Jump to content
TAHAWK

Civil Protest, Policing, Moving Forward

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

And so what?  Two ideas were brought before the congress for debate, one the status quo, the other change.  The ideas were debated openly and the better idea prevailed.  That's how the system works.  

As for unanimity, remember, that's how we got the unpatriotic Patriot Act, the freedom-denying USA Freedom Act, the star-chamber FISA system, etc.  

"So," contrary to some opinions, change has been happening.  Sometimes  the better idea prevails.

The three acts you mention were not passed unanimously in either house of Congress.

The 1977 FISA, as amended, passed both houses on roll call votes: 95-1 in the Senate; 266-176 in the House

The 2001 Patriot Act, in the aftermath of 9/11,  passed both houses on roll call votes: 98-1 in the Senate; 357-66 in the House

The USA Freedom Act of 2015 passed both houses on roll call votes: 67-32 in the Senate;  388-88 in the House.  The 2020 renewal of that Act passed  easily, 80-16 and 278-136

Given my age, I would have mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed the House 416-0 and the Senate 98-2.  One of the two Senate "nos," Wayne Morse of Oregon,  lost his  seat in the next primary.  While I disagreed with almost every position that he took,  although not on the War, he was an actual honest politician, a man of principle.

 

Edited by TAHAWK
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.jpeg.59260a871bde5aa0472f928714ba0557.jpegI’m reading about the fall of the Roman Republic.  If this paragraph isn’t a commentary on our time, I don’t know what is.  This is not the formula of balance of powers, power sharing, and the calm head of a functional government.  Such a state of affairs is the product of hatred.  How this can work with teaching citizenship and American institutions that have made our republic more successful than dictatorships and other forms of govt is a big question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TSUNAMI WARNING!  :confused:

Of course "racism" exists.  One need not have lawyered for the N.A.A.C.P., as I did, to see it.  Every culture has its negative slang for the "other," and difference in "race," along with religion, politics, culture and ethnicity, mark the "other."  See, e.g., Liberal, Republican, Conservative,  Anti-Semite, Racist, Christian, Muslim, Nuffie, Mackerel Snapper, Spic, Bible Beater, Red Neck, Boong, Gin, Ape, Af, Doujin, Egg Plant, Honky, Wog, Kaffir, Chinki, Jakun, Cholo, Ang Mo, Cracker, Gringo, Farang, Gubba, Gweilo, Bohunk, Medigan, Ofay, Uncle Tom, Okie, Peckerwood, Whitey, Oreo, Kanake, Frog, Chug, Wog, Yanacona, Hori, Hillbilly, Trailer Trash, Pommy, Red Skin, Teuchter, Cubiche, Kraut, Mof, Mick, Snout, Paddy, Guinea, Gaigin, Kapo, Chosenji, Chukhna, Lobos, Apple, Banana, Coconut, Baijo - the list is quite long and international, and all are meant to assert dislike, superiority and/or insult.

I likely know far more about the evils of American chattel slavery than most, having research it and written about it.  I will probably never truly know what it is like to be an American with African roots.  As a trial attorney representing plaintiffs and, later, defendants, in "civil rights" suits, I know we have, as has each generation thus far in our history, some way to go down the road to true equality.  But I want to see progress within the context of our Constitution, including freedom of speech in the "marketplace of ideas, and not by violent revolution.  But that's me having an opinion again.

I concede that I overgeneralized about the self-describe "liberals."  Sloppy.  I congratulate you on your friends.  Some "liberals" are clearly liberal. 

It's just that the silent majority, left, right and center, don't get the media coverage or support.  Not shocking enough for our slovenly media, I guess.  With the exception of  Alan Dershowitz, much hated for not supporting the narrative, those calling for repression of speech, for compulsory of support of "speech" they oppose, get the coverage, left and right.  But support of outright criminalization  of "hate speech" beyond the limits set by the United States Supreme Court is pretty much owned lately by self-described "liberals."  (Once the right demanded "No freedom of speech for Communists," and criminalization of Party membership, and they achieved the involuntarily busing of  public school students to hours-long right-wing "anti-communist" "Freedom Schools,"  but that was before most here were alive.) Today's  illiberals  decry the Constitutional protection of "hate speech," often on the grounds that such expressions of opinion are prohibited  in other countries. (see, e.g.  "Why America needs a hate speech law," Washington Post, 10/29/2019, by Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time and State Department official) .  WAPOO also defends ANTIFA - the folks with the clubs, Molotov Cocktails, and rocks.   Brandeis would be appalled.

