Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 63009 times)
Ed Hannifin
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3464
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 02:59 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi


Even hateful, despicable speech is protected. That's why, if you oppose it, your civic recourse is to show up, be counted, and speak loudly against it.

The way to oppose these cretins is by demonstrating that their position is wrong through forceful argument, as well as through overwhelming public ridicule. Our commitment to civil liberties is more important than a bunch of backwards troglodytes and we should defend that commitment foremost, even when doing so benefits the people we most despise (maybe even especially then).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/how-to-make-fun-of-nazis.html



I appreciate your whole, thoughtful post, Chikoppi, but especially this.

"We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn "But the Buddha never asked us to be nonattached to the world. He just asked us to be
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 722
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 03:20 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi
You can't deny someone their civil liberties or convict them because of "future crimes." No individual or group can be denied their civil rights because someone thinks they might possibly commit a crime at some point in the future.

The presentation of symbols is considered freedom of expression (free speech). In Germany they outlawed the display of Nazi regalia. Be careful what you wish for and consider what symbols and flags might be banned under a similar law in America. That's not how we roll.



Respectfully dissenting, Chikoppi ... I believe that society absolutely does(!) have the right to “deny the civil liberties” of individuals, if in society’s(!) judgment that would result in a threat to the public, a disturbance of the peace, or (as in this case) multiple concurrent acts of domestic terrorism.

Even though "you" have “civil rights,” "you" do not have carte blanche the right to impose upon society-at-large the consequences of whatever "you" consider the exercise of those civil rights to actually be.   (And, neither does a Judge in his ivory courtroom.)   Society does have a say in this matter, and society’s rights are also Constitutionally sanctioned.   The Preamble asserts that the Constitution was ordained, in part, “to Ensure Domestic Tranquility.”

For instance, I think that the Germans had precisely the right idea to forbid the display of Nazi symbols:   as a society, they are determined to put that part of their past behind them, forever.   To any Jew anywhere, the sight of any gathering of Nazis is an act of terrorism.   Likewise the carrying of torches, the wearing of white robes, and the burning of crosses, is an act of terrorism against any Negro.   Yes, they do have the right(!) to be forever free of these things ... and so do the rest of us, even if we be “White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant!”   (And maybe even ... ... Southern!)

No, I can’t convict you of a crime that you didn’t yet commit, but I certainly can take pro-active steps to prevent you from committing such a crime in our town.   We are entitled to require you to obtain a permit, in order that we may choose to deny that permit ... and we don’t have to scrape for a technicality if we do so.   Furthermore, the mere fact that you disagree with the decision does not make you “a Plaintiff in Federal Court,” or authorize a Federal Judge to declare that our ordinances mean nothing and that you may do as you damn well please in our town.

No one side of this issue is so cut-and-dry that it is exempt from “the exercise of good, sensible judgment.”   But also, neither side pre-empts all other competing points-of-view so as to authorize the [utterly irresponsible, IMHO ...
exercise of Judicial force majure.

Let the record show, IMHO, that three innocent people died as a direct result of a decision handed down by a Judge in his courtroom, as he (and the ACLU ...) contemplated a legal abstraction without regard to very-predictable actual human behavior.   As though the present situation were an equally-abstract thing, and as though the decision might not unleash an avoidable monster.

I believe that Charlottesville happened as a result of a cascade of events, happening over the course of many days prior to the event as well as on the day of the event itself, and that many parties (both the several warring participant-groups, and otherwise) must share the responsibility for an incident that never should have been allowed to occur at all.   Unless we look at this situation from all sides, and do so without blinking, we are merely ensuring that it will happen again ... and again ... and again.
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1971
Location: N/A
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 05:18 PM CDT

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Even though "you" have “civil rights,” "you" do not have carte blanche the right to impose upon society-at-large the consequences of whatever "you" consider the exercise of those civil rights to actually be.   (And, neither does a Judge in his ivory courtroom.)   Society does have a say in this matter, and society’s rights are also Constitutionally sanctioned.   The Preamble asserts that the Constitution was ordained, in part, “to Ensure Domestic Tranquility.”


Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.

I'm sure many during the 1950s would have liked to deny MLK and other activists the right to speak, organize, and march, citing "potential civil unrest" or some similar threat of disturbance to the peace. In fact, there was a fair amount of violence during those marches. Do you think he should have been barred from speaking, organizing public assemblies, or receiving permits? Because it seems like that's what you're saying.

Speech isn't a crime and neither is free assembly. So long as the proper permits are secured, restrictions adhered to, and no actual crime has been committed the Nazis have the same rights as the Baptist Women's Sewing League.

On August 12, once violence broke out and the Charlottesville police determined they could no longer safely maintain order the assembly was declared unlawful. Here's what the Chief of Police had to say:

Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas said that while he had "regrets" about planning, police officers had attempted to separate protesters and counterprotesters but were unable to effectively do so, in part because "Unite the Right" participants had failed to follow a previously agreed-upon plan for entering Emancipation Park: "We had a plan to bring them in at the rear of the park. They had agreed to cooperate with the plan; unfortunately they did not follow the plan. They began entering at different locations in and around the park." Thomas also wrote: "They also chose to leave the park on a number of occasions, entering the area designated for counterprotesters, walking along the street and confronting counter-protestors."

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Let the record show, IMHO, that three innocent people died as a direct result of a decision handed down by a Judge in his courtroom, as he (and the ACLU ...) contemplated a legal abstraction without regard to very-predictable actual human behavior.


The city had granted the permit for the Unite The Right rally.

Stop and read that again. The Nazis were freely granted the permit to assemble by the City of Charlottesville.

