iconLog In  |  Register

I'm not doing nothin', a film review

featured_post

Right after the Cop says the second time, “Step up to my car,” you can barely hear the Kid’s response: “I’m not doin’ nothin’.”

The Kid and his friends weren’t doing anything much out of the ordinary for a warm Saturday night in June on the campus of the University of Illinois. Along with dozens of other people, mostly young, they are sauntering down the sidewalk on Green Street, unconcerned. When the squad car pulls up behind them unexpectedly, almost rear-ending these unaware and startled pedestrians, one of them says, “What the?!?!”

CHAMPAIGN POLICE PEPPER SPRAY ALLEGED BRUTALITY, a 53-minute found film was leaked onto the Internet by unknown artist Xdtact. For its fascinating revelations, it should be considered the movie of the year.

CHAMPAIGN POLICE PEPPER SPRAY ALLEGED BRUTALITY was filmed on June 5th, 2011, 2:00 to 3:00 am, from inside a Champaign Police Department squad car. It starts like many cheap 1940s films noir, a black and white cityscape of students exiting the bars, walking in clusters, talking on cell phones, stumbling off the sidewalk, some drinking out of cans.

Most critics of the film have focused on the acts of pepper spraying and choking of a young black man, the Kid, by a Champaign police officer, the Cop. But the dialogue, the off-screen action, the extra-textual information, and a riveting sexual undertone allow deeper meanings to stand out, a backwards revelation on the simmering racial tension – and the denial of that tension – plaguing this central Illinois community for so long.

THE FILM THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE – The News-Gazette, as of this writing, has not mentioned the fact that this film is available for anyone to study. In contrast, WILL radio announced it the day it was posted on the Independent Media Center site and in Smile Politely.

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE – The scene on the street on June 5th is banal. People are walking to their various destinations, dorms or home. They are returning from the night out. Many are wearing shorts. There is no sense of urgency or threat, even in the police dispatch radio. “OK,” replies the dispatcher in a high, just-another-workday voice, after getting an update on the scene, as though he were asked to pick up a ream of copy paper from the shelf.

SOUNDTRACK – The Cop is listening to oldies radio. The Young Rascals sing “Good Lovin’” and Santana continues the set with “You’ve Got To Change Your Evil Ways, Baby.”

CRUISING – The Cop turns off Green Street to go down Fifth Street. He begins to circle the block slowly, much in the way teens used to cruise in circles in their souped up muscle cars, “American Grafitti”-style, looking for action. Cruising, for non-police, has sexual connotations, but cruising is also the word used for beat cops on the move.

ONE-WAY STREET – The Cop turns right down Healey Street, going the wrong way down the one-way street, a symbolic flexing of muscle, a demonstration of power and privilege, to be able to do what others are not. A pedestrian crossing mid-street, ignoring the crosswalk, scurries to get out of the way of this unexpected wrong-way vehicle.

BLACK AND WHITE – At 2:20, the first identifiable words in the movie are heard coming from the police radio. "All these white kids are affiliated with them,” the scratchy dispatch says. “These are all out of towners." Subsequent communication on the dispatch also indicate that racial identification is the currency of the dialogue. Making sure a white girl has gotten to a destination. Identifying others with the dispatch question, “White or black?”

THE SPARK – Circling back to Green Street and going west, the Cop glides along the street, hand turning the camera once – the only hand-held camera movement – to observe two black high-heeled girls who are standing and talking. At 2:24, two police on the street question a group of five who appear to be talking loudly. The Cop sits in his car and observes from a distance. The issue is resolved, but when loud talking recurs, the police return to the group, talk some more and leave again. The two girls in heels walk back to the heart of Campustown; the other three, which includes the Kid, continue east toward Fourth Street.

