« The Best Thread in the History of the Internet | Main | On Rhetoric and Regime Change: This Is How I End Up Sucked In »

July 31, 2011

Comments

Off and on topic again (what is the topic?), but I found the article in the New York Times today regarding the rioting and mayhem in English cities to be fascinating.

This: "Mr Cameron had hesitated for two days to abandon his break at a villa in Tuscany as the looting and rioting spread across England, and then to other cities ...." ...

... juxtaposed with this quote from a female looter in London I heard on the radio: "I'm just takin back me tax dollars."

Hmm..
Then back to the New York Times article for this:

"On Tuesday, a police oversight body said that forensic tests had shown that both shots fired at the scene had come from a police officer's Heckler and Koch submachine gun, and that the tests so far had shown no evidence that the loaded Italian-made BBM pistol carried by Mr, Duggan has been fired in the confrontation."

Picture here of the Heckler and Koch (a German firm) machine gun:

http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/mil_submachine.asp

Now, one wonders if the Germans are exporting the same firepower to police forces in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and whoops, there goes France, to enforce fiscal austerity and protect their very own banks, etc.

But then next comment showed that you only used this principle as a weapon to discredit your opponent.

How so? Who's my opponent, in your scenario?

It shows that you do not care about principles but only to win.

No, the comment that you quote shows that I care not at all for the opinions of Andrew Sullivan, who is much more interested in Sarah Palin's uterus than I find seemly. I have many other areas of disagreement with him that lack the ick factor, but the ick factor is what causes me to turn away from anything he writes. You of course are free to read him or not read him, as is everyone else.

Do people that caused the death of 77(and more) people deserve to be stoned when justice doesnt reach them trough legal means?

Which people are you referring to? What, in general, are you even talking about?

And the country would be better off.

Wait: this sounds as if you, too, are advocating the stoning of politicians whose opinions you don't agree with.

I suppose violence is justified if it fits your ideology.

But now the question comes to Who is to decide who are those extremists?

Some of them are the ones who advocate violence when they can't get their way politically, I say. It's practically the definition of extremism: the advocacy of extreme measures.

the things you did not disagree with in my comment are more important then the ones you listed. I am talking about having a principle of non violence and how ideology leads to it. The point of it is to show how interconnected we all are.

Wait: this sounds as if you, too, are advocating the stoning of politicians whose opinions you don't agree with.

I suppose violence is justified if it fits your ideology.

Correct wording that applies to me is: Advocating for stoning of politicians whose ACTIONS i do not agree with. And i do not agree with actions to go to war with country that was not an iota threat to our country. Iraq. Only threat they were was to the corporate plans for control of oil and hegemony. Both sides of the isle, Rs and Ds who voted for that war deserve stoning. Not as a punishment but as a prevention of future damage that they keep doing. Since they wield a huge power even some are not in congress anymore they still influence the public and policy.
Some of them realize the blunder and learned something that will never repeat again, they are excused.
My principles are: protect the weak and doubt the power, also non violence. But there is some responsibility in enforcing if possible in order to protect the weak.
I am not advocating anything violent, i am talking about what they deserve in some perfect world where laws are applied equally to poor and to powerful.
The fact that their actions(voting) are producing the outcome that will lead to a lot of violence, such as a civil war, or in the best case scenario, riots such are happening in London nowadays.
As Cameron already discredited those looters as "pure" hooligans and criminals, shows that leaders will retreat even harder into ideology that created such environment that creates such riots. The ideology (which is fascist ideology in my opinion) that gives corporations anything they ask under excuse that they are "job creators". And what corporations want is more profit, which will come with cutting the costs, easiest one is labor cost, which produces poor and alienated population, not to mention it destroys corporate customer base.

And you are conflating opinions with knowledge of history. To know how history repeats itself over and over we should know principles under which it repeats because we were not there to see and compare, most of the time. Laws of action and reaction are everywhere not only in physics. We are interconnected.
Conflating politics and science. Politics should not decide about economy which is science based. I admit, Not fully developed science, due to data collection abilities in previous years but its getting better.

But the biggest point should be that stoning is a metaphor for public humiliation, just as tar and feathering is. Since you know that such violent public humiliations are abandoned long time ago and impossible for anyone to advocate it literally, it is just an excuse to turn away from the topic of the discussion and to pretend to have a higher moral ground. Using it as a weapon against oponents with different views (not opinions). Views are fact based conclusions taken from other's positions and intentions. Less or more facts taken into consideration makes the views. Opinions can not be proven right or wrong since they do not use facts, but estetic, religious or moral preference.

impossible for anyone to advocate it literally

No, it's not. Legally sanctioned stoning is no longer with us, but anyone can throw rocks.

it is just an excuse to turn away from the topic of the discussion and to pretend to have a higher moral ground

So confident you are that you know my thinking. Why, I shouldn't even need to

I did not describe your thinking but your ACTION. I described what happened.

An excuse is an action?

No. Sorry, no.

You maintain that I am avoiding the topic, under guise of faux concern. I'm not doing that, I promise you.

I apologize for making and keeping it personal, for it distracts from presenting a viewpoint.

