Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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."

It is great writing. That article ought to be used in every home and school as a good foil for discussing these issues. It's just damn provocative, even if I am ready to defend those counseling nonviolence against him.

The specific third world nation we're turning into is China, with its incredible class divisions, oligarchies, and militaristic order. But a better armed China.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

Of course, if you are looking for looting, look no further than Fox, who makes a fortune abusing, insulting and maligning the victims of police behavior.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

There was a line there. On one side of it was blue and on one side of it black.

On one side, somewhere in the crowd, were the friends and family of many of the thirty some odd people who died in police custody since 2010 in Baltimore. Thirty people. How many people had they touched in that crowd?

On the other side, somewhere in the carefully drawn up lines, were many of those who had actually participated in killing those people.

We're surprised there were riots?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We're surprised there were riots?

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

Brett, speaking only for myself, I agree with your point that the principle of peaceful, non-violent protest and the observance of the rule of law is of utmost importance in any society. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela and all great opposition leaders throughout history have always preached this precept. Further, it is critical that in any democracy, investigation must be completed and due process must be honored before any government or police members are judged responsible.

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importances of any kids’ game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ballgame irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good points, Sidd.

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

Exactly. Right on.

But, cut the dude some slack. The message above was sent out by the dude on twitter, 140 characters at a time, in what has to be among the most epic rants in sports twitter history. Entire rant was subtweeted, like he was screaming it at the sports reporter. And by the end it was being followed by a cheering, retweeting mob. It was like someone gave angry-Sebby a cell phone, a bottle of bourbon, and an audience of a few hundred thousand and let him loose. Truly righteous.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Good points, Sidd.

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

That's a good piece.

I saw a video of the police throwing rocks and then getting swarmed by the crowd. I'm not sure what is more shocking, the incredible abuse this reflects -- by officers of the state -- the sheer stupidity of it is truly shocking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

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

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

First Blood is a good movie.

TM

Wonking (NTTAWWT), but we tend to forget how good the original Rocky is (fine - I'll add "or was" to those who think that it didn't hold up or was ruined by the parodies that the sequels became). For more recent Sly flicks, I quite liked Copland.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Give me a break. Carter may be a good man, but he was an awful President. He ruined any chance of enacting meaningful legislation by waging war on Congressional Democrats because he was always right and too stubborn to work with allies on the issues where they actually agreed. His personality combined the worst combination of moralism and expediency. Perhaps it was his training in engineering combined with naval background under Admiral Rickover, but he was a pedantic micro-manager - famously, he was alleged to have personally overseen the schedule for the White House tennis courts. And he was unable to explain issues (like energy policy) to the public without coming across as a condescending prick.

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.

He didn't lose Iran, and the Shah would have been toast even if Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan were president, but his combination of supporting the Shah while undercutting his regime in general was ambiguous and probably made it difficult for the interim post-Shah/pre-Ayatollah government to succeed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

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.

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....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

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.

Compare his list to either of the two Bush's. Set aside the perceptions, where he sucked (leading to me supporting Kennedy in the day), but looking at the accomplishments, not bad at all. What does Bush II even have to his name? An unfunded education plan and a drug benefit that is today a modest aside to ACA? A couple recessions?

He didn't lose Iran, and the Shah would have been toast even if Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan were president, but his combination of supporting the Shah while undercutting his regime in general was ambiguous and probably made it difficult for the interim post-Shah/pre-Ayatollah government to succeed.

I don't want to understate the scope of the screw up in Iran. Standing by the Shah was an inexcusable cluster-fuck that still hurts the region. But when you line up Carter's tangible screw ups against those of either Bush, or, say, Kennedy, I think they had more and bigger screw-ups to their names.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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....

There we are! A fellow Carter defender!

Can I tell you about my favorite under appreciated President, Martin van Buren?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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

If you have a client who complains that it's too easy for patent trolls to leverage their portfolios, do you tell them they should license their own patents for free?