Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 74312 times)
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 736
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 10 2017 @ 08:10 PM CDT

Quote by: particledots

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html



(Yawn ...)

“Russia, Facebook, Twitter, (equals?) ... Election??”

Unfortunately, not so.   Thus, we are left with election results which, by and large, probably were not controlled by any external forces:   not Russia, not by “hacking” of vulnerable election systems, and not Social Media.

Instead:   “Election(!) results!”   :-O

The people did, in fact, speak their minds.   (Why should any of them give a damn if you don’t yet understand it ...?)
particledots
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/25/09
Posts: 1560
Location: , United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Thursday, September 14 2017 @ 11:51 PM CDT

Quote by: Daugrin


Nothing unusual happened. Maybe you could relax a little? In deference to your stern, heart felt warning, please keep all informed if ya feel something hit.

Daug



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-tim-scott.html
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 736
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Friday, September 15 2017 @ 10:54 AM CDT

Did “both sides share blame?” I think that the answer is definitely yes:

(1)   Someone up-and-decided that 150-year-old statues of Civil War military heroes de facto constituted “a racist statement,” such that they must be removed from public display in order to propitiate our sins ... and that there must be no choice in the matter.   When people having differing opinions about this understandably became upset, a round-table discussion was never convened.   No steps were taken to divert the conflict into an alternative, more peaceful course.   The sparks flew directly at one another, with a very large pile of tinder in-between.   The stage was set.

(2)   Extremist groups – from both sides – were attracted like moths to the coming conflagration.   When a permit was denied, a zealous ACLU decided that someone who disagreed was “a plaintiff,” and a Federal judge agreed.   The public officials who are charged with keeping the piece had their orders hog-tied and thrust aside.   Two of them would not survive the day.   There were now no legal obstacles to what any fool could predict would happen next.

(3)   “And so it did.”   In the minds of millions of onlookers, and as the extremists intended, anything having to do with 150-year-old statues was indeed an extremist thing, and the people secretly worship statues of Jim Crow ... with no middle-ground to be seen anywhere; no alternative opinions allowed.

A single extremist party did not show up and start attacking a crowd of people who were carrying Coke bottles and lighted candles and who would like to teach the world to sing.   “It took two to Tango,” and two were there.   The inevitable future course of this never-to-be peaceful assembly was very easy to anticipate, and steps had been taken to deny it permission to occur.   But those steps were overruled by another type of zealot who apparently can’t tell the difference between Constitutionally-protected rights of speech and assembly, versus a recipe for a riot.

The people who now virtuously demand that President Trump should condemn only one of these wrongdoers, thereby implicitly exalting or at least tolerating the other, only make matters worse:   they, too, choose see only one side.   They want the nation’s highest-ranking public official to take only one position, and castigate him for saying that he sees more than one thing that went wrong and more than one responsible party.   How can we avoid these things happening, if we can’t tolerate public officials speaking their minds about what occurred and why?

The correct thing to have done would have been to initially do nothing about the statues, to deny all permits for a raucous and potentially-violent public gathering (and to tell Federal judges and ACLUs to keep their noses out of it), and to insist that all parties sit down and talk, in a truly peaceable assembly, about what (if anything) should be done concerning the statues.   Conflicting opinions should be given equal voice under the firm control of a moderator and parliamentary procedure, with lawmakers present who have the power to make informed changes to the law.   After the meeting and after a little time, changes could be implemented “by due process of law” and with public comment.

Many people must share responsibility for what never should have been allowed to happen.   We had plenty of opportunities to prevent it, and to me it is inexcusable that it did.   We must learn from this horrific experience.
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4393
Location: N/A
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Friday, September 15 2017 @ 06:53 PM CDT

Quote by: MikeRobinson
Did “both sides share blame?” I think that the answer is definitely yes:

(1)   Someone up-and-decided that 150-year-old statues of Civil War military heroes de facto constituted “a racist statement,” such that they must be removed from public display in order to propitiate our sins ... and that there must be no choice in the matter.   When people having differing opinions about this understandably became upset, a round-table discussion was never convened.   No steps were taken to divert the conflict into an alternative, more peaceful course.   The sparks flew directly at one another, with a very large pile of tinder in-between.   The stage was set.

(2)   Extremist groups – from both sides – were attracted like moths to the coming conflagration.   When a permit was denied, a zealous ACLU decided that someone who disagreed was “a plaintiff,” and a Federal judge agreed.   The public officials who are charged with keeping the piece had their orders hog-tied and thrust aside.   Two of them would not survive the day.   There were now no legal obstacles to what any fool could predict would happen next.

(3)   “And so it did.”   In the minds of millions of onlookers, and as the extremists intended, anything having to do with 150-year-old statues was indeed an extremist thing, and the people secretly worship statues of Jim Crow ... with no middle-ground to be seen anywhere; no alternative opinions allowed.

