Question. What if the protest is made violent not by the protesters but by police or military forces? Is that not harm caused by the government and not by the protesters themselves?
Two kids get in a fight on the playground. A teacher breaks up the fight. They both argue that…
Ted Nugent’s violent remarks at the NRA’s annual paranoia-fest triggered (pun intended) a new round in the always-good-for-cable debate over extreme rhetoric in the political discourse. The episode showed—no surprise—that GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney was unwilling to condemn an out-of-bounds Obama-hater when his campaign released a mealy-mouthed response to the uproar, ignoring Nugent’s specific comments and noting that “Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil.” And Nugent’s threatening words were nothing new; in 2007, he held up two machine guns at a concert and told Obama to “suck on my machine gun,” adding, “Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” But his latest rant, in which he denounced Obama’s “vile, evil America-hating administration,” was part of a never-ending Republican/conservative crusade to portray the president as not a true American. And it’s an effort that Romney has played footsie with.
For years, conservatives have said (or implied) that Obama is not really one of us: He was born in Kenya, he’s a secret Muslim, he pals around with terrorists. They have also endeavored to attach this otherism to all Democrats. Ex-presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accusedObama and his wife of holding “anti-American views” and called on the media to investigate Democratic members of Congress to determine if they were anti-American, too. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a tea party darling, declared that “there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.” After he was lambasted for uttering this absurd charge, he defiantly proclaimed that he did not regret his statement and reaffirmed his stance: “I’m not going to back down. I’m not going to be afraid about the fact that I called a spade a spade.” (House Speaker John Boehner said nothing about West’s derogatory and fact-free claim.)
Labeling anyone left of center a commie or traitor who hates America is a time-tested tradition of conservative politics that stretches back decades, from the Palmer Raids to the McCarthy era to Richard Nixon’s criminal administration to Ronald Reagan’s attempt to smear the anti-nuclear movement as a Moscow spin-off. Romney is too moderate (and too fearful of losing independent voters) to engage in DEFCON-1-level rhetorical nuking. But he has devised a way to speak to—and exploit—this sentiment without contracting cat-scratch fever.
“Obama the Apologizer” is not Romney’s only jab designed to depict the president as apart from the great American public. He repeatedly charges that Obama does not truly understand this nation or grasp that America is special. As if Obama were an outsider.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. takes to the Senate floor to implore his fellow GOP colleagues to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, briefly sharing his own story of how his life was affected by domestic violence.
Though I support his opponent, Elizabeth Warren, it’s great to see him standing up to this opposition from his own party. Why won’t the GOP reauthorize it? Because it has protections for GLBTQ people and undocumented immigrants. Seriously.
And they also oppose it because it allows Native American tribes to legally pursue non-Indians who come on reservations and assault residents without fear of prosecution - because currently, tribes only have jurisdiction over their own members.
There seems to be some confusion regarding appropriate and inappropriate use of weapons on non-violent protestors. Let’s clear up three things.
Non-violence is not the same as non-forceful or legal. A protester sitting in a sidewalk in violation of the law and in direct contravention of a police order is not a violent protester. A protest blocking a sidewalk or building may be a forceful protest, but is still not a violent protest.
Non-lethal weapons are still weapons. They’re designed to hurt people. One of the serious dangers with a rise of non-lethal weapons is that they are used punitively or with an intent to compel compliance with non-emergency orders. Where a cop might hesitate to shoot a row of students sitting on a sidewalk showing no apparent signs of aggression, apparently the same hesitation does not apply to casually spraying them with pepper spray. Use of weapons is violence.
Using violence to clear a non-violent protest in a non-emergency situation is an absurd abuse of force. I don’t mind the police showing up to clear a protest that is deliberately obstructing people from exercising their rights to get where they need to be. I don’t mind them wearing riot gear when they’re obviously concerned about a riot. I don’t even mind them showing up with over-whelming force. That’s another good way to avoid a riot. But look at what happened. You’ve got a police officer spraying pepper spray on a group of students who are just sitting on a sidewalk. There was no emergency need to clear that sidewalk. Anybody could simply have walked around the protestors. If the protestors had refused to move after appropriate warning was given, the police simply could have recorded the protests, issued citations, and pressed trespassing charges. It’s not difficult to identify who is in the pictures—and we have an entire judicial process we could clog with protestors … if it were important enough to bother with. This isn’t a riot. These are students sitting on a sidewalk. Nobody needs to get hurt.
I have plenty of sarcastic things to say about Occupy Wall Street. I’m old. I’m cranky. I want them off my lawn. But this is beyond the pale. There should be a full investigation. Officers should be disciplined, dismissed, and likely charged with assault. I want some very specific answers on what happened there and why. Why violently disperse a protest rather than, say, walk around it?
And I think U.C. Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi will probably need to step down.
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic Violence is all about power and control. Not about something wrong with you or something you did wrong.
You may be in an emotionally abusive relationship if your partner:
- Calls you names, insults you or continually criticizes you.
- Does not trust you and acts jealous or possessive.