POSITIVELY FOURTH STREET – There is little traffic at the intersection of Fourth and Green where the Cop waits, parallel to the Kid and his two companions on the sidewalk. A bicyclist pedals down Fourth Street, reflective lights in the spokes. The three being followed begin to cross the street (off-camera) until they reach the corner, when the Cop veers his car perpendicular to and blocking Fourth Street, almost bumping up into the backs of the three youth. One of them turns, startled, and says something like “What the...” A thump is heard. Maybe one of them touched the car. Jefferson Starship is singing on the radio, “If only you believed in miracles...”

GRAMMAR LESSON – “Step up to my car,” the Cop calls out to the Kid, who has walked some distance from the corner. There are several other pedestrians between the Cop and the Kid. There is no indication that this personal command (“MY car”) is related to police work. After the phrase is repeated, the kid turns slightly and says, “I’m not doin’ nothin’.”

The Kid may believe he is saying, albeit ungrammatically, that he is not doing anything wrong, a refrain he will continue to express repeatedly for the rest of the film. To the Cop, the same words could be construed to mean “I am not doing anything you tell me to do, I am not going to step up to your car, I am going to disobey you.” This deconstructed phrase is a clear example of the ambiguity of language; the final meaning can never be decided.

PEPPER SPRAY – The Cop has exited his car carrying the can of pepper spray in his right hand, a loaded weapon, his finger on the trigger.

RAP ARTIST – The Kid has no weapons other than his mouth, which he uses with abandon, recklessly, continuing to question his arrest, defending himself with words, the only power he possesses to control any sense of personhood or dignity.

INFINITY – The Kid standing up facing the squad car, continuing to protest his innocence, when the Cop sprays the Kid directly in the eyes, a sucker punch, suddenly and without warning. He then sprays the can off-screen, randomly, to ward off any standers-by, although seconds earlier he had half-heartedly commanded someone off-screen (“You too,” he says) to join the Kid at the car.

What follows in the next 20 minutes could take volumes to describe, the hand gestures, the facial reactions, the shock, the torrent of words from the outraged and (at least in his own mind) wronged Kid, an infinity of crossed communication.

“Why are you doing this?,” the Kid protests. “Why are you doing this? I’m didn’t do anything wrong.”

The Beatles are singing inside the cab of the vehicle. “Baby you can drive my car, baby you can drive my car...”

Gradually, both the Cop and the Kid start to treat each other as humans. The Kid calls the Cop “sir” at the same time his agony increases, his hands tied behind his back. “Where are you taking me?”

The Kid knows the Cop has jumped over protocol and, continuing to rail loudly with his word-weapon, points it out. The Cop realizes, too, he has been impulsive and, much belatedly, begins to recite Miranda, but they both realize it’s pointless.

The film could essentially end here. But there is a big second act to come.

The Kid keeps rapping, crying, howling, complaining, arguing. “Don’t touch me, I’m not going to let you touch me, take me to jail, you don’t have any right to touch me, don’t touch me.”

In the film’s only edit, the camera changes from the view of the street to the back seat of the squad car.

At 2:31, the Kid still demanding to see another officer and saying “Don’t touch me,” the Cop makes his second mad, impulsive move of the evening. He leaps into the car, grabs the kid by the throat as if to say, please please please just shut up, and lands full body contact, face to face, prone in the backseat of the car, a date gone bad.

The sexuality of this moment is undeniable. The Cop keeps getting rebuffed, denied, and frustrated and he jumps the bones of the handcuffed Kid in the backseat. Two prone bodies, face to face. The Cop lays himself down right on top of the Kid, almost as if to say, I can have my way with you, I’m the man here, I could KISS you if I wanted to.

The Kid is astonished. Earlier he had said, “I cannot wait until I tell my mom about this,” which indicates he has some parental guidance as well. And now he has been shamed, humiliated, assaulted in the back of a car.

“Sir, you had no reason to choke me. You had no reason to choke me, sir.”

The Cop tries to calm things down. He says, “You shouldn’t be acting like this,” as though it were all part of a play, a scene.

Eventually, the Kid keeps quiet. He’s listening. He wants it to be over as much as anyone. But it’s too late. Beep beep um beep beep yeah...