The judge's ruling had to do with which park the permit was for. The city granted a permit for McIntire Park. The Unite The Right organizers had applied for Emancipation Park. The Judge, a District Court Judge for the Western District of Virginia appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the city could not arbitrarily bar the organizers from the location where the statue was located, which was the supposed focus of their rally.

Heather Heyer was murdered by a white supremacist. The two officers died in a helicopter accident seven miles outside Charlottesville. The judge's ruling was not the cause of either incident.




“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
Dadai.2
Forum Full Member


Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 1753
Location: Frisco, Texas 😎 USA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 07:09 PM CDT


Take a listen >>> Texas Tango
Ed Hannifin
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3464
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 07:52 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2
The Making and the Breaking of the Legend of Robert E. Lee
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/books/review/eric-foner-robert-e-lee.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/PnbujK8CUy?amp=1



This is actually well written and accurate.

"We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn "But the Buddha never asked us to be nonattached to the world. He just asked us to be
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 722
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 08:32 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi

Speech isn't a crime and neither is free assembly. So long as the proper permits are secured, restrictions adhered to, and no actual crime has been committed, the Nazis have the same rights as the Baptist Women's Sewing League ...


“And here, and forever, Good Sir,” is exactly where our two respective points-of-view shall converge.   And here, also, is where our discourse [on this non-musical matter, but nothing more
apparently ends.”


In my humble opinion, these specific(!) points of view have a history.   Therefore, to me, it is imperative this history must never be removed from any present and/or future consideration of whatever might happen “in their name.”   I argue that we can be quite sure that all such events, if mounted today, were mounted only(!) in direct back-reference to their very ugly past, and cannot credibly be divorced from them.

I argue that it would occur to no one, today, to take up a torch, to wear a white robe, or to burn a cross in a public place, except that he specifically intended to back-reference the KKK rallies of the past, and, in so doing, to inflict an act of “domestic terrorism” upon the Negro populations of the present day.   Likewise, no one would carry a swastika or other obviously-Nazi insignia, without intending to back-reference and thus to inflict an identical act of “domestic terrorism” upon the Jewish population of the present day.

(I consider that “Antifa,” by using the “fa’s” own tactics “against” (sic) them, committed an act of “domestic terrorism” against the people of the community, terrorizing them in their parks and public places and denying them the Domestic Tranquility to which they are entitled.   Again based on what these people did, no matter their stated reasons why.)

Therefore, in my humble, “the exercise of ‘rights’” can never be meaningfully removed from the context in which those ‘rights’ are exercised.   I see not a single spool of cotton thread among these people.   I do see burning torches and swastikas.   I see so-called “anti-fa’s” who seem to have been quite willing to employ the identical weapons-and-tactics of the “fa’s” that they self-righteously claim to have opposed.   Thus, I see no righteous nor virtuous position here.   I see only “protesters” who willingly embraced the very-worst sins of their past, and who carried that past to its bloody historic conclusion without changing a thing.   I see three dead innocents, two of them law-enforcement officers.

And, I see an entire city which should have been entitled to enjoy a peaceful evening.   WTF(!!) went so terribly awful, that they could not have had such a very-simple thing?!
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1971
Location: N/A
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 08:39 PM CDT

I'm glad we could have a reasonable exchange of opinion.


“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 722
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 08:43 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi
I'm glad we could have a reasonable exchange of opinion.


And, absolutely(!), the feeling is mutual.   We debate.    We disagree.   We make Music.   We shake hands.   Life is (still) good.   “A” is still 440Hz.

... if only a most-horrific night in Charlottesville could have been concluded on such amiable terms.   (That is to say, entirely avoided.)   If only the ideal of “peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances” could have been fulfilled, instead.   If only three people were still alive.   If only ...
Les_Kloo
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/24/11
Posts: 216
Location: City in My Head, USA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Tuesday, September 19 2017 @ 02:05 PM CDT

Sung to the tune Mrs. Robinson (of course) by Simon and Garfunkel:

What’s up with you, Mr. Robinson
Blood-stained banner stands with Ole Jim Crow
Whoa whoa whoa
I hope you see, Mr. Robinson
Supremacy is scarcely on display
Hey, hey, hey … KKK

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files
We'd like to help you learn to punctuate
Look around you all you see are disconcerted eyes
Troll around the site so you may feel at home

What’s wrong with you, Christianity
Jesus said get rid of all your dough
Whoa whoa whoa
God will not bless White Plutocracy
Prosperity is now for what you pray
Hey hey hey … led astray

Hiding in the darkest place where reason never goes
Toss it in the shredder with their science
It's a little secret just the Tillerson’s affair
Most of all you've got to hide it from the rubes

Coo-coo-ca-choo, Mr. President,
An isolation ward seems apropos
Woe woe woe
God take you, please, Mr. President
If I were you, I’d fear my judgement day
Hey, hey, hey … dossier

Parading Nazi symbols on a Sunday afternoon
The First Amendment sure is great!
Point a finger, rant and rave at
Blacks, Muslims, and Jews
Turn your head the other way, you lose

Where have you gone, Lady Liberty
The world no longer turns its eyes to you
Woo woo woo
What have you done, Mr. Donald J.
Our shining hill is draped in shades of grey
Go away … go away

My music is much better than it sounds.
 
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 722
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Tuesday, September 19 2017 @ 04:10 PM CDT

Before you get completely inundated by press “reactions” to President Trump’s remarks today to the United Nations, here is a link to a transcript of what the man actually said:  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/19/remarks-president-trump-72nd-session-united-nations-general-assembly.

I personally think that we tend to get a little too much edited reactions, these days, and not enough unabridged texts.   So, without further ado, “here you go.”

To me, if you read the entire thing in context, I think that it’s a pretty well-written speech and maybe a good wake-up call.   I sincerely hope that it has some of its apparently-intended effects.