I'm a proud Clevelander (take 10 seconds to lol....ok). Tamir Rice was shot just south of my neighborhood at the time. Probably could've heard it if I were outside.

This post isn't really about the case itself, but I should say I find the whole thing despicable. Whatever one's opinion of guilt or not is, it is quite clear the prosecutor wanted it one way. He would never act the way he did if regular citizens were involved. Police having carte blanche to do whatever has to ****ing stop.

Anyway, I'm playing poker at the casino downtown last night when I hear there's protesters outside. So I start reading about what's going on. And I read that one of the chants ended like "we will bring the system down." And I instantly think "lol no you will not."

I mean, these protests have no impact. At all. I agree with a lot of their contentions, but marching around shouting coordinated rhymes doesn't seem like a fruitful endeavor. Am I wrong? Soulless?

I mean it worked pretty well for the black civil rights activists in the 60s . I think they have had a tangible impact on minimum wage discourse at least (fight for fifteen protests) . It's just signaling to the powers that be that something is wrong . It gets media coverage as well which is very useful and probably the ultimate goal in most cases

I don't particularly enjoy singing dumb chants and parading around and I prefer to politically engage in some other way but it's pretty crazy to me to say that they are useless. It's the only form of political engagement accessible to many people.

Having a mortgage and owning a home are two separate things. Having a bachelor's is definitely more important than owning one's home.

I think his point is more literal and surface level, though, as it's assumed that education is more related to climbing the social ladder than owning a home. That the vig we tend to focus on (mortgages) is more than half of the more ignored big, and the more ignored vig is for borrowing money to pay for something far more necessary.

Ok, yes, not useless in general. But I truly believe they are useless in many cases. There was abundant outrage and media coverage yesterday before the protests even started. Most politically engaged people around the country probably weren't even aware there were protests in Cleveland last night. And if they were, did it change their mind in any way?

Idk. To me, I get one life. I'm not wasting it marching around when there's a strong chance my impact is 0% and at best it is .00000000000000000001%. This is a personal preference and not related to the general point though.

That's just the same argument against voting or doing any canvassing or phone banking for political causes

As a libertarian, I'm annoyed that the universal issue of policing excess has been framed entirely as a racial issue, with the feelers doubling down most emphatically on the most marginal and uncertain of instances.

On the other hand, I have had numerous lulz watching blue city after blue city show their asses at every opportunity while it took evil racists in South Carolina about ten minutes to send that cop away for life. However, I do think the protests have been very helpful towards making America great again

So I'm conflicted.

Well yeah, and apart from voting, I'd never do those things either. But like I said, that's a personal thing. Not related to the utility of some protests.

Regarding the racial issue focus, this isn't really surprising or misplaced at all, considering the demographics who started marching and the catalysts for the marches. Agreed that the issue of force is the larger issue, but people need concrete examples to rally around and nothing is more unavoidable to protest than the abuse of lethal force. The victims of these abuses are disproportionately people of color.

Yeah

not calling you out specifically, just want to point out this general outlook is a pretty substantial part of the problem. This complete myopic outlook regarding your time is why we have ****ty politicians, bloated do-nothing bureaucracies, etc etc. I'm guilty too.

In other news, this Oregon occupation story is fascinating from a coverage and reactions standpoint. The same crowd who is livid about excessive state violence is upset there isn't... a lot more state violence occurring?

Oregon occupation nonsense is a fantastic example of how it's like two different states between here and out east.

EDIT: Reading more about it, it sounds like something I'd see on South Park.

KC,

No. There is a crowd that is:

1. Against excessive state violence, which is objectively disproportionately used against blacks
2. Against the extreme double standard of the application of "laws" and "the process" against blacks vs whites as well as for civilians vs police.
3. Upset about absurd police state puppet media coverage biased against black and brown folks, especially protestors or Muslims, while covering white-perpetrated terrorism (PP massacres, Black Church killings, school shootings, takeover and occupation of federal buildings and land(!)) completely differently, resulting in hugely regressive impact in shaping public opinion. All while being extraordinarily tone def and full of whitesplainin'.


THOSE people (me) think the whole Oregon situation couldn't possibly be more of an in your face example of all the above. And find it amazing that people don't see that.

Let's be clear. This was an armed takeover of an actual government building and land, with a leader saying they were willing to kill or be killed if necessary, and it's not the first time this group has done this type of thing. Can you imagine the difference in coverage and police/military reaction of this was a group of armed Muslims or armed #blacklivesmatter protestors??? That is the point.

