Congratulations to the people of America

[Phatscotty]

Riots are spreading around US... Protests in Oakland, situation is boiling up in San Francisco and LA.

Is this the beginning of the end of American "Democracy"?

Perhaps it's the beginning of Mobstability

Mob Up! - Twista (My fav!)

If it's static, one of my nikkas gon' get two nikkas
Two of my nikkas gon' get four nikkas
Four of my nikkas gon' get more nikkas
That's more triggers meaning more killers
You muthafuckas better mob up

It's a static, it's automatic, so grab the automatics
And pumps and pull the triggers and make some nikkas look acrobatic
I was cold but frantic, the foes have panicked
They got bloods blew out their dome, bet the bullets run rapid
I kept bustin' for the love of hustlin' squeezin' my wesson
Ruger, gang (?) maneuvers, nikkas wanna be bruisers but I'm a shooter
f*ck the squad, because when it's said and done
Liffy Stokes will do some poppin'

nikkas the devil's knockin' at your fuckin' door
With some hot ones and toe
And ready to hit 'em with nothin' less than four
nikkas let me go, I'm 'bout to pop this bitch
You know you know the lick, art of the mobsta click
f*ck the argument, mob elite's runnin' up apartments
Kickin' in doors pistol whippin' hoes be heartless
Searches as the bullets marches between your arches
Make one call and wait and reload the cartridge

You can't even mess with a mobsta, nikkas , is you sick in the head
I torture that ass and have you overdosing on lead
Or maybe I just leave you cut up, drippin' and dead
With your crew skippin' town scared, my lead gon' lead their ass red
Don't get misled, don't mistake me for somebody but a soldier
The elite nikkas got more death than AIDS and ebola
Getting old and colder
I be quick to get start uppin' but that chip off your muthafuckin' shoulder

Behold the stack folder, gun holder, AKA blunt roller
Mayz if I die for you get your boulder and trap holder
To hurt particular nikkas comin' with perpendicular figures
Crushin' triggers, y'all nikkas better bring back some memos

[Phatscotty]

That's why I said minor criminals.

For an ordered society, we need to treat people fairly, with respect and with clear consequences, the ramifications of which are built into the establishment of the consequence.

If we know that a legal system is going to lead to both more criminals and more dangerous criminals, then we should probably look at a way around that. Our legal system is expensive, skewed towards the wealthy and has terrible outcomes.

For mass murderers and serial killers, I think they should be executed soon after they are found guilty, and that their trial should not take years. On the other hand, if guys are being summarily executed for not submitting fast enough to state authority, then the whole point of a legal system is nullified.

oh, k yeah that makes more sense. No doubt America has become far to litigious. It's sad that so many people come to America to study medicine and become a doctor, then once they got their American PHD they head over to Thailand or somewhere else so they can practice more freely and actually focus on helping people rather than trying to pile up the bills with way too many tests because they are worried about malpractice suits. Heck, malpractice insurance premiums are reason enough to practice medicine anywhere but America. Throw in Obamacare....phewee!

[Phatscotty]

Exactly. The fact that the media emphocize the ethnic group of criminals/cops is just plain stupid and only causes tensions. I don't see why the ethnic groups should ever be mentioned; by continually repeating these stuff this is what causes ethnic groups to feel threatened by another and all the stupid shit that happens next. All these statistics are due to social class, not genetics or anything similar. The fact that cops die is not an excuse to retaliate on citizens, and the fact that citizens die is not an excuse to retaliate on cops.

It's pretty funny when you think of the OJ simpson trial, how this became something about black vs white people. The guy was guilt as shit and yet black people thought justice had been made through this farce. Justice is not about compensating ffs. If OJ simpson had been white and his wife black, then black people would've started riots if the same decision had been taken.
People should just stop being so plain stupid and think they are part of something just because they share the same skin colour; they are just participating in this whole dumb shit called racism that goes both ways.

Don't look now, but at least media outlet one seems to have already received that memo.

[betiko]

Wow, for once i find that fox news is more factual (not comparing it to cnn as cnn is mostly sensationalist).

By the way, i heard there is a movie about to be released regarding a very cynical news journalist. I heard it s really good and it s worth oscars.

[shickingbrits]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

Webb alleged that the 1997 backlash was a form of media manipulation. "The government side of the story is coming through the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post", he stated. "They use the giant corporate press rather than saying anything directly. If you work through friendly reporters on major newspapers, it comes off as The New York Times saying it and not a mouthpiece of the CIA."[19] In 2004, Webb wrote a long piece, "The Mighty Wurlitzer Plays On", describing the role the Internet played in bringing the "Dark Alliance" story to international attention in 1996, and describing at length the backlash against the story, at first externally through the larger newspapers, later internally by the paper's editors:

I found myself involved in hours-long conversations with editors that bordered on the surreal.