For now, "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies, due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no 'hate speech' exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."

But ways are found around the Constitution through "hate crimes."  So, these days, by U.S. Supreme Court mandate, burning the U.S. Flag is not a crime because it is "speech" but stealing and burning a Gay Pride flag got one flaming bigot sixteen years in prison for his non-PC "speech" because it was a "hate crime" under state law.

British civil rights activist Peter Tatchell, opposes criminalizing "hate speech" with these eye-opening comments on the state of the law in the "wider world"that lacks our First Amendment: "I was arrested for saying the homophobia and sexism of Islamist extremists is akin to the mentality of the Nazis. Separately, a youth was arrested for calling Scientology a dangerous cult. In both instances, it was deemed we had committed religious hate crimes."   He would doubtless have been "OK" had he only mentioned National Socialists or fascists.

Tatchell's  debate opponent, Canadian Joyce Arthur, qv., believes all hateful speech should be a crime: "A consensus exists in most Western democracies on the legitimacy of using laws to punish or inhibit hate speech, in order to prevent hate crimes, provide redress to victims, support vulnerable groups, protect human rights, and promote values of equality and respect. Countries have international obligations to combat racism, which require enacting hate speech legislation." 

St. Paul  passed a hate speech ordinance years ago.  It was stuck down as unconstitutional in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992), but now there are, as noted above, calls to '"reform" the law to prohibit free expression of ideas now deemed "hateful."   In the California of the 1930's, that would have been used by "populists" to prohibit support for immigration from Asia or citizenship for Asian immigrants, but few dared say a word in support of the "Yellow Peril" - presaging the concentration camps of WWII.  See, the trouble is that if government is not neutral in matters of opinion, today's orthodoxy may be tomorrow's "hate speech."

The UN has a plan for us:

 "UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech 

In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour [sic], that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour [sic], descent, gender or other identity factor." ( Calling Old Orange Hair "Dutch Boy" or an "anti-Semitic , racist, Nazi" is probably not covered because it is politically "correct." )

As for socialism, I understand it to be state control of the economy based on the idea that all good comes from the state.  To maximize that good: 1) the state marshals the wealth of the society by taxes and redistributes that wealth to achieve "social justice.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; 2) The state determines what is produced (as it already does for many drugs, agricultural products [through production and price limits], light bulbs, toilets, vehicle fuels, motor vehicles, sizes of soft drinks, prices received by producers (agricultural products, drugs, dairy supports), and wages (minimum wage laws).  No, Bernie may not get the nomination, probably, but he proudly calls himself a "socialist" and honeymooned in Moscow.  AOC is a "liberal" "leader" who calls for massive, socialist redistribution of wealth and called for Bernie to be nominated.  I see us moving towards greater socialism to the extent that members of my party are elected.  For now, we are each entitled to our opinions. even Michael Moore, I guess.

 I regret if I mischaracterized the words of Congresswoman Cortez, but I think it is fair given her actual words:  "Republicans are all upset that I’m connecting the dots between poverty and crime.... I know most of them haven’t experienced or seen these issues first hand, but I have. This may be hard for them to admit, but poverty and crime are highly linked, both violent & nonviolent alike.” (She was reared in a poosh suburb.)

 Actually, shoplifting and other petty crimes are sharply down in NYC.  What is WAY up is violence of poor people against poor people.  Shall we skip the gory numbers?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when I saw this I thought it had to be fake news but it is not.  The National Museum of African American History & Culture posted this and has since taken it down by request.

I didnt realize that "Objective, rational linear thinking" was due to me being white.  "Hard work is the key to success" is white culture.  It goes on and on.  There are plenty of people in my family that don't follow either one of those principles and others on the list, why lump all white people together.   If it came from some other organization there would be outrage.   

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651/photo/1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thrifty said:

when I saw this I thought it had to be fake news but it is not.  The National Museum of African American History & Culture posted this and has since taken it down by request.

