@Fido,
Quote:If some one seems to have the desire and the ability to assasinate people in the government you can expect people in government to pay attention, and others can sue them; but it will go no where...
The interesting part is by using the police powers of the society to seize someone property to punish him for expressing ideas they do not care for they are in a small way giving his concerns and mistrust of the government weight and creditability.
Somehow, I do not think that the police was of the real opinion that he was some kind of an immediate threat to anyone else and therefore they needed to seize his weapons.
If they do that for talking about assassinations in an approving way what others reasons might bring them to your door in the future?
Footnote, Timothy McVeigh always claimed Waco and how the government deal with that Siege was one of the main events that cause him to blow up the Federal building.
So overreacting can end up biting the government in the rear end at a later date.
This article illustrates one of the many examples of right-wing pundits promoting vigilantism. However, the worst aspect of glenn beck's proclamation is not the call to violence but the fact that he takes it upon himself to analyze what others mean and how what is now part of history happened. Why anyone listens to him is beyond me. (See note that follows the post.)
From Care2:
A 78-year-old CUNY professor, Frances Fox Piven, has found herself not only the target of criticism from conservative radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck, but also the recipient of what amount to death threats.
On his News Channel program, which more than 2 million people watch, and on one of his Web sites, The Blaze, Beck has turned Piven into the 'primary character' of his 'warnings about a progressive take-down of America,' according to the January 21st New York Times. Piven, says Beck, is the author of a plan that will '“intentionally collapse our economic system."'
Piven has received threats via e-mail and anonymous comments on The Blaze have called for her death: '“Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas ready and I’ll give My life to take Our freedom back"' and "ONE SHOT...ONE KILL" (spelling and grammar have not been edited).
The article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," that Beck has seized upon was published in 1966 and written by Piven and her late husband, Richard Cloward. According to the New York Times, the article
proposed that if people overwhelmed the welfare rolls, fiscal and political stress on the system could force reform and give rise to changes like a guaranteed income. By drawing attention to the topic, the proposal “had a big impact” even though it was not enacted, Ms. Piven said. “A lot of people got the money that they desperately needed to survive,” she said.
In Mr. Beck’s telling on a Fox broadcast on Jan. 5, 2010, Ms. Piven and Mr. Cloward (who died in 2001) planned “to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.” Mr. Beck observed that the number of welfare recipients soared in the years after the article, and said the article was like “economic sabotage.”
He linked what he termed the Cloward-Piven Strategy to President Obama’s statement late in the 2008 presidential campaign that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Piven is a long-time columnist for The Nation, which published an editorial about the threats to her:
For a responsible journalist and a responsible media outlet, such an incident would have spurred a process of intense self-scrutiny. But this is Glenn Beck and Fox, and as is evident from the campaign against Piven, nothing of the sort occurred. In the hundreds of posts about Piven on The Blaze, there is not one admonition to tone down the violent rhetoric, not one clear instance in which an editor intervened to moderate the thread. In fact, commenters seem at liberty to egg one another on: one poster pointedly noted that Piven lives in New York City and teaches at CUNY; another then linked to a website that listed Piven's home address and phone number. "Why is this woman still alive?" asked capnjack.
Beck's fixation on Piven's 1966 article also leads me to wonder if he'll be digging up other academic articles by professors whose scholarship---loook out for those Marxist literary critics----might (in Beck's view) somehow contribute to the '"progressive take-down of America."' I guess it might be a way for him to get more fodder for his shows and site.
Saying that Beck quoted Piven 'accurately and had never threatened her,' Fox News has indicated that it will not order him to stop discussing the professor and her work.
It is extremely unfortunate that Fox News has taken such an irresponsible stance. Even though the above comments were made on The Blaze, Beck's targeting of Piven began on his show on Fox News. By not requiring Beck to cease his attack on Piven, Fox News is tacitly condoning the threats of violence against her.
And there's nothing academic, or ethical, about that.
------------------------------
POM's comments:
This is anecdote about either this forum or its predecessor that I feel relates to the rabble rousing that beck has engaged in as well as a reflection upon beck's ability to read.
In a thread on education, I cited the fact that when I was a college freshman, it was often said that many subjects -- particularly chemistry and religion -- taught in high schools were simplified to the point of being incorrect.
One of the responders -- one of our resident conservatives but just who I no longer remember -- came back with a statement that if I am unhappy with the education I received . . .
There are people on the left who will describe beck as intelligent. I feel beck is as unable to read as the poster I cited above.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
How traditional are you when push comes to shove?
I can be eclectic qua my chosen traditions.
[/quote]
eclectic aka liberal
@spendius,
spendius @ OSD wrote:
You've missed the point Dave.
Try not to be obtuse Dave. You know what I mean.
But I don't know why you bother when all your post really says is that you have no answer to the points I raised.
3 full points to spendius
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
How traditional are you when push comes to shove?
I can be eclectic qua my chosen traditions.
eclectic aka liberal
[/quote]Beth, u attributed words to
ME
that were written by Spendius.
Then u removed
MY words from the quote box that bears my name
and u deposited the writing of Spendius therein.
In any case,
if I deviate from any tradition,
then I am indeed liberal with regard to
IT.
For instance, as to conventional English spelling,
I am
indeed liberal, because I
deviate from that tradition, toward fonetic spelling.
David
Loughner is scheduled to appear in court tomorrow. He will be arraigned on the three counts of attempted assassination and attempted murder in U.S. District Court in central Phoenix.
Quote:Why no murder charges yet for Loughner?
By Zachary Roth zachary Roth
Fri Jan 21, 2011
Jared Loughner was indicted this week in connection with the Tucson shootings of January 8. But despite the nationwide attention focused on the shootings, and the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses who say they saw Loughner fire the shots, he hasn't been formally charged with murder.
How can that be? Glad you asked.
Federal prosecutors indicted Loughner Wednesday evening for the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the attempted murder of two of her aides, Ronald Barber and Pam Simon. All three survived the attack. The Giffords charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, while the Barber and Simon charges carry a maximum of 20 years.
Under the Speedy Trial Act, the feds must file an indictment within 10 days of an arrest if a defendant has been denied bail, as Loughner was. So the main reason that the charges were frontloaded to be shy of formal murder proceedings is that prosecutors were running out of time.
But six people were killed in the attack. So why hasn't Loughner been charged with their murders?
Here the answer comes down to jurisdiction rather than filing deadlines. Four of the six victims who died in the shootings are not federal employees, so the federal government has no jurisdiction to charge anyone with their murder. The state of Arizona will do so, but it hasn't filed charges against Loughner yet.
The two victims who could supply the basis for federal murder charges are U.S. District Judge John Roll and Gabe Zimmerman, a Giffords aide. Those charges are almost certainly coming: As Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, noted in National Review, prosecutors took the unusual step of describing Wednesday's indictment as an "initial three-count indictment" -- strongly implying that additional charges will follow. Indeed, the initial complaint against Loughner, filed the day after the shootings, did charge him with the Roll and Zimmerman murders.
And U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke said in a statement accompanying Wednesday's indictment: "Today's charges are just the beginning of our legal action, and we are working diligently to ensure that our investigation is thorough and that justice is done for the victims and their families."
But there are several reasons why the feds may be taking their time on that front. For one thing, they'd need to show that Roll was at the event in his official capacity. The initial complaint against Loughner alleged that Roll had gone to talk to Giffords about overcrowding in the court system. But establishing that fact beyond doubt may take time. In addition, if the U.S. attorneys proceed with murder charges, it's likely that Loughner's lawyers will argue that he was mentally disturbed, and therefore can't be convicted of murder. So federal prosecutors may also need time to also establish that Loughner knew right from wrong.
Including incorrect information in the indictment, or needlessly leaving prosecutors open to a counterargument from the defense, could significantly complicate the federal prosecution. And given the intense public attention focused on the shootings, prosecutors will likely be extra cautious as they plan their next moves.
In other words, the feds had to file an indictment quickly, since Loughner had been denied bail. But because of these complexities, they hadn't wrapped up their case. So Wednesday's indictment was a kind of placeholder -- what McCarthy calls a " 'stop the clock' indictment" -- to give them time to get things right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110121/ts_yblog_thelookout/why-no-murder-charges-yet-for-loughner
@ehBeth,
this should fix the bobbled quote
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:
How traditional are you when push comes to shove?
I can be eclectic qua my chosen traditions.
eclectic aka liberal
@mysteryman,
MM - I posted it because
this clip had previously been taken down. I'm glad you had found more of the clip.
A
R
T
@firefly,
When my wife was in Houston for nurse specialist training, she visited the rehab center. At the time when she trained in Houston, she also told me they had the best cardio-vascular hospital in the US. This was several lifetimes ago, but I think that still holds true.
@cicerone imposter,
But that's in Texas ci. which you keep claiming is backward scientifically and dragging you into the 3rd division.
Anyway--good plug for yourself.
@spendius,
Good plug for me? Thank you!
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:this should fix the bobbled quote
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:
How traditional are you when push comes to shove?
I can be eclectic qua my chosen traditions.
ehBeth wrote:eclectic aka liberal
I have pled guilty to that; see above,
qua deviating away from conventional spelling.
Some traditions don 't deserve to be conserved.
David
A wee bit of fun on right wing punditry
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2011/01/21/
I particularly like the line "My words can't incite violence, and saying otherwise will only incite violence"
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
That's a bit fanciful Fido. I can't see an assembly of 7000 ever passing anything except higher salaries for themselves.
Imagine what it would take for that 7000 to reach consensus because as far as I can tell, that is a feature of all true democracies, so that everyone is brought along and no one is left behind...
Isn't that what we want: Universal Benefit? Because as long as half can be left behind or forced to go along, we can be ruined by halves.... And that is a convenient method because no matter how many halves government ruins there will always be another half to ruin until finally the whole society crumbles... Too many people have already been cut out of the commonwealth... Too many people have already been sacrificed to see the rich get richer and stay richer...
Sacrifice is what this country has be asking of the people almost for my entire life... Now they want social security, and it is a nice wedge issue... Promise the old it will not be cut for them, and only cut if for the young, and then the young will demand it to be cut for everyone... Will we never grow tired of sacrifice for the rich??? Let us see more of our children die for want of insurance and medical care... Let's throw Gramma into the street; but never deny the rich our wealth because we might be rich some day... Fanatasy is reality only because we suffer so fantastically...
If 700K can agree who won a foot ball game, then 7k can agree on what is best for a whole people... It is said that Lincoln once threw a man out of his office and down his steps for offering him a bribe... Didn't I offer enough asked the man??? No, said Lincoln: It was because the amount offered was tempting...
If we cannot keep money out of politics we should make politicians so numerous that no one can afford to corner the market, and so that no amount offored for a single vote will reach the value of ones honor... By keeping the numbers of the house small, the price is kept high, Demand exceeding Supply, and they are highest of all in the Senate, which is grossly undemocratic...
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Quote:If some one seems to have the desire and the ability to assasinate people in the government you can expect people in government to pay attention, and others can sue them; but it will go no where...
The interesting part is by using the police powers of the society to seize someone property to punish him for expressing ideas they do not care for they are in a small way giving his concerns and mistrust of the government weight and creditability.
Somehow, I do not think that the police was of the real opinion that he was some kind of an immediate threat to anyone else and therefore they needed to seize his weapons.
If they do that for talking about assassinations in an approving way what others reasons might bring them to your door in the future?
Footnote, Timothy McVeigh always claimed Waco and how the government deal with that Siege was one of the main events that cause him to blow up the Federal building.
So overreacting can end up biting the government in the rear end at a later date.
True!
David Koresh was a no body until the government made him a martyr... Mcveigh was a nobody making himself a somebody to make the sacrifice of a nobody meaningful... The damage the government does attacking gun rights when the people can do little evil or good with them does not rate the damage they do to themselves... Why not just give the people the good government they deserve... Why must they forever link the success of democracy with the outragious profits of Capital??? Democracy is a form of government and Capital is a form of economy... To give property all the rights it is willing to bear taxes to support is not wrong, and is even constitutional... To give government over lock, stock, and barrel to capital is a guarantee that there will be violence, crime and insurection...
Do you get my point??? The economy should support the government, and the government can protect property so long as it is supported... But Capital is on its death bed, and now every few years the government finds itself bleeding the people to give Capital a transfusion... Is there some good reason democracy must die so capital can live??? The poor are taxed into poverty to keep others poor and in destitution... No one can tell the rich to see themselves taxed because they control the government, and will not abide by it...
It is only natural that those with little and still in possession of their guns will draw a line in the sand and say: do not cross... It is too bad that the government must fear the people and that the people must fear their government; but that is the inevitable result of the situation we were given... Property was given protection by government and was supposed to support the government, and it has increased the protection and shed the support of government.... Why should the government under the circumstances live free of fear??? They are the enemy because they are acting as the agent of our true enemy which is Capital...
@Fido,
Well Fido--Oswald Spengler predicted that the final battle will be between Money and the blood. Capital/Megalopolis versus the fellahdom.
Are you saying he was correct?
The Utah House voted today to designate the Browning M1911 semi-automatic hand gun the official state gun.
A spokesman for a group opposing the move is named Steve Gunn.
I am not making this up.