Yeah, it's pretty ****ed up. There's two completely separate parts:

1. The Hammonds and their dealings with the BLM and FWS, over multiple decades.
2. The actual occupation (which the Hammonds have no actual part in and have in fact publicly rejected their support).

The first thing, based on my admittedly cursory reading of it, is pretty ****ed, and the feds are def doing the Hammonds dirty. Decent summary here (def a biased source). It reads like plenty of modern imminent domain fiascos, where people who resist are ultimately F'd in the A. Feds want land, people won't sell, grudge is held, power is abused.

And from Reason:

This is insane, and I have no idea how this doesn't violate double jeopardy laws.

Now the actual occupation is pretty absurd, and again, the Hammonds have spoken out against it. While their gripe is very legit imo, even if on the behalf of someone else, I have to imagine their are better ways to tackle this, perhaps soliciting pro-bono law work from the likes of the Institute of Justice or something.

HOWEVER, the actual particulars aren't the major interest to me. It's the coverage. Which I'll touch on by addressing clark's 'rhea.

Fair, agreed.

fair, agreed.

this you'll have to elaborate on, because it isn't really coherent or possibly I'm dumb. So the media has been cheering on Fergusson and the Tamir Rice situation all the sudden? The Charleston shootings were ignored? Then what have I been reading? I won't say ALL media is on the same page here, as Fox is certainly cop friendly, but CNN, NBC, etc are all police state puppets? Granted, some are state puppets imo, in the proggy sense, but not generally guilty of looking the other way on these racial issues. Nor is the Atlantic, Slate, NYT, etc etc.

And regarding Oregon, much of what I'm reading from liberal media and liberal twitter is not so much "oh wouldn't it be nice if black neighborhoods were granted this kind of fair process", but rather "oh wtf they should get shot too." Which is crazy.

Then there's the also comical #OregonUnderAttack hashtag. When it's people you hate just by looking at them, it's #Attack (despite, you know, any actual physical confrontation).. when it's something you agree with, I guess that's when #Occupy gets love.

Anyway, that's my real point, is that how this is being processed and dissected (on both sides) is more about who the story is about and who is doing the processing than it is based on any set sort of principals. Because just looking at this from a mile away, if anything, #BlackLivesMatters and #FreeHammond might serve two completely populations, but they share a common enemy, and might learn something from one another, even if there's disagreement in execution.

That's what I find fascinating.

So because of LOL media and LOL government we should be critical of government protests against oppression if the protesters are white?

Maybe people should stick together against authority instead of fueling this partisanship that encourages resentment between each other and enables the establishment and status quo.

Ok, this is a better post, and I somewhat agree, but since it completely lacks context it reads as glib to me.

If a white militia took over say.. a public college campus or an actual in use federal building like an IRS office, the reaction would be 100% different. The denouncement would be fierce and they'd probably all be dead or in jail already. Bundy, whether you hate him or not, isn't a complete idiot. They occupied a completely empty outpost in the middle of nowhere with no human presence. This is a protest.

Likewise, had Fergusson had some kind of actual organization and had 200 people pull off a sit-in of the Mayor's office or some ****, I believe the vast majority of news outlets would report this in a favorable light (not Fox obv). I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And even if it wasn't, what would the outcry be? That the coverage sucked, or that the Oregon coverage wasn't as ****ty? That's the odd part to me, this desire that in order to reach equality, we drag each other down to the bottom.

I have other thoughts regarding "coverage", but I don't feel like diving into it.

Yup

I'll take care of it.

#FrozenBagsOf****InTheirTents

Sounds like they plead, were sentenced, and then re-sentenced after appeal. They weren't penalized twice, the original sentence was just changed.

Yeah, I guess that technicality is why it's OK, but it's still ****ed.

First of all, they took a plea, and as part of the plea, agreed to not appeal, but then the sentencing can be appealed by the prosecution? lol, k.

Secondly, THEY SERVED THE INITIAL SENTENCE already. They had already been to jail and served their time. Then some especially vindictive ****s with the BLM filed appeals to the sentencing after they got out, and now they're going back.

Sounds like double jeopardy to me, man.

sounds like a move jack mccoy would pull

Crazy Jack McCoy could be a good gimmick twitter account

Hang 'Em High McCoy is a Mount Rushmore TV villain.

actually it sounds like a carmichael line

"they already served the plea agreement"

"then lets put em in jail again"