- Tries to isolate you from family or friends.
- Monitors where you go, who you call and who you spend time with.
- Does not want you to work.
- Controls finances or refuses to share money.
- Punishes you by withholding affection.
- Expects you to ask permission.
- Threatens to hurt you, the children, your family or your pets.
- Humiliates you in any way.
You may be in a physically abusive relationship if your partner has ever:
- Damaged property when angry (thrown objects, punched walls, kicked doors, etc.).
- Pushed, slapped, bitten, kicked or choked you.
- Abandoned you in a dangerous or unfamiliar place.
- Scared you by driving recklessly.
- Used a weapon to threaten or hurt you.
- Forced you to leave your home.
- Trapped you in your home or kept you from leaving.
- Prevented you from calling police or seeking medical attention.
- Hurt your children.
- Used physical force in sexual situations.
You may be in a sexually abusive relationship if your partner:
- Views women as objects and believes in rigid gender roles.
- Accuses you of cheating or is often jealous of your outside relationships.
- Wants you to dress in a sexual way.
- Insults you in sexual ways or calls you sexual names.
- Has ever forced or manipulated you into to having sex or performing sexual acts.
- Held you down during sex.
- Demanded sex when you were sick, tired or after beating you.
- Hurt you with weapons or objects during sex.
- Involved other people in sexual activities with you.
- Ignored your feelings regarding sex.
Women don’t have to live in fear:
- In the U.S., call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE).
- UK: call Women’s Aid at 0808 2000 247.
- Canada: National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-363-9010.
- Australia: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1800 200 526.
- Or visit International Directory of Domestic Violence Agencies for a worldwide list of helplines, shelters, and crisis centers.
Male victims of abuse can call:
- In the US, The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men & Womenspecializes in supporting male victims of abuse and offers a 24-hour helpline: 1-888-7HELPLINE (1-888-743-5754).
- UK: ManKind Initiative offers a national helpline at 01823 334244.
- Australia: One in Three Campaign offers help and resources for male victims.
Domestic Violence; It’s EVERYBODY’S Business.
Call your local shelter and ask how you can support their efforts this month.
A witness says kids ran for cover under bleachers as a gunman fired shots near Issaquah High School.
Police shot and killed the lone gunman. No one else was hurt.
The man, said to be in his 50s, was driving his car on Front Street when he stopped in the middle of the street, got out and started shooting, King County Sheriff’s Office spokesman John Urquhart said.
“A bullet went between me and my friend Tony. We started running and we could hear bullets bouncing off the concrete behind us,” said Shanae Hover.
He proceeded to walk toward the elementary school and high school, where a youth football game was going on.
[…]
Police managed to surround the suspect on a service road. He was still firing his weapon when he was shot by police. He died at the scene.
Muslim Americans are more likely to reject violence than other major religious groups in the United States, according to the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center.
See the full results here. Read the report here.
(2,482 respondents from Gallup surveys conducted in 2010)
Source gallup.com
As inequality in the US grows, the ultra-rich are pouring their spare cash not just into private jets, but into private security. Think there’s a connection?
This article does not indicate that the ‘have nots’ in our nation are contemplating violence. Just that some of the wealthy are starting to get a bit worried about global uprisings around the world and increasing their personal security because of it.
But it is a good time to remind liberals/progressives that we do NOT have to resort to violence - regardless of how it often feels some of the Wall Street gangs are ‘asking for it’. There are non-violent means of expressing our disapproval of current political and financial policy. General strikes are one, if you can get enough of the nation together to act - or just enough to impact your local and state reps.
In the end, voting is the key. Voting for your school board and city council members, your state reps, and then at the national level. To make those votes have the impact you want, you have to start organizing your neighborhoods, friends and families.
It is hard work. It is work that has to be done on an ongoing basis - not just the months before elections. The Tea Party organized and voted, young liberals didn’t. We are reaping the result of that short-sighted thinking and frustration. But voting does work and it is preferable to violence. We are better than that.
32.7%: The percentage of women’s reproductive-health clinics located near anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers” which have “experienced one or more incidents of severe violence, compared to only 11.3 percent of clinics not near a CPC. (Severe violence includes clinic blockades and invasions, bombings, arson, bombing and arson threats, death threats, chemical attacks, stalking, physical violence and gunfire.)
Bartlet's Third State of the Union (2.13)
From my most loved TV show ever:
Shallick: This White House uses the First Amendment to protect flag burning, to protect pornography, to ban school prayer. Why, when the Second Amendment clearly says that the government will not infringe upon a citizens right to bear arms--
Toby: It doesn't say that.
Shallick: Toby--
Toby: In fact it doesn't say that at all. It only says that if you remove some words from it. It says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the government shall not infringe." The words "regulated" and "militia" are in the first sentence. I don't think the framers were thinking of three guys and a Dodge Durango.
Shallick: You don't really know what the framers were thinking, do you?
Toby: No. But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year; they had 112. You think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will. Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
“
| — | Paul Krugman (via azspot) |