Someone made one mistake and it was pulled down. That doesn't sound like much of a trend to worry about. However, if they had, for example, lied 20000 times in 4 years, then you'd have something to talk about.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, thrifty said:

when I saw this I thought it had to be fake news but it is not.  The National Museum of African American History & Culture posted this and has since taken it down by request.

I didnt realize that "Objective, rational linear thinking" was due to me being white.  "Hard work is the key to success" is white culture.  It goes on and on.  There are plenty of people in my family that don't follow either one of those principles and others on the list, why lump all white people together.   If it came from some other organization there would be outrage.   

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651/photo/1

It's a simple reality of postmodern (re: progressive) thinking.  All that came before is racist, sexist, etc. and must be desconstructed in order to rebuild their socialist utopia.  The only organizations that will be spared from the deconstruction will be those the postmodernist already control.(e.g. media, education).

https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

Edited by walk in the woods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MattR said:

Someone made one mistake and it was pulled down. That doesn't sound like much of a trend to worry about. However, if they had, for example, lied 20000 times in 4 years, then you'd have something to talk about.

The key to propaganda isn't in telling 20,000 lies.  It is telling the same lie 20,000 times.  BLM keeps repeating the boldfaced lie that the United States is, at its very heart and soul, a racist country, and that everything we do is motivated by bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David CO said:

The key to propaganda isn't in telling 20,000 lies.  It is telling the same lie 20,000 times.  BLM keeps repeating the boldfaced lie that the United States is, at its very heart and soul, a racist country, and that everything we do is motivated by bigotry.

Indeed, That is far beyond just the trait of expressed racism.  That suggests that the whole system from inception is so flawed (and anti black) that it has to be destroyed and rebuilt with them in mind in whatever self image they have.  (Far be it from me to try to guess what that image might be).  Suffice to say, that the very unique institutions of our government which we are familiar with:

Rule of Law

Free and Fair elections

Separation of powers

Independent Judiciary

Houses elected bodies and executive 

Clearly defined transition and successions of power 

Civilian oversight of our military 

And Bill of rights, among many other traits,  are so bad and twisted as to be required to be scrapped.  

When you look at every other system of government, the choices are such that the narrative and choices BLM would suggest are puzzling. (if indeed they could Articulate a comprehensive one on a rational basis with reason, logic and foresight)

As we know, The institutions and processes we have were not designed for hysterical knee jerk and orgiastic tearing up of systems in order to achieve a status for one living generation.  Instead, the system was designed to gradually allow changes over time among successive generations in a smooth way.  The trauma of the French Revolution was enough to warn enlightened minds of the dangers of the mob and destruction it always brings.  The French, Russian, Chinese and Iranian Revolutions demonstrate just how chaos and a grabbastic desire for rapidly changing the status quo made lives worse, greater oppression for all and the end consequence of pariah states.  

Zimbabwe showed how a revolution resulted in decades of incompetence, starvation, hyper-inflation (really too generous a word for it), and political oppression set the new standard for excellence.  Now, after expropriation and ‘reparations’ they can’t even work the fields to feed themselves after decades of apparently being incapable of learning how to do it and have tried to woo back the farmers they ran out of the country.

of course, the argument will be immediately fielded that nothing has changed, people are discriminated against and when they are dying they have nothing to lose.  When one looks at 1776 &1779 to the present, I think that history reflects just a few changes here and there.

But in all this, I may be a little biased towards our system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troop75Eagle said:

Indeed, That is far beyond just the trait of expressed racism.  That suggests that the whole system from inception is so flawed (and anti black) that it has to be destroyed and rebuilt with them in mind in whatever self image they have.

Where are you seeing BLM advocating replacing our system over government?  I just  looked all through their site and do not see anything about a revolution or changing any of the principle documents of government.  Do they think that there is a significant racism issue in this country, yes.  But I do not see them pushing for a new constitution, maybe just ensuring they get the rights that the constitution affords them.  You cannot legislate away racism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Navybone said:

You cannot legislate away racism.  

You can't riot away racism either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, David CO said:

You can't riot away racism either.

Right, but you can protest it and bring attention to it.  Not all protest are riots.  Most are not, most are peaceful.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Navybone said:

Right, but you can protest it and bring attention to it.  Not all protest are riots.  Most are not, most are peaceful.  