"How do we know for sure that these drug dealers were the first big ring to start selling crack in South Central?" editor Jonathan Krim pressed me during one such confab. "Isn't it possible there might have been others before them?"

"There might have been a lot of things, Jon, but we're only supposed to deal in what we know," I replied. "The crack dealers I interviewed said they were the first. Cops in South Central said they were the first. and that they controlled the entire market. They wrote it in reports that we have. I haven't found anything saying otherwise, not one single name, and neither did the New York Times, the Washington Post or the L.A. Times. So what's the issue here?"

"But how can we say for sure they were the first?" Krim persisted. "Isn't it possible there might have been someone else and they never got caught and no one ever knew about them? In that case, your story would be wrong."

I had to take a deep breath to keep from shouting. "If you're asking me whether I accounted for people who might never have existed, the answer is no," I said. "I only considered people with names and faces. I didn't take phantom drug dealers into account."[20]

James Aucoin, a communications professor who specializes in the history of investigative reporting, wrote: "In the case of Gary Webb's charges against the CIA and the Contras, the major dailies came after him. Media institutions are now part of the establishment and they have a lot invested in that establishment."[19]

[warmonger1981]

Rick Ross. Ross is boss.

[mrswdk]

Haha, I like how "standing up for their rights" = "burning and looting the property of innocent people."

Unfortunately for the shop owners, the protestors have very few avenues available to them:

1 - state-sanctioned means of redress (state refused to cooperate)
2 - pressure the state with peaceful campaigns (ignored by the state)
3 - pressure the state by targeting the police (tantamount to suicide when the police force are armed like Navy SEALS)
4 - pressure the state by targeting civilians and/or civilian property (only viable option remaining)

1. Assume nothing else will work.
2. Therefore, make lame excuses.

Sure, the Ferguson police exacerbated the situation (overall), and the ongoing militarization of police and the default of using force aggressively needs to be ended. As more white people and politicians become increasingly directly affected by the shenanigans of the police, we'll get that necessary change (some time in the future, unfortunately).

Still doesn't excuse destroying people's property. It actually makes them ('the mob') look worse. inb4: they're terrorists.

Who's assuming? The courts refused to prosecute the officer in question and the state has done nothing substantial in response to the protests and media coverage, much as has happened in many other similar cases. Challenging the state within boundaries set by the state (lol, how's that for loaded dice?) is clearly for chumps. I am simply observing.

Why would I claim they are terrorists? I think you have me confused with someone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

The terrorism bit was more of a joke (I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but it does offer a point of comparison). Here's what I mean about the assumptions. If we take your (1)-(3) as absolutely true, then I still disagree that (4) destroying the property of innocent civilians is an effective means to attain more just outcomes. If anything, it alienates the 'total audience' across the nation. How so?

The primary means of terrorist tactics is targeting innocent civilians. This has multiple effects of varying magnitudes. (a) It may strengthen the in-group's opinion because the destruction is viewed as a just act of retribution. (b) Unfortunately, it can also alienate 'the terrorists' from widespread public opinion because targeting civilians violates nearly everyone's norms about justice. (c) As a response to terrorism, the state may overreact with greater COIN (counter-insurgency) ops, which may incur more costs on the innocent civilians, whose opinion might side against the state and inadvertently with the terrorists' goal of creating tension between the state and its civilians.

So, is terrorism an effective means of seeking redress from unjust actions of the state? From what I've read, the literature overall says, "usually not, dawg." (Since terrorism is an emotionally laden term for most, replace "terrorism" with "vandalism").

And that's taking your assumptions as absolute, but in the real world, everything occurs on the margin, and nothing is fixed (since it's not absolute). Also, the soundness of your assumptions then becomes uncertain. When we open up (1)-(3) on the margin, then (4) becomes less valuable since more effective change can occur through (1)-(3). For example,

1 - state-sanctioned means of redress (state refused to sufficiently cooperate). ( To what degree should the state have cooperated? And through what means?)

2 - pressure the state with peaceful campaigns (ignored by the state). (To what degree were the peaceful demonstrations peaceful? How many protestors were peaceful, and how many were violent? To what degree did the state ignore their complaints? etc. about the means).

3 - pressure the state by targeting the police (tantamount to suicide when the police force are armed like Navy SEALS). (Yeah, I'd agree this doesn't work, but militarized police themselves seem to be a large cause of the problem, so reducing their 'militarization' by some margin may reduce tensions between civilians and police. This opens up questions about changing police tactics as well).

4 - pressure the state by targeting civilians and/or civilian property (only viable option remaining).

RE: (4), there's still other options (1)-(3), so (4) doesn't follow. If you think in absolute terms, which ignores the soundness of them, then you can easily lead yourself into thinking (4) is the only way.