ACT THREE – There is more, much more. The Cop tries to wash off the evidence, cleaning up the Kid, like post-pseudo-coital effort. “I’m going to get another wipe to wipe off your face.”

The Kid: You cannot imagine how much it hurts. I can barely even breathe right now, sir. I will not run. I will not do anything.

The Cop: You’ve got to calm down. You’re talking a mile a minute.

The Kid: I’m not talking a mile a minute because I’m not used to not being able to do nothing on my own, man.

The Cop: Open your eyes, lift up your head and I’ll pour water into your mouth. It’s only because you didn’t comply. I understand. I understand how it feels. I was pepper sprayed too.

And, later, when the claustrophobia of the handcuffs and the confinement hurts too much, the Kid says, “Will you take my pants off then?”

The Cop (kindly): “No, I will not take your pants off.”

What?

Somewhere along the way, the soundtrack had stopped.

On the long drive to the lockup, the street lights are waving in shadows inside the back seat of the car, the kid shaking his head. Black and white patterns, checks, slats, designs, flickering scenes from an old movie, scenes that happen a hundred times a day every day, all across the country.

Will the Kid ever trust police again? The next time he drives 35 miles per hour in a 30 MPH zone, or forgets to use his turn signal, or buckle his seat belt, or cross in the middle of the street, or any of the dozen other things we do every day without thinking, and the police approach him, will he comply or will he be tempted to do what his survival instincts tell him to do and flee?

The last ten minutes of the film are at the station, quieter now, no music playing, paperwork underway. All the camera reveals is total darkness.


24 comments

username

Annonymous

#1

Thanks for the detailed analysis of Champaign’s Film of the Year. You should win a copy of Citizen’s Watch from 2004, another wonderful film of the same genre that landed both videographers a Class 2 felony charge of eavesdropping. (Private citizens are not allowed to “violate the privacy of police officers in uniform in the public way conducting the public’s business” in Illinois. The only production company allowed to capture raw footage of police business is the police themselves apparently. Xdtact should be awarded Bootlegger of the Year.)
Your review missed Best Supporting Abuser at 11:53. Notice the assisting officer who helps handcuff the star of the film. At 11:50, he shares an intimate moment with the star, whispering something to The Kid, and after he handcuffs him, BAM! he slams the Kid’s face against the hood of the squad car. It is brilliant in it’s subtlety and cruelty to someone who has just been pepper sprayed in the face. A cinematic statement for the ages to all who would dare backtalk to the Champaign Police.
There is an Act Four that occurs off-camera also not included in your review. Somehow, someway, what we have seen on film was translated in a police report (call it the first film review) that interpreted the events on film to mean that The Kid assaulted and injured an officer! (broke his hand); and the police report was submitted to the State’s Attorney’s office for prosecution as a felony against The Kid. Apparently, there was an officer who wanted a paid leave of absence and medical coverage for a broken hand. How to get that? More theatre was needed: “I was injured not by abusing a citizen; but rather because the loud mouth Kid assaulted me.” If not for this film, (which is not the case for most “resisting arrest” charges in Champaign County) the Fourth Act would have played out in court and The Kid would have been facing a felony conviction for life based on the brilliant acting by The Cop in front of a jury.
Little wonder officials have refused in Act Five: The “Tranparent Investigation”, to release a copy of the police report to Smilepolitely’s Joel Gillespie.

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#2

Certified Fresh on Rotten Doughnuts.
One thing the play-by-play didn’t catch here is that The Kid’s hand opposite The Cop was raised moments before the pepperspraying.  This was a reaction to a perceived threat—not just some officer getting tired of the young black man’s lip.
P. Gregory notes that The Cop has that pepper spray at the ready before he’s even directly confronted The Kid here.  The nice way to put it is that The Cop being cautious.  The more cynical perspective might be that he was waiting for the opportunity.
Who cares. Either way the Kid got peppersprayed and choked, and that is lame (my Pulitzer-winning, buried lede).  Makes for great cinema though.  Leaves one wondering, however: Why not save that kind of force and diligence for the bastards stabbing and raping folks in West Side Park?  Much more intrigue and action scenes.

P. Gregory Springer avatar featured_post

P. Gregory Springer

#3

If you watch those hand movements repeatedly, it seems evident that they are part of his speech, not threatening, and minimal at that, more like finger movements than hand movements.  But at this point, both the Kid and the Cop had their minds made up about what was going on.

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#4

oh definitely.  no attempt at justifying cop’s actions.  just saying if he’s of the mind to think it’s cool to walk into a situation with his hand on the trigger of a loaded weapon, of course he got jumpy at the body language.

username

YNOD

#5

Way to trivialize a serious incident with a condescending, detatched, undergrad-pomo piece.  Not to mention the borderline homophobia.

username

Local Yocal

#6

I appreciate YNOD’s sensitivity to the brutality of what has been videotaped. Myself, I was not offended by Mr. Springer’s lighthearted treatment of this historic piece of video, even though I thought the sexual undertones Mr. Springer claims to be happening a complete fabrication. For emotional sanity, it may be we need a little distancing and artistic flair to this serious tragedy. Mr. Springer’s attention to detail helped reveal some things I had missed in my viewing of the film, and it was a revelation/reminder to have brought to my attention how casual and routine it is for METCAD and the police to patrol our fair city in a very racialized manner. Their priority during a patrol really seems to be to make sure the blacks are accounted for and controlled. That patrol priority might explain how a jaywalking, amongst the many during the film, becomes a moment of confrontation for the Cop and the Kid. The state of race relations between citizens and the police is best scene at the 8:30 point of the film. Watch how angry and offended the female, who was with the Kid, gets at the officers who have picked them out to follow by foot. There is a back story here, a prior relationship between the police and black residents not often told, and one the female seems to be retelling at the officers. This film is not about a reaction to a jaywalking. This film is about what police have been doing for years to the black community. Any publicity to that story, even a snarky film review that seems to minimize the violence that erupts from this broken relationship, is helpful toward exposing and discussing a longstanding local problem. Smilepolitely has dedicated 4 posts to this story, and you have to appreciate the editors’ and the writers’ due diligence toward a subject that is enabled, avoided and denied over at the newspaper on Main St. for many years. 

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#7

YNOD: yeah, good point, what with the homophobia, though.

username

YNOD

#8

I’m sure the author intended this to be social commentary in the form of parody, but it just comes across as misguided and offensive.  The ‘sexual tension’ references assume that homosexuality would be an insult.  Not to mention the subtle racism, in that “The Kid” is speaking “ungrammatically.”

P. Gregory Springer avatar featured_post

P. Gregory Springer

#9

As someone who lived through the gay bathhouse, police, and handcuff fantasies of the 1970s, I would have thought the homosexual undertones were evident in this encounter, albeit not on the part of the Kid.  He was an unwilling participant in the simulated rape action.  White fear of black sexuality has long been established and the Cop’s actions had at least a modicum of sexual one-upmanship involved.  It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge the sexuality involved here, but it would be difficult to deny it entirely.
 

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#10

P: You raise interesting points—will need to give the film another viewing with queer theory in mind.  Wasn’t accusing you, the writer, of being homophobic…although there was a sense of superimposed slash fiction rather than insight into power/sex relationships happening.
YNOD—you might be being too sensitive here, the wordplay happening here is a crux of the argument that there was only miscommunication and disregardful violence: INSONS INSONTIS vs NON SERVIAM.
I think YOU’RE racist for assuming he brought up the grammar because the Kid is black.  HA!

username

Annonymous

#11

Let’s not forget the religious overtones at 11:55, when the Kid says: “I hope y’all are recordin’ this shit, I swear to God I do.” Prayer answered. Amazing that Officer Simons, in his confidence that he doing right (later reflected by the official statement of the FOP), responds, “Okay.” as if a recording of this event will be absolutely no problem for his career and the policing profession. The arrogance is stunning.

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#12

Maybe he figured another pepper-spraying would get lost in the shuffle of the internet, like a lolcat in a sea of lolcats.

Rob McColley avatar featured_post

Rob McColley

#13

YNOD?
 
BKUZ. 
 
A celebration of homerotic cinema is homophobic if you’re looking to be insulted. Speaking ebonics may be socially stigmatizing, but characterizing ebonics phonetically is merely a communication of colloquial speech. Who are you to insist the young man’s words be twisted into the Queen’s English?
 
 
“Racism” is the most overused and misused word in sociology, and possibly English. You know who’s being racist? YOU. If you think a white man should not characterize a black youth as speaking ebonics—whether in lterary fiction, or in a chroncling of ACTUAL EVENTS like this one—whom are you protecting? Why are you protecting that person/group? Do you think they need protection from whitey? Doesn’t that assumption imply an inherent inferiority? Isn’t that assumption of inferiority based on race? Are you not, therefore, a racist?
 
 
YRDUM

P. Gregory Springer avatar featured_post

P. Gregory Springer

#14

Really, isn’t this exactly what they want?  Name-calling distraction and bickering about who is more right and best?  The film is a smoking gun about the state of race relations in Champaign-Urbana.  It should be seen.  It confirms the fierce questions about what happened to Calvin Miller and Kwane Carrington.  No wonder they are suppressing it.  And no wonder the people who railed most loudly about the other cases—calling the victims criminals or poorly raised or mercenary, and discounting any culpability of the police—are curiously silent right now. 

username

Annonymous

#15

@Isaac Arms:
There may have been a second pepper spraying sometime after 16:00 when the handcuffed Kid spills out from the other side of the squad car when Officer Simons shoved/throttled him. If you notice after 19:00 when the Kid is again walked around the back of the squad car to be replaced back inside, the Kid has a fresh dose of spray on his face and writhes in agony for the next minute whereas before the throttling by Officer Simons, he was noticeably more calm despite the first dose earlier.
As Springer rightly observes, there is a deafening silence to this bootlegged film. It is a long overdue smoking gun, not to just the way police practice their profession in a racially biased way, but to a long standing complaint that some police officers falsify their reports later for court. The Calvin Miller video was originally thought to disprove Miller’s story and is why Finney so eagerly released it to the public thinking it would splash egg on the faces of the activists. But as that film came under the same scrutiny that Springer has launched with this film, City Attorney Fred Stavins had the Miller video removed from the internet. The soundtrack to the Miller video supported Miller’s claims that he was beaten by Officer John Lieb after Miller surrendered to police custody. These videos are beginning to reveal why law enforcement wants to keep you citizens from ever videotaping the police on your own. They want control over the documentation of their actions lest their reports be later found false. False police reports are exactly why Larry Martins sued the City when he was shot by the CPD in August of 2006. There aren’t just “questions” to the Miller Chase Down and the Carrington Killing- there is fake theatre to expose and a complete review of how police officials process evidence and posture for the media and courts. Wrongful convictions don’t just accidently happen- they are actively created. Hence the immediate guilt-trips and other distractions the public is forced to endure from the defenders of the police. There is big lawsuit money at stake, and some in the FOP will be damned before a black man gets a big paycheck because of their dishonesty.

username

YNOD

#16

@Rob : I was referring to, and criticizing, P Gregory’s words, which referred to the Kid speaking “ungrammatically,” as if his language were wrong somehow.
His term, not mine. Hence the quotes around the word, and hence you missing my point. I’m guessing by your reaction that you didn’t actually read the piece?