A single extremist party did not show up and start attacking a crowd of people who were carrying Coke bottles and lighted candles and who would like to teach the world to sing.   “It took two to Tango,” and two were there.   The inevitable future course of this never-to-be peaceful assembly was very easy to anticipate, and steps had been taken to deny it permission to occur.   But those steps were overruled by another type of zealot who apparently can’t tell the difference between Constitutionally-protected rights of speech and assembly, versus a recipe for a riot.

The people who now virtuously demand that President Trump should condemn only one of these wrongdoers, thereby implicitly exalting or at least tolerating the other, only make matters worse:   they, too, choose see only one side.   They want the nation’s highest-ranking public official to take only one position, and castigate him for saying that he sees more than one thing that went wrong and more than one responsible party.   How can we avoid these things happening, if we can’t tolerate public officials speaking their minds about what occurred and why?

The correct thing to have done would have been to initially do nothing about the statues, to deny all permits for a raucous and potentially-violent public gathering (and to tell Federal judges and ACLUs to keep their noses out of it), and to insist that all parties sit down and talk, in a truly peaceable assembly, about what (if anything) should be done concerning the statues.   Conflicting opinions should be given equal voice under the firm control of a moderator and parliamentary procedure, with lawmakers present who have the power to make informed changes to the law.   After the meeting and after a little time, changes could be implemented “by due process of law” and with public comment.

Many people must share responsibility for what never should have been allowed to happen.   We had plenty of opportunities to prevent it, and to me it is inexcusable that it did.   We must learn from this horrific experience.



wow ... sometimes you just leave me speechless

my most recent song: "First Light (solo piano)"
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1980
Location: N/A
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Friday, September 15 2017 @ 07:37 PM CDT

1) The city counsel of Charlottesville convened a "Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Monuments and Public Spaces" before voting to remove the statue. They have every right to determine how and where monuments are displayed in their own city. By the way, it wasn't "150 years old." It was erected in 1924.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/33810797/blue-ribbon-commission-votes-on-plans-for-statues-at-final-meeting

“My ideas about the history of Charlottesville, the way we memorialize and tell the history, those have changed. And those have changed because of the listening that I've done to the public, to the experts, and to the commissioners," Mason said.

2a) Nazis descended on Charlottesville to defend what they regarded as a symbol of white supremacy. That is why they were there, to promote their agenda. The rally was organized by white supremacists to promote white supremacy. All other parties were present to oppose Nazis and white supremacy.

2b) The ACLU was correct to defend plantiff. The government does not have the right to impose inequal treatment based merely on the content of speech.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism

3) For god sake, absolutely none of this has to do with your apparent fetish for confederate hagiography. White supremacists convened on a southern American city, heavily armed, carrying torches, and shouting Nazi slogans while marching through the streets. A white supremacist then willfully drove a car into a crowd of peaceful counter protestors, killing an innocent resident of that city and seriously wounding many others.

The "extemists" on one side were GENOCIDAL RACISTS WHO COMMITTED COLD-BLOODED MURDER. The "extremists" on the other side were people who gathered to vociferously oppose genocidal racism and racial separatism. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. THEY ARE NOT "EQUALLY GUILTY."

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


Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 3475
Location: , MA USA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Saturday, September 16 2017 @ 06:09 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi

3) For god sake, absolutely none of this has to do with your apparent fetish for confederate hagiography. White supremacists convened on a southern American city, heavily armed, carrying torches, and shouting Nazi slogans while marching through the streets. A white supremacist then willfully drove a car into a crowd of peaceful counter protestors, killing an innocent resident of that city and seriously wounding many others.

The "extemists" on one side were GENOCIDAL RACISTS WHO COMMITTED COLD-BLOODED MURDER. The "extremists" on the other side were people who gathered to vociferously oppose genocidal racism and racial separatism. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. THEY ARE NOT "EQUALLY GUILTY."



Thanks, Chikoppi.

So obvious, so 'there to be seen', that it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently it DOES need to be said.

"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
ktb
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 435
Location: Boston, MA
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Saturday, September 16 2017 @ 09:49 AM CDT

Quote by: magnatone
Quote by: MikeRobinson
Did “both sides share blame?” I think that the answer is definitely yes:

(1)   Someone up-and-decided that 150-year-old statues of Civil War military heroes de facto constituted “a racist statement,” such that they must be removed from public display in order to propitiate our sins ... and that there must be no choice in the matter.   When people having differing opinions about this understandably became upset, a round-table discussion was never convened.   No steps were taken to divert the conflict into an alternative, more peaceful course.   The sparks flew directly at one another, with a very large pile of tinder in-between.   The stage was set.

(2)   Extremist groups – from both sides – were attracted like moths to the coming conflagration.   When a permit was denied, a zealous ACLU decided that someone who disagreed was “a plaintiff,” and a Federal judge agreed.   The public officials who are charged with keeping the piece had their orders hog-tied and thrust aside.   Two of them would not survive the day.   There were now no legal obstacles to what any fool could predict would happen next.

(3)   “And so it did.”   In the minds of millions of onlookers, and as the extremists intended, anything having to do with 150-year-old statues was indeed an extremist thing, and the people secretly worship statues of Jim Crow ... with no middle-ground to be seen anywhere; no alternative opinions allowed.