This incident initially opened up a range of changes regarding (1)-(3) as public opinion became more involved in the discourse, but opting for (4) seems to have turned public opinion against the protestors. Unfortunately, the protestors lost much of their credibility when they began violently targeting innocent people and their property. Instead, they should've appealed more to people's emotions and notions of justice and so on. If so, they'd have gotten more people talking about changing (1)-(3) on the margin.

[Metsfanmax]

Why is this thread still getting replies? It was won as soon as Phatscotty posted that infographic indicating that the reason we have racism in this country is because we don't give police officers enough medals.

[notyou2]

Anti-establishment riots all over America, the people standing up for their rights in the face of their repressive government, American Spring, time for sanctions and a no-fly zone??

Scotty, why do you insist on disseminating lies and half truths when you know they are lies and half truths? This is the bullshit that the right wing has been perpetrating for years and the left wing and centrists are fighting back against this tripe.

For fucks sakes it's even happening in Canada now by our moronic conservative government. Feed the people lies long enough and they start taking it for truth.

Please advise where the civilian assaulted the police officer. The video clearly shows him being shot and falling.

[mrswdk]

Unfortunately, the protestors lost much of their credibility when they began violently targeting innocent people and their property. Instead, they should've appealed more to people's emotions and notions of justice and so on. If so, they'd have gotten more people talking about changing (1)-(3) on the margin.

Although as I believe I touched upon already, tactics 1 and 2 have yielded precious little in the month(s?) since that kid was shot, just as those tactics have produced nothing in response to other police shootings. As far as I'm aware, police shootings have been trending up in recent years, not down. The people are clearly desperate - perhaps now is the time for foreign backers to start pouring military equipment into the hands of anti-government factions and start the PR campaign in favor of the international community facilitating a regime change.

[shickingbrits]

Since no one sees the CIA introducing crack to the US, that their media is manipulated or that problems were created to promote policy, then I will just add a few thoughts.

In the same wiki article there are a few insightful bits of info.

Let's see what the LA Times wrote after Gary Webb's death:

From above linked wiki:

"The LA Times piece criticizes its own portrayal of Webb—"we dropped the ball"—and notes that "spurred on by Webb's story, the CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade" and concludes that "History will tell if Webb receives the credit he's due for prodding the CIA to acknowledge its shameful collaboration with drug dealers. Meanwhile, the journalistic establishment is only beginning to recognize that the controversy over 'Dark Alliance' had more to do with poor editing than bad reporting [on Webb's part]".[26]"

"Writing in 2005 in the Chicago Tribune, about "the Dangers of Questioning Government Actions", Don Wycliff, the Tribune's public editor, wrote, "I still think Gary Webb had it mostly right. I think he got the treatment that always comes to those who dare question aloud the bona fides of the establishment: First he got misrepresented—his suggestion that the CIA tolerated the Contras' cocaine trading became an allegation that the agency itself was involved in the drug trade. Then he was ridiculed as a conspiracy-monger." [27]"

So both of these papers "vindicate" Gary Webb. But of course they don't. In Gary Webb's own words as published above, the major pressure he received was for his evidence that the CIA introduced, distributed and controlled the crack market. Both of the excerpts in no way try to qualify this. In fact they ignore it completely and continue to do exactly as Gary claimed, they used CIA sources to assert that the CIA was merely turning a blind eye to the Contras drug trade. In "vindicating" him, they further bury the story that he was trying to tell.

Now I haven't seen the movie, but my guess is that it will show exactly the same idea, that his great discovery was Contra smuggling with the CIA turning a blind eye. This was not his discovery at all, this was not why the press turned against him, this is not why his editor turned against him.

Let's see how much they turned against him:

"The total of the Los Angeles Times reportage criticizing the Dark Alliance exceeded the length of the Dark Alliance itself, and the publication used anonymous intelligence officials as sources. The Los Angeles Times criticized the notion that the CIA intentionally tried to addict African-Americans on crack cocaine; the Webb articles did not make this assertion. Shelby Coffey III, the main editor of the Los Angeles Times, had assigned 17 reporters to expose any errors in Webb's story.[13]"

The Webb articles didn't make this assertion, no what he said is that the CIA introduced crack, distributed and controlled the market. That the distribution was done mainly in black, lower class areas is indicative of the intent to hook the lower class on crack, but he didn't say it.

Why would the LA TImes dedicate so much time and effort to discrediting Webb? This was never discussed. Except by Gary Webb. Why when the main theme of the LA Times reporting was to discredit Webb's point that the CIA controlled the crack market which they manifested, did the "vindication" of Webb just further dismiss these very allegations?

We've got various threads going on terrorism, police force, manipulation:

what's the point of any or all these threads if we can't discuss cases of extreme relevance? What little brain tick do you have that self-censors you? Scared you may get on a list?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[mrswdk]

[mrswdk]

Unfortunately, the protestors lost much of their credibility when they began violently targeting innocent people and their property. Instead, they should've appealed more to people's emotions and notions of justice and so on. If so, they'd have gotten more people talking about changing (1)-(3) on the margin.

Although as I believe I touched upon already, tactics 1 and 2 have yielded precious little in the month(s?) since that kid was shot, just as those tactics have produced nothing in response to other police shootings. As far as I'm aware, police shootings have been trending up in recent years, not down. The people are clearly desperate - perhaps now is the time for foreign backers to start pouring military equipment into the hands of anti-government factions and start the PR campaign in favor of the international community facilitating a regime change.

No response?

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunately, the protestors lost much of their credibility when they began violently targeting innocent people and their property. Instead, they should've appealed more to people's emotions and notions of justice and so on. If so, they'd have gotten more people talking about changing (1)-(3) on the margin.

Although as I believe I touched upon already, tactics 1 and 2 have yielded precious little in the month(s?) since that kid was shot, just as those tactics have produced nothing in response to other police shootings. As far as I'm aware, police shootings have been trending up in recent years, not down. The people are clearly desperate - perhaps now is the time for foreign backers to start pouring military equipment into the hands of anti-government factions and start the PR campaign in favor of the international community facilitating a regime change.

No response?

Nah, we're going in circles. I'll keep mentioning how terrorism/violent protest is counter-productive, and you'll keep mentioning that (1)-(2) suck. Think of the longer run. When the protestors overreacted violently, they lost common cause with millions of people. It basically confirmed their prejudices that 'those rioters are animals'. It's simply not good PR to go around stealing and destroying people's property. You're too early in calling (1)-(2) ineffective. If the protestors were better organized and had a better marketing strategy, then they could've kept people calm and worked (1)-(3).

[tzor]

Anti-establishment riots all over America,

What "anti-establishment" riots? Are you talking about the riots promoted by the "establishment" (Including our own attorney general?)

Hands up, baby, hands up,
Gimme your heart, gimme, gimme your heart
Gimme gimme
Hands up, baby, hands up,
Gimme your heart, gimme, gimme your heart
Gimme gimme
All your love,
All your love.

[shickingbrits]

Check COINTELPRO BBS, the whole point of the FBI sending agents into organized protests is just so they become disorganized and create a reason for a government crackdown.

[BigBallinStalin]

Check COINTELPRO BBS, the whole point of the FBI sending agents into organized protests is just so they become disorganized and create a reason for a government crackdown.

Yeah, that's an interesting history, and J. Edgar Hoover was essentially a fascist; his type fits in perfectly with the secret police of authoritarian regimes. (1) Is the FBI still conducting similar operations today?, and (2) what are the overall benefits and costs?

(2) The wiki link says that they also targeted Communists and white supremacy groups who had publicly stated intentions of overthrowing the government (or basically 'governing a particular area within the country'). I'm not strongly opposed to the FBI's goal of suppressing violent radicals. On the other hand, the FBI was targeting peaceful protestors, which is a problem.

(1) I'm not sure. They've got their counter-"terrorism" program which has entrapped about 340+ 'terrorists' since 9/11. Would the FBI want to get involved in the Ferguson protests? Would they want to target the more potentially violent individuals and then either encourage them to be violent, or simply collect data, arrest them, and separate them from the peaceful protest? I don't know. Don't they have bigger problems on their hands--e.g. real terrorists, corporate/government counter-intelligence, etc.?

[shickingbrits]

A peaceful, organized protest, as you stated gains a following. If it succeeds, then it encourages others to pursue their own goals. If the intent is to have a strong central authority, then preventing peaceful, organized protests would be a necessity.

The easiest way to suppress a peaceful, organized protest is to suppress a violent, unorganized one. A few government agents; and of the parties involved in the Ferguson protests, their have been many agents involved; acting as protestors can provide the government what it needs to crackdown on the protest.

The government is in the job of wielding power, not submitting to it.

[thegreekdog]

By the way, the Philadelphia "riot" supporting Ferguson was on the street in front of my office. There were more police than rioters. Weak sauce.

[GoranZ]

Protests are spreading... but the pressure from the government is increasing.





and police brutality in Berkeley, CA


Edit: DoomYoshi thanks for the fix I forgot to remove the first part of the links.

[DoomYoshi]

Protests are spreading... but the pressure from the government is increasing.





and police brutality in Berkeley, CA

Fixed

[DoomYoshi]

By the way, the Philadelphia "riot" supporting Ferguson was on the street in front of my office. There were more police than rioters. Weak sauce.

How can you afford an office with all the pro bono work you do?

[AAFitz]

Haha, I like how "standing up for their rights" = "burning and looting the property of innocent people."

almost as bad as Vancouver....