Ferguson (St. Louis) Missouri Riots

[ShiftyNJ]

MIke that's a cute graphic... but do you really think it will be any different under liberals or conservatives ---capitalists or communists? If so you better back up and double dose on the anti-niavety meds.

Indeed, because they have purchased all three branches of government for twelve pieces of silver, and left the crumbs for the rest of us to fight over.

[Virge]

Indeed, because they have purchased all three branches of government for twelve pieces of silver, and left the crumbs for the rest of us to fight over.

name a time and government in which this wasn't true. There have been politicians and ideologues trying to lead people around with promises of a better way but not one of them has ever been sincere. It's time to wise up and stop bitching about the way things are and double down to make the best of the way things are.

To me griping about the way government and money always end up is like bitching about the weather.

I want to concentrate on things WE can do to make life better for US in spite of government and money always work.

[ShiftyNJ]

I'm with people like Dean Kinman, quoted above, trying to do just that.

[Virge]

East
I'll remember that and remind others in 2016 when people from the left and right are trying to act like centrists.

If we were to sit and go point by point you'd find out out I'm committed to the facts, the truth and not pulled to the left or right on any issue according to their own rhetoric. But that's a subject for another time.

[Hardheaded1]

There actually is no "center," to comment on East's point. Every person is a montage of positions, Left, Right, or Center.

It's easy to identify strong Leftists, strong Rightists, but not so much Centrists. Usually, as the topic changes, those who categorize themselves as Centrists are actually a composite of Left and Right views, averaging out to the Center. I've been in that position often. My liberal friends think me a conservative, and my conservative friends think me a liberal. All it takes is disagreeing with either just once on a given topic, and all of the sudden you're an opponent. They ignore whatever points you are in concord on and simply brand you "other."

[MikeW]

MIke that's a cute graphic... but do you really think it will be any different under liberals or conservatives ---capitalists or communists? If so you better back up and double dose on the anti-niavety meds.

You're insinuations are the equivalent of name calling. What is preventing us -- human beings -- from seeing there is a universe of possibilities not limited to the bi-polar up/down, black/white/ right/left dichotomies? Follow the money.

[Aike]

.... or what you deserve.

"force the people to choose their sides".... intimidate and harass them into becoming partisans in a struggle that they have already expressed reluctance for? Hearing that, we'd not be surprised if you're organizing a chapter if ISIS in Helsinki.

I'm for partisan politics because there are divisions in this society, which cannot be reconciled in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved. This is because the very existence of certain social positions and identities is based on the exploitation and oppression of others. The only way to reconcile such conflicts is to forcefully break these kind of relations of exploitation and domination (who is willfully going to give up his or her privilege?). And by "force" I don't necessarily mean physical violence (although I do not hypocritically judge those who resort to it in the face of injustice). The problem with the "neutral" or "non-partisan" conception of politics is that it ignores these kind of fundamental antagonistic divisions in our society and ends up in compromises usually in favor of the status quo.

But I am curious how would you address the "real problems" (and what are those anyway?) of black people and ethnic minorities? If not by targeted government policies ("positive discrimination" as they say) then by what? Pretending that racism doesn't exist and letting the "free market" do its trick?

[trywait]

I was just taught that if you're approached by law enforcement, you just follow directions. and speak only when asked something.

[Hardheaded1]

And by "force" I don't necessarily mean physical violence (although I do not hypocritically judge those who resort to it in the face of injustice).

And we return to the theme of the OP: a riot is not a protest, but an exploitation in and of itself. Burning the neighborhood Walgreen's isn't striking out against "the man." It is depriving your neighbors of access to a local and needed business. The crime has the further and more long-lasting effect of reducing business investment where it is most needed in a poor neighborhood. When I lived in Anchorage, there was a Safeway store with an armed private guard at the checkout because there were so many druggies in the neighborhood. It was locally known as "Drug Carr's." In most cases, the businesses just pull out and the honest and working class are simply put to more hardship.

Your use of "hypocritically" isn't an accurate one unless you have resorted to looting, burning, and mayhem in your pursuit of material wealth. Almost everyone I know works for a living, in jobs high and low, and does not advocate violence. Abstracted policies that encourage the status quo or disparity are not violence. They are oppressive, but they are not necessarily motivated by racism.

To be very clear, these riots are not an uprising by the poor. They are not the bread riots of yore. They are race riots. The lootings and burnings are against neighbors and not even along racial lines. The clerk whom Michael Brown robbed wasn't white either. The missing dots that do not connect are exactly how the legacy of slavery and racism create a scenario in which a black man is justified in stealing by strongarm robbery a luxury item, Cigarellos. He wasn't stealing bread to eat, nor money to buy medicine or pay rent. He was just stealing because he could. Some culture hero.

And the big hitter in the secondary debate of poverty and oppression as justification is still silent to the existence of many impoverished towns and regions that do not resort to this sort of widespread and endemic crime and violence. Where are the statistics that reveal it at similar levels in West Virginia and Appalachia? Where are the equivalent murder rates in those impoverished enclaves? Poverty is not the explanation.

Accepting by excusing this sort of aggression is a recipe for anarchy. Many public schools have given up on expecting better, and have become breeding grounds, creating this sort of citizen by the tacet agreement that the individual cannot be any better. That is a false and self-fulfilling prophecy, just like the parent who believes his child will be unruly and unmoldable. Voila! The child is allowed to be exactly that.

[Hardheaded1]

Your insinuations are the equivalent of name calling.

Virge's video is the only problem I have with his regard for the Left. Citing a possibly addicted young man randomly posting a video would be akin to grabbing a cult figure who is claiming to be God and using his rantings to represent the views of Pope Francis. It is simply a non-sequitur of logic. A more fair comparison would be simply to show Amy Goodman on just about any episode of Democracy Now. She is a poster child for the Far Left and is being broadcast to millions daily by television without any counterbalance by PBS. I'm not to the right, but there are limits to the degree that I can watch any media that is so grossly unbalanced.