifically to the following sites:

http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/05/18326773.php &
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/05/18326773.php?show_comments=1#18327852 ("Another Flyer Against Rotkin" & "Flyer Side 2")

The TICU's association with the despicable likes of Mike Rotkin (politician, marxist, development-rubberstamper, local police state advocate) is sure to be of controversy among the frequenters of Santa Cruz Indymedia, but it's merely indicative of some of the other shortcomings of activism, especially this brand thereof. While as an *activist* project it is not without its merits--an undermining of money-centered relationships, slightly "subversive" culture-jamming and parody, and a more effective propaganda machine than the wingnut on the street corner. But activism, as usual, is utterly unfulfilling and merely buys into and reinforces a system of alienation, rather than actually attacking or undermining it--kind of like ice cream, when you consider it. Working hand in hand with institutions like the University and individuals like Mike Rotkin, pathetically targeting an hip liberal student populace who can be relied on to agree with their standard liberal anti-Halliburton/anti-Bush/anti-MacDonald's stance but not do much else--that's the best they can do, which is hardly surprising. The "anarchy" they offer is merely leftist activism with a dash of boring classic workerist anarchism, minus the direct action and sabotage. A comprehensive attack upon (or even critique of) the concepts of society, culture, and domination is completely unthinkable to the Tactical Ice Cream Unit. While their little trip to Santa Cruz might be great for making themselves feel like they're "doing something," give lines of UCSC students smug satisfaction for being politically hip and savvy, their activism in no way creates anarchy or destroys exploitative relationships. This is of course, another "more anarchist than thou" critique that all the "unity" and "march in line" leftists can get pissed off at and dismiss from their knee-jerk reactivist marionette troupe, but I object to that label. Anarchy has no fucking measurements, and it's pretty clear that the Ice Cream Truck isn't anarchist AT ALL--it's activism with a superficial circle-A on top.