A single extremist party did not show up and start attacking a crowd of people who were carrying Coke bottles and lighted candles and who would like to teach the world to sing.   “It took two to Tango,” and two were there.   The inevitable future course of this never-to-be peaceful assembly was very easy to anticipate, and steps had been taken to deny it permission to occur.   But those steps were overruled by another type of zealot who apparently can’t tell the difference between Constitutionally-protected rights of speech and assembly, versus a recipe for a riot.

The people who now virtuously demand that President Trump should condemn only one of these wrongdoers, thereby implicitly exalting or at least tolerating the other, only make matters worse:   they, too, choose see only one side.   They want the nation’s highest-ranking public official to take only one position, and castigate him for saying that he sees more than one thing that went wrong and more than one responsible party.   How can we avoid these things happening, if we can’t tolerate public officials speaking their minds about what occurred and why?

The correct thing to have done would have been to initially do nothing about the statues, to deny all permits for a raucous and potentially-violent public gathering (and to tell Federal judges and ACLUs to keep their noses out of it), and to insist that all parties sit down and talk, in a truly peaceable assembly, about what (if anything) should be done concerning the statues.   Conflicting opinions should be given equal voice under the firm control of a moderator and parliamentary procedure, with lawmakers present who have the power to make informed changes to the law.   After the meeting and after a little time, changes could be implemented “by due process of law” and with public comment.

Many people must share responsibility for what never should have been allowed to happen.   We had plenty of opportunities to prevent it, and to me it is inexcusable that it did.   We must learn from this horrific experience.



wow ... sometimes you just leave me speechless



sometimes you learn things about others you'd prefer not to know
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 736
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 11:31 AM CDT

“Apparent Confederate hagiography?”   Awww, c’mon.   Let’s not stoop to saying such things.

My reference to “150-year old” is of course not specific to when monuments were erected in a particular city.   The exact dates are not important.   I don’t choose to subscribe to the notion that people erect monuments to historical figures as oblique ways to express racism.   (You are free to think otherwise, and I am not going to debate you on that point.)

Exactly what I see is this, and only this:   a bloody riot, as well as two acts of domestic terrorism.   (When the KKK shows up with torches, or anyone shows up with swastikas, I consider both of these things to be “terrorism.”   Nothing more, and nothing less.)

It could – and should – have been prevented altogether.

Someone can decide to put up monuments, and, generations later, others can decide to take them down.   That’s not what went wrong here.   People did not die because a piece of marble fell on them.   I think that we err, and very seriously, if we try to ascribe what happened to the actions, or to the fault, of any single party.
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 736
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 11:50 AM CDT

A better way to say it:
  • “You call yourselves ‘the KKK,’ and you consider it your legal right to carry torches.”
  • “You call yourselves ‘Neo-Nazis,’ and you consider it your legal right to carry swastikas.”
  • “You call yourselves ‘Antifa,’ and you consider it your legal right to ‘oppose fascism’ by radical or violent means.
And all of you seem to think that the Citizens [of Charlottesville] have no choice but to put up with this.

In fact, you seem to think that the Constitution compels them to put up with this.

My interpretation, on the other hand, sees only the bold-face type:   what you actually did, regardless of why you said you did it.

The Constitution protects your right to express yourself “in peaceable assembly,” but it doesn’t protect any right to run amok.   It also does not protect anyone who attends such an assembly with the apparent intent of running amok.   It does not prevent public officials from denying you permission to assemble if they have probable cause to believe that someone would run amok.   And no, they are not merely reduced to considering how big of a park you Constitutionally must be allowed to run amok in, or how many bathrooms you must provide.   When you insist that you’re only going to hold Coca-Cola® bottles and teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, they don’t have to take you at your word.   They have discretion.   They have authority “to Ensure Domestic Tranquility.”

No matter what you say that “you intended to ‘speak,’” you are first-and-foremost accountable for your actions.   And, the public is entitled to anticipate(!) your actions and to respond pro-actively against you, with no other reason being required, and they may do so without fear of a Judge denying them that prerogative.

The moment you picked up bold-faced type, your Constitutional protections ended and you became a criminal, regardless of ‘Why you say Why’:
  • Domestic terrorism.
  • Domestic terrorism.
  • Domestic terrorism.
... and society’s (Constitutionally-protected) collective answer is, “No!”

Can they exercise those prerogatives before you, as you say, “speak,” and in so doing deny you in your wishes?   “Yes!”

And this does not make you a plaintiff.  

Yes, you have legal rights ... but so do the rest of us.
 
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1980
Location: N/A
 
Re:Brace for Impact
Sunday, September 17 2017 @ 01:58 PM CDT

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.

Personally, I want Nazis to display the swastika. Then I know exactly who they are.

Also, the torches bothered you but the proliferation of M16s, AKs, and Glocks in the hands of organized separatists escaped comment? To my knowledge it is not a crime to bear either.

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

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