You are correct.  The right of protesting is not at issue.  But what comes with this particular group, it’s allies among anarchists and politically correct culture certainly is at issue. People will demand change without useful or reasonable  suggestions. When the actions of a group and it’s affiliates and associates, embraced or not, resort to torching and looting, they are branded.  That is what is remembered. The shop keepers who watch their livelihoods wipes out because people decide to take their down payment on this generations desires for reparations rather than protest.  Insurance doesn’t cover it.

when hysterical shrieks about methods of policing are made but little is done to cross the divide:  eg. not joining police or  suggesting useful policing changes that don’t lower standards for officers to the point of absurdity.  Or, additionally, they  ask for special dispensation from the laws...don’t pull over certain groups for speeding because we get pulled over to much.  

statements about getting what we want or burn the whole system down.  


when situations like Seattle’s CHOP episode where police were withdrawn and crime spiked 525% including shootings, rape and sexual assault.  This paints the picture and brands the group.  It sticks and becomes the expected result of the group.  It makes no difference who is at fault at this point.  People see the consequence of the out of control protesters.  People see the mob violence and the name that goes with it.

the consequences might be that even more people get gun permits, expand castle doctrines and stand your ground laws.  It’s-just as much their right to address the threats head on.  But really, it becomes something different.

 There is cause for complaint, the right to seek redress, the right to protest, but tantrum behavior de-legitimizes all of it.  Instead, you’ll get situations like Seattle.  The adults will pull back and form a ‘play pen’ for the protestors, now  turned renegades, to burn themselves out, savage and defile entire neighborhoods then go away feeling self righteous.  What follows after is a much more potent tool and successful method of managing a problem since generations of social and policy changes, laws and funding have not achieved much.  Well earned indifference.    

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troop75Eagle said:

But what comes with this particular group, it’s allies among anarchists and politically correct culture certainly is at issue. People will demand change without useful or reasonable  suggestions.

There is debate on the actual “alliance” with anarchist.  There are elements on the extreme left AND right who are using the protest as an opportunity to fan the flames and creat riots.  BLM has a responsibility to try to distance themselves for sure and not get “co-mingled” with these groups.  But again,  BLM protest does not equal riots and violence.   
 

but to your original post that I responded to, BLM  not advocating turning over the government.  And to this point, BLMmis not advocating riots and violence, and destruction all over the country.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a satisfactory apologist for BLM.  I’m sure they would welcome your analysis.  You speak meaningfully for a portion of their reality. For many many others, they and their ilk will become a social rabble eager to disrupt increasingly For disruptions sake.  There will be sighing, shaking of heads, and standing back indifferently as they do their thing as one more instance of an out of control portion of the population.  Not everyone of course, and I make no common cause and have no patience for alt right reactionaries either.  But the actions will increasingly reflect a lack of discipline and sloppy impulse control that garners the reaction, ‘well, what else is new. What did you expect?’ 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troop75Eagle said:

You are a satisfactory apologist for BLM.  I’m sure they would welcome your analysis.  You speak meaningfully for a portion of their reality. For many many others, they and their ilk will become a social rabble eager to disrupt increasingly For disruptions sake.  There will be sighing, shaking of heads, and standing back indifferently as they do their thing as one more instance of an out of control portion of the population.  Not everyone of course, and I make no common cause and have no patience for alt right reactionaries either.  But the actions will increasingly reflect a lack of discipline and sloppy impulse control that garners the reaction, ‘well, what else is new. What did you expect?’ 

One way to look at the current unrest by blacks in this county is to think that if a majority of this group, which makes 13% of our nation, is disenfranchised due to how they are being treated, then maybe this is worth trying to understand, looking at how to solve some of the racism they are encountering, if I can. 
There is also the option of thinking this is not my problem, or it’s not that bad, or even to outright dismiss them and accuse them of being trouble makers.  Who are “they”to make a fuss. These people are exceptionally narrow minded and are absolutely part of the problem.   It is you.  You accuse me of being an apologist. No, I have decided that enough is enough and there is a valid point of discussion.  I do this not because it is easy, but because part of this country’s population is hurting.   It is not an comfortable position for me to take.     What is more comfortable is to bury my head in the sand, deny any issues, mark it up to rabble rousers and anarchists.  Easier to just rely on right wing media and follow however that portray it.  My failure is believing that just because people on this site are part of scouts, that they live or espouse any of the aspects of what scouting teaches our youth.  
 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...