A Tale Of Two Protests
This is the story of two movements, and their two protests that arose at almost the same time.
The first gathered together in rage at the idea that the government could force one of their own to pay for the services he consumed, charges which should not apply to him if he just hated that government enough.
The second gathered in rage that the government could gun down one of their own in cold blood, without consequence.
The first cursed the government, and threatened its workers, and posted snipers ready to kill them.
The second came unarmed to demand that the most basic form of justice be done.
The first was allowed to indulge its rage without consequences; the debt remains unpaid, no one was ever arrested for their behavior, and they continue to crow about their success in threatening so much violence that the government backed away.
The second has been tear gassed, beaten, arrested. It has seen unarmed people threatened with assault weapons and the press attacked and thrown in jail illegally. It has seen peaceful protesters threatened with dogs, and with vehicles and weapons invented for war. It has seen repeated unprovoked police attacks on innocent civilians.
The first has seen large sections of the press treat their behavior as the struggles of some sort of legitimate political movement.
The second has had their behavior characterized as riots.
Here is a sample of the first group:
Here is a sample from the second:
Can you tell the difference?
And five Supreme Court justices swear to us that our country's ugly racial history is over, and the government need no longer do anything to prevent one race from being treated worse than another.
The first gathered together in rage at the idea that the government could force one of their own to pay for the services he consumed, charges which should not apply to him if he just hated that government enough.
The second gathered in rage that the government could gun down one of their own in cold blood, without consequence.
The first cursed the government, and threatened its workers, and posted snipers ready to kill them.
The second came unarmed to demand that the most basic form of justice be done.
The first was allowed to indulge its rage without consequences; the debt remains unpaid, no one was ever arrested for their behavior, and they continue to crow about their success in threatening so much violence that the government backed away.
The second has been tear gassed, beaten, arrested. It has seen unarmed people threatened with assault weapons and the press attacked and thrown in jail illegally. It has seen peaceful protesters threatened with dogs, and with vehicles and weapons invented for war. It has seen repeated unprovoked police attacks on innocent civilians.
The first has seen large sections of the press treat their behavior as the struggles of some sort of legitimate political movement.
The second has had their behavior characterized as riots.
Here is a sample of the first group:
Here is a sample from the second:
Can you tell the difference?
And five Supreme Court justices swear to us that our country's ugly racial history is over, and the government need no longer do anything to prevent one race from being treated worse than another.
Comments
I am ashamed to be an American now.
Carry on!
Yankel Rosenbaum,
These things gave a way of getting out of hand,the reason OJ was found not guilty
Thanks so much for the compliment, but I think of myself as pretty much a loudmouth rather than a reporter.
P.S. I've read your blog for years, which I wouldn't do, of course, if I didn't like it.
One of the tangentials of proper gun control – other than the direct effect which is vastly fewer dead kids, is that it puts things way past tea if you show up armed - automatically.
The refrain from the gun fetishist is that it means only the bad guys have guns. ‘Unlicensed guns’ that should be but... well... Yes. Meaning: if you come unarmed, no-one points a gun at you, but if you come armed, you die. It might freak out some of your Right wing trolls, but I’m perfectly okay with that. That is what I want.
Anything like the Bundy militia here would be dead in the night with a tap to the head from a special operations group member they never saw.
I’d be resentful of the government too... For putting up with those jackasses. For letting them strut around with weapons. How tyrannical can a government be if it lets such violence-obsessed jerks do as they please?
In fairness, I guess I should admit that the Bundy ranch situation involved Federal agents, for whom discretion was the greater part of valor, while in Ferguson we had a a pack of heavily armed crackers, dressed up in uniforms by their local government.
But one day they’ll go further and innocent people will die and then this discussion will have to be had by more than bloggers.