This was posted by the the toiletpaper site, as a conversation with parade organizer, John O'Donnell.

My comments and rebuttal are in purple italics

"We didn't have a problem with the peace t-shirts because it's not a social issue as far as I'm concerned. The social issue we had a problem with was the explicitly anti-war signs."

If we accept him at his word, it still does not apply to Page, or whoever the guy with the brown beard is, who did have a problem with our message of peace. I think it's safe to conclude that from his seeing a sign that said "Kids, Not Bombs", an obvious reference to children's education and the theme of the Bookman entry that peace is more educational than war, and told O'Donnell it said "Bush Kills Babies". That's the typical malicious misquotations we get from the rabid opponents of peace. Explicitly antiwar is another cop-out. Is the Democratic Party float explicitly anti Republican? Doesn't Mayor Rivera's float say explicitly don't vote for my opponents?

2. He did not single out the Bookman group for the "no social issues" rule because, he says, he also asked the El Paso Country Democrats to take down an anti-Bush banner before the parade started. 

"The El Paso County Democratic Party had an anti-Bush banner and I got a call from one of the parade marshals, so I asked them to not carry it, and they didn't."

He asked the Dems to take a sign down, an option not afforded to us, which easily leads to the conclusion that an option for us to remain in the parade was never considered, but his affiliation with the Democratic Party made it impossible to treat them the same way. Unequal protection under the law and a violation of the 14th amendment.

3. None of the parade marshalls saw the anti-war signs before the group began marching, which would indicate that they sincerely didn't have a problem with the peace signs. Had they seen the signs with the explicit social issue messages, he says, they would have simply asked them not to display them in the parade.

"Not all of the people who were in the parade were at the staging area, and nobody saw the signs. And my impression is that most of the people who were in their entry came out from the sidelines to join in after they had started down the route. The entry in its total wasn't visible in the staging area."

He thought we came from the sidelines, and thinks we were not all in the staging area, with signs.

We were all there and some signs were stored in the van as inappropriate, but no official said anything. Photos published here show a parade official, in a blue jacket, with a clipboard, walking past and looking at us. He is the one who directed us onto the parade route, so a precedent was set at that point, just as it was the year before. He actually started us out onto the street and then put another group ahead of us, so we moved over and waited for them to pass before he once again, directed us out onto the parade route.

4. Once he became aware that the Bookman group was carrying anti-war signs, he says that he asked the police to let them know that they had to either put the signs away or leave the parade. He added that he has no idea whether or not the police communicated this choice to the Bookman group, but that once the first act of civil disobedience took place it was completely out of his hands.

"When it became apparent that the Bookman group was carrying antiwar signs, I asked the officer at the head of the detail to ask the group to either put the signs away or leave the parade. Once the first member of the group laid down or sat down or verbally or physically assaulted an officer, it was completely out of my hands. I had no idea they would do what they did. I was physically sick and I thought, goddangit, that wasn't my intention. We pulled off one of the biggest parades in the history of the city and one of the biggest foot races, the weather was beautiful, great entries, and all the good things that happened went out the window."

He told the cop to give us the option of putting the signs down. That was never said by any cop! Eric has already put this into print: "We would have put the signs away," Verlo says. "No problem. We were told we had no permit and then, when we proved we did, that it was revoked. He's blaming the cops for this, who are blaming him back. If he is aware that any cop he was talking to was the head of the detail, then he must know the name of that cop too. I'm not sure by what communication method he was talking to the "head of the detail" cause I didn't see the guy in the brown beard hand the phone to Paladino, but it's possible he did, since I was busy with gathering evidence. I photographed the bearded guy talking on the phone and that fits with his ability to tell O'Donnell about the fictitious sign, " Bush Ate his First Born with a Nice Chianti and some Fava Beans" (or something like that) That option to put away signs was never imparted to us, because we would have done it gladly, since we had already done so on our own, to cull the signs within what we could imagine was the ambiguous and unequally applied rule on "social comments".

5. O'Donnell conceded that one of his reasons for the "no social issues" rule is because Colorado Springs is so heavily military. But his rationale, he said, is that he'd hate to see someone come out of the crowd to start a fight during a parade that's attended by thousands of children. He also noted that the policy has been in effect for 15 years.

"I'm standing out on Tejon and it sounds like there's going to be a disturbance and I have to make up my mind in about 15 seconds. And in our town that has such a strong military presence, I'd hate for somebody to walk out of the crowd and start a fight. I was dreading a disturbance involving someone who would take affront and the possibility of a fight on the street with so many children. And unfortunately, that's what happened. I'm guessing that half the crowd was kids."

The military rules his decision for no peace signs, but our talking points are always that "anti war is not anti warrior" and "supporting the troops is bringing them home". He insults the military by saying he's afraid they would start a fight with us. We don't think for a moment that any soldier would start a fight over our message of peace, and almost always get positive reactions from those in uniform. When we get rebuttal to our signs, it's almost always respectful and ends with "I fought for your right to disagree", which we thank them for, and accept their motivations, although we don't think the neocons are as pure of heart.

The other problem with this thinking is that he could tell the possible actions of someone before time and like the pre-crime unit in "Minority Report" would stop the crime before the intention to commit existed. The other problem is this. You don't punish the victim of an assault, you punish the perpetrator, if there is one.

Finally, O'Donnell said that he does feel set up "absolutely" by the Bookman Group because their application to be in the parade made no mention of anything other than the Bookman Bookmobile's mission of giving out free books. Had they approached him more honestly, said O'Donnell, he would've made sure they had a safe place in the parade with the appropriate peace message. This opens the door for us to be in next year's parade, and we can appear the magnanimous group by offering to only have the peace signs and banners. We can make him live by this statement. He of course, didn't get a complete itinerary from any group in the parade, that's that spin, but it's an offer we can accept from him, publicly, to be in the parade next year.

"If they had called me in advance and told me they wanted to do this, I would have gladly found a place for them in the parade or made some kind of arrangement."

It's pretty smart, safe, and convenient of him to say he would have been accommodating as a hypothetical conjecture in the future. All behavior so far does not point to the same possibility he would like to claim for himself in the future. I would love to see all these alleged permit applications that state each and every person, each and every sign, banner, statement, sentiment, concept, issue, opinion, and issue. There's no such thing and shouldn't be. Each group invites their friends to come along and have a good time and so did we. How can he feel "set up" when we marched last year with the same signs and sentiments?