These are the murderous subhuman vermin elected to office last November:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/10/1005366/-Georgia-Republican-tries-to-defund-Legal-Services-for-protecting-American-workers?via=blog_1

American or immigrant labor, whomever is paid the least, is who they will f*ck next.

Bring on the soccer hooligans.

You never know who's going up against the wall next, come the revolution. It could be you. I seem to recall a few who were shortened in the aftermath of the French Revolution were themselves revolutionaries. You might wind up being seen as not revolutionary enough or, like Hébert, too revolutionary.

It's therefore probably a plus to be a pseudonymous revolutionary in any given age.

Yup, once they figured out Robespierre's IP address, zee jig, it t'was up, mon ami.

"You never know who's going up against the wall next, come the revolution. It could be you. I seem to recall a few who were shortened in the aftermath of the French Revolution were themselves revolutionaries. You might wind up being seen as not revolutionary enough or, like Hébert, too revolutionary."

Well, merely as a thought experiment, let's posit the "you" in that statement as the self-described revolutionaries elected by the Tea Party Movement and their enablers in the vestiges of the now moribund Republican Party.

Further, that these revolutionaries, to further their, at best, incoherent, but non-negotiable ends, are attempting to inflict a certain amount of controlled (in their minds they believe they can control it), but cleansing, chaos and pain on the polity and society around them, not to mention a once-functioning government.

They have been called nihilists, but I don't believe in calling people names that make them blink and seek out a dictionary.

Rather, (again, this is a thought experiment), I believe that maybe what is required as an antidote to these folks inflicting what they believe to be controlled (controlled in that only the Other is afflicted by the strategic pain and damage), is some ferocious, uncontrolled nihilism leading to a howling chasm of chaos, for its own sake, just to see if they can handle the real thing, the real thing being pain and damage, as Robespierre experienced, turned back on them without control.

And that all they hear by way of connection to the illusion of controlled chaos as the now uncontrolled chaos comes at them uncontrollably is the cackle of Madame Defarge.

I've always thought Heath Ledger's Joker captured the psychology of this. Even the bad guys, who liked a little chaos to further their own ends, in their gnarled little heart of hearts, ended up hoping Batman could restore order, because this guy, Heath Ledger's Joker, was into some serious unseriousness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8

As a footnote, I saw a photograph of Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, and Steve What'shiswho, the bomb-throwing rep from Iowa,Illinois one of those I-States, walking off of a stage, smiling broadly, I expect after each stepping to the microphone and emitting the most fatuous mouth flatulence about the uncompromising length they were going to go to inflict their idea of chaos and pain on the country, a veritable bonfire of the inanities, but with real people experiencing real pain and suffering at their hands.

They were proud of what they were up to.

And, I thought (musing experimentally), what if Heath Ledger's Joker was in the room, skulking around near the back, or better, in the front row fiddling with a remote control device connected to some real f8cking pain and suffering.

Countme, the last time I heard a proposal like that was Tom Friedman's column Crazier than Thou.

We all know where that led.

Well, I think we actually ended up, in the case of the Bush Administration's wars and the follow-on right-wing infestation via the Tea Party, with "Alright, We Tried Crazier And That Didn't Work, So Let's Try Really F8cking Dumb."

But yeah, here we are.

Heath Ledger is dead and now another slick, shallow monster from Texas, this time with secessionist Confederate concealed carry deep in whatever Texan gland that plays his heart on TV, arises from his kneeling in armed, malign prayer, and staffing his foreign team with the exact same deja vu horror artists Bush used to blow up the world and bankrupt the Treasury, with the added charming angle that while Bush II spent a little Federal money for drought relief AND prayed for rain, this newly evolved psychopath (deadlier acid for blood, more teeth in bigger jaws) will devolve the Federal Government down to only a weekly prayer session for the free market dead and dying, with the exception of the tactical nukes the taxpayer will be forced to buy so his God can bring wrath to the Other, arises to join the champion sneerers and wanna-be Jokers already lining up to destroy the country.

Nah, I think a Heath Ledger/Joker intransigent tax revolt (not one penny, marginal or otherwise, f*ckers) from the left, several million strong and adequately equipped and extravangantly ruthless, would be just the start of a welcome uncontrolled chaos for this joke of a polity.

But maybe Obama rope-a-dopes them and it won't be necessary.

I doubt it.

Personally, I would say that asserting an interest in having your state secede should pretty much disqualify you from running for the Presidency.

But WTF do I know.

I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Mabuse>Doktor Mabuse is alive and well and living in New England.

This is also ludicrous. The President and Democrats could have had the eventual compromise months ago. There would have been little fanfare and the damage done would have been mitigated.

Do you have anything at all? The following dietary supplements bought something I’m going to muscle growth. Please give me a piece of advice. The road sees rough a roar, and the roar and walked on.

Do you have anything at all? The following dietary supplements bought something I’m going to muscle growth. Please give me a piece of advice. The road sees rough a roar, and the roar and walked on.

Please give me a piece of advice. The road sees rough a roar, and the roar and walked on.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad