Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 495787)

Bastard! You beat me to putting up that link. This is fantastic writing:

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.

I'd have taken it one step further. Blacks in these communities obviously want violent rioting to end, but when they're paraded before cameras, as Gray's family was, they might want to add a caveat to their pleas for calm. A thing they never say, but should, would be:

"Please, stop destroying your own neighborhood. And those who are using this as cover to commit crimes, we hope you are prosecuted for victimizing your own community.

But you outside this community -- you need to understand why this is happening. You are using a violent police state to manage a population of people who cannot find jobs. You are allowing large portions of this country to degrade into favelas. There is a third world nation hiding behind the curtain of America, and it's only growing larger every day.

If the best reaction you can summon to this is to blame desperate people for reacting violently to violence, you can expect a whole lot more of this in coming years."

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 495789)

And yet, when people riot it reinforces the view that the police are the thin blue line protecting the rest of society -- a view that FOX et all jump all over, with only the slightest hint (ack! cough! choke!) of racial overtones (gasp! hurl!).

We are due for a fundamental restructuring of law enforcement in this country. The legacy of the high-crime years is that the police behave, and are trained to behave, like an occupying army. One that has the support of courts and politicians to protect them, and one that exploits the occupied territory to finance itself. Police beatings and murder, ridiculous use of civil forfeitures and fines, white police forces in black communities.... these are all of a piece.

I fear we are not up to the task of changing this, without a few more widespread riots to fuel the need.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 495788)

It's almost (mainly?) universally true that the police start the violence. Obviously, they start it when a young man ends up dead for running from the cops. But more directly they start it when they form battle lines and brandish their clubs. Especially when they do so after shutting transit and telling a bunch of kids to go home.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495795)

We're surprised there were riots?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 495796)

From John DeAngelis, an Orioles exec, responding to a TV announcer who was complaining about the effects on baseball fans:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 495803)

Meh. A better response would have been "Black people are being killed and abused by police throughout this city and you're asking about a fucking baseball game?"

Also, since when did Nelson Mandela preach non-violence? He founded Umkhonto we Sizwe specifically because the killings of peaceful protestors led him to believe that non-violence was not sufficient. (Baltimore, et al: Take heed.)

Even while on Robben Island he didn't preach non-violence. He preached a non-racial society, so that black activists would not envision a post-apartheid society that took revenge or excluded whites, but rather that worked with people of all races who accepted that society.

He renounced the armed struggle after being freed from prison, but it's not accurate to suggest that was a come-around to non-violence as a guiding principle -- rather than a recognition that, at that time and in that environment, this was by far the best strategic move.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 495804)

Good points, Sidd.

This piece by David Graham on the absence of legitimate authority in Baltimore is very good.

http://p.o0bc.com/rf/image_700w/Bost.../471371594.jpg

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 495796)

From John DeAngelis, an Orioles exec, responding to a TV announcer who was complaining about the effects on baseball fans:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 495772)

First Blood is a good movie.

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 495749)

In retrospect, Carter's reputation as President should continually improve in the nation's mind. As a young 'un at the time I was an active part of the Kennedy effort, and that was a huge mistake, a total fuck up.

Carter's governmental reorganizations and deregulations made it ok in the Democratic party to talk about a bunch of basic government management and budgetary issues in a sensible way and laid the groundwork for Clinton and Obama. He was vastly more successful at containing spending than Reagan was after him.

SALT II was a big deal; the Camp David accords are one of the few Middle Eastern peace processes that has resulted in a lasting solution to a part of the problem (the ongoing Peace between Egypt and Israel); the Vietnam amnesty was important to getting us to move on.

His biggest and most lasting screw up was Iran. The Shah was a deeply unfortunate and tragic inheritance going back to Truman and even Roosevelt, and Carter should have jettisoned support for him on day 1 and been part of a more orderly transition, but he had his eye elsewhere in the world and didn't realize the instability there. He also never got control of the recession that came out of the oil shock. And he wasn't the most politically adept guy, in part because he was fundamentally honest.

He may not be a Johnson or an Obama, or even a Clinton, but among the Presidents from Kennedy to Bush I, only Johnson stands clearly above him in retrospect since Nixon's very significant accomplishments get overshadowed by his absolutely epic fuck-ups.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 495812)

He gets credit for the Camp David accords by not screwing things up when Sadat made his overtures. And for recognizing China and finalizing the Panama Canal treaty. And for continuing SALT talks and starting the rebuild of a military decimated by Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 495812)

He gets credit for the Camp David accords by not screwing things up when Sadat made his overtures. And for recognizing China and finalizing the Panama Canal treaty. And for continuing SALT talks and starting the rebuild of a military decimated by Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 495813)

Carter had a lot of faults, and I agree with those you point out (micro-manager, kind of a douche at times, etc.). But the credit you acknowledge is a lot of good work, that contradicts your sweeping statement that he was "an awful president."

Plus, he demonstrated a level of fiscal prudence that no Republican in the Reagan era or after could even imagine. Well, maybe they could imagine it in the way that Sam Brownback could, but....

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 495809)

so the O's are planning on reducing ticket prices?