Rob McColley avatar featured_post

Rob McColley

#17

His language is wrong.

isaac arms avatar featured_post

isaac arms

#18

oh, you guys.

username

Local Yocal

#19

@Anon 12:00,
Wow. You are absolutely right, there is a second pepper spraying or some kind of force while the kid is in handcuffs, done by an unknown officer who is telling the Kid to “calm down.” It happens at 16:07. I did not notice this before and did not know that use of pepper spray could be used to “calm subjects down.” The FOP is so right, there is much about police work we citizens don’t understand. A citizen who is physically attacked while handcuffed in the back seat of a squad car cannot verbally protest while in handcuffs. And if a citizen does raise their voice to protest such an attack while in handcuffs, officers are authorized to again use pepper spray in order to calm subjects down. I’m sure this is all in the use of force policy manual available on line. We citizens are so ignorant.

username

Jean Michelle

#20

Nothing good happens after midnight.  I know this experience.  The kids were reportedly walking away from the scene of a fight.  That is why the on foot officers were telling them to move along.

  The young females were obviously encouraging the young males to act out.

  Cop is typical macho ’ respect the badge ’ guy who didn’t like the kids not following orders to move along immediately

  Cop lost his temper due to the perceived disrespect and did two really stupid things… Spray and choke the kid.

I sum this up in two ways. 

1.  Do what officers say and don’t yell at them.
2.  If you’re a cop, don’t lose your temper at some cocky kid, act like a thug and pepper spray and choke the kid.

username

J. Woltman

#21

Ok, so how many outside sources need to confirm that this was not outside policy and violated no civil rights?  State Police and FBI are credible I guess.  Guess the taxpayers of C-U need to pony up more tax dollars to get another confirmation.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2011-12-13/champaign-council-vote-review-pepper-spray-arrest-use-force-p

username

J. Woltman

#22

<span style=“color: #666666; font-family: Arial;”>are = aren’t.</span>

username

Local Yocal

#23

“Ok, so how many outside sources need to confirm that this was not outside policy and violated no civil rights?”
Until an outside source actually looks at the video tape and takes it seriously. Do you really think the State’s Attorney would drop a felony resisting charge against someone who broke an officer’s hand? What so many citizens fail to see is once the City Manager lost control of the video tape and the defense attorney started passing this video around, the City Manager had to get ahead of the curve quickly (a press conference on a Sunday?) He is trying his damnest to save the city budget from certain catastrophe. The thousands of dollars spent now on an investigation will maybe save the taxpayers millions later in civil court. The City of Champaign does not want to inherit the liability that will come later on somebody. If the City Manager can show that the City Government exercised due diligence toward rectifying this situation, perhaps they can escape responsibility for this event. (Since when does the City Manager “invite” a citizen to appeal the Chief of Police’s decision on a complaint?) The one-line emails the Illinois State Police and FBI have foisted as an evaluation of this event (with nary an officer’s signature to these evaluations) are mere wipes of the hands, “We ain’t touching this and we won’t be the cause of bankrupting your municipality.” Because the citizenry is so ignorant about use of force and the laws, they think a verbal protest (or “jawjacking” as Officer Simons describes it on the tape) is a legal justification for EVERYTHING they see (or more likely, don’t see) on the tape. That won’t be the case in civil court, and Rietz, Carter and the City Council know this.

We citizens, however, are so naively enamored and awestruck by the symbolic power of THE Illinois State Police and THE Federal Bureau of Investigations. Read former IL state trooper Mike Callahan’s book (Since When is Murder Political?) to discover how unreliable these investigations can be.

P. Gregory Springer avatar featured_post

P. Gregory Springer

#24

This happens routinely, not just in Champaign.  In today’s New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/young-black-and-frisked-by-the-nypd.html

Most Recent Opinion Comments

isaac arms avatar

hey, if hair ain’t gon’ be over your head, my jokes may as well be.

{username}

Okay, almost 24 hours later and I finally got Issac’s Summer joke. I’m an idiot.

{username}

Swap the dog for a fire pit and it sounds like you’re writing about my back yard. Very nice.

isaac arms avatar

funny, as your summer begins, another Summer ends.

{username}

And that, my friend, is love. Bob, I think I still owe you for my wedding cake, served in 1998. But nevermind.

