I'm not the poster of the article, nor any of the above comments, but I do have to take issue with what you say are assumptions made in the story.

Assuption One: Latino immigrants and working class people in general, are not capable of understanding or supporting a protest against the war when the protest disrupts their daily commute.

I don't see where the article presupposes this idea. Nor does the article mention anywhere that the people on the bus going to the party were protesting war. It only says that they were chanting "whose streets? our streets?". So, from reading the article, quite frankly, I have no idea what, if anything, was actually being protested.

Assumption Two: Military recruiters never go after Latino immigrants, including residents of Petworth.

I also don't see where you get the idea that the articles presupposes this notion either. Nothing in the article indicates this.

Assumption Three: Disruptions of the daily schedule of war and capital, have to happen downtown.

In fact, the article doesn't say this either, if you read it. What it says (quoting from the article is that:

"It is downtown, in areas controlled by war profiteers-and in wealthy neighborhoods where the war bosses live-that such chants are appropriate. To use them in a neighborhood where you are a newcomer is offensive to those who have been trying to keep their homes in the face of invasion."

As you can see, the article doesn't say that disruptions of the schedule should only occur downtown; it says that they should also occur in wealthy neighborhoods, and that they should not occur in working class neighborhoods where protesters don't have roots.