{username}

I believe the kiss between Rob and I was documented on low-quality videotape in the mid-ninties porn classic, Dirty Harry…and Sticky.

Tracy Nectoux avatar

“Do I have to sign some forms, or am I just considered ‘in.’” You’re in!

{username}

Got damn, Coulter. You are the greatest.

Rob McColley avatar

I have no specific memory of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I’d kissed Mike, too—once we’d both drunk ourselves gay. And earlier this week I gave Clarence Shelley a back rub. Do I have to sign some forms, or am I just considered “in.”

{username}

FWIW, I got a copy of the letter in question.  It was written in a way that would be plausible to a casual reader who didn’t scrutinize it too carefully.  It announced the formation of an organization called G.L.A.B.A. (which actually exists), and had discussion about typical…

Most Recent Comments

Mike Ingram avatar

Oh nice!  I’d totally vote for Matt Campbell!

Rob McColley avatar

“Smile Politely sports writer announces candidacy for city government.”

{username}

I also got to visit Big Grove Tavern during the soft open and definitely enjoyed the pork belly the most of all the dishes I sampled. The cheesy grits and the vinegary pickled vegetables were a perfect compliment to the rich pork belly.

Michael Feltes avatar

The Alan Partridge lookalike on the right in the first small photo has nothing to condescend to anyone about. AH HA!

{username}

Snell and the little Hitlers of the neighborhood association need to chill out. Legitimate businesses should have the freedom to exist without having to endure the slings and arrows of ignorant and misguided opposition.

isaac arms avatar

represent, Matt.

{username}

Yeah, I’d agree that Transporter Room 3 is the worst house venue I’ve ever seen.

{username}

Food trucks are the start-up, small businesses of the future for those unable to afford real estate. No surprise, that merchants who pay rent, utilities, and maintenance on a property would despise the traveling competition. Or developers who build more empty retail spaces would want to close…

{username}

Not so much far-right Tea Party as a balanced, moderate viewpoint between letting businesses succeed and protecting society with reasonable regulations. In spite of what the city reps are saying, the interpretation of policy on this issue certainly has changed. Letting a business start up under one…

Rob McColley avatar

I think it’s neat that SP has turned rightward, now espousing a Tea Party-style frustration with government regulations & taxes.

Annie Weisner avatar

This makes me so sad.  (Happy to live in Urbana, though!)  Crave Truck has been a GREAT addition to the food choices in C-U, and it’d be a travesty to chase them away.  This town should be supporting small businesses.  I’m glad to hear that they’ll still…

{username}

*slow. clap.* Still offering no threat of intelligence…. I know I said I thought you should just write this whole column yourself next year, Isaac, but now that you’ve gone and taken a “part deux” run at it, I’d like to modify my request: Best Music 2013,…

isaac arms avatar

Actually, it’s kind of nice, the quiet.  John Heoffleur’s engaging commentary/dialogue is sorely missed, however. In lieu of someone intelligent saying something, I’ve compiled a list of Honourable Mentions: BEST ROCK BAND: Take Care ::these gentlemen have four completely different sets at their disposal right now (which…

isaac arms avatar

What?  Echo! (Echo!) Where’s the dischord and dissent?

Mike Ingram avatar

This weekend will mark the first appearance of Kayla Brown’s Fire Doll Candle booth at the Market.  Check it:  http://www.facebook.com/firedollcandles

{username}

And without bloodshed. Sounds like the Savoy trustees aren’t as narrow-minded as some of their whiny pants constituents. Do you think quack Snell is already planning an asinine counterattack or is he still laying low after those “threats” against his person?

isaac arms avatar

hey, if hair ain’t gon’ be over your head, my jokes may as well be.

{username}

Okay, almost 24 hours later and I finally got Issac’s Summer joke. I’m an idiot.

isaac arms avatar

Excellent.  I am glad sometimes American dreams are encouraged, rather than stifled.

{username}

Swap the dog for a fire pit and it sounds like you’re writing about my back yard. Very nice.

Log In



Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?