Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2020

California City Removes Black Lives Matter Street Mural After Request for MAGA Street Art Is Made

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:46 pm



[guest post by Dana]

From California:

Roughly two weeks after a massive Black Lives Matter street painting appeared in downtown Redwood City, Calif., it was washed away – leaving the asphalt without a trace of the message’s familiar bright yellow paint. But unlike in other cities where vandals targeting BLM murals have been arrested and even charged with a hate crime, this time it was the city that suddenly removed the artwork.

Despite granting permission for the temporary street art and even providing the paint for the July 4 project, officials in the Northern California city ordered the painting removed from its prime location late last week, KPIX reported.

Why would they do that? Well, a city spokeswoman claimed that there were issues of public safety involved, and fear that drivers might be confused by the mural, and traffic collisions might occur as a result. Or, perhaps it was because there was a request made to city officials to paint “MAGA” on public streets:

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020″ along the same stretch of street.

“They made the decision to take Black Lives Matter off the street at the first person that proposed the MAGA 2020,” Redwood City resident Dan Pease, who spearheaded the effort behind the original art piece, told KRON.

The request came from local attorney Maria Rutenburg, who told The Washington Post late Tuesday that she emailed city officials just hours after the Black Lives Matter painting had been completed asking if she could also paint the truncated version of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan nearby.

“I’m a Trump supporter and the slogan is important to me,” said Rutenburg, 44, who is white, arguing that once the well-known yellow words were painted on the street, it effectively became “a public forum.”

“Everybody has a chance of saying whatever they feel like,” she added. “My speech is just as important as BLM.”

The same City spokeswoman offered a vague explanation that the Black Lives Matter mural was “allowed as an extension of City efforts to preserve art related to the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests in Redwood City,” but that the mural was not “formally processed” and while the city provided Dan Pease with the yellow paint, there was an understanding that it would be allowed to remain on the street for a short, undetermined length of time.

Rutenburg claims that she did not intend for the BLM mural to be removed with her request. That was the city’s decision. And because there are horrible people on both sides of the political aisle who are disgusting, oozing pustules of hate on the ass of society, Rutenburg and her family are now facing death threats as a result of the mural being removed.

As to the larger question of whether roads become “public forums” when cities paint slogans like Black Lives Matter, here is Eugene Volokh :

No. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009), the Court recognized that a city is free to put up certain monuments in its parks—and to accept selected monuments from private groups—without having to put up or accept other monuments. Such monuments are government speech, and the government is free to discriminate based on viewpoint in choosing what messages to affirmatively promote this way:

A government entity has the right to “speak for itself.” “[I]t is entitled to say what it wishes,” and to select the views that it wants to express.

In the words of Rust v. Sullivan (1991), on which Pleasant Grove relied,

When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as communism and fascism.

And that’s true of all viewpoints that the government chooses to express, however controversial or uncontroversial.

Now when it comes to private speech that merely uses the streets, sidewalks, or parks (rather than seeking to erect permanent or semipermanent structures there), the government must indeed allow all viewpoints and indeed speech of all kinds of content (setting aside the traditionally recognized exceptions, such as true threats). “Granting waivers to favored speakers (or, more precisely, denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional,” and may be declared so whenever “a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears.” (Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist. (2000).) For a good example of that, see Hoye v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 2011), which held unconstitutional a city policy restricting speech on city sidewalks around abortion clinics; the policy was ostensibly content-neutral, but the court found that the city enforced it in an unconstitutionally content-based way:

The City’s policy of distinguishing between speech that facilitates access to clinics and speech that discourages access is not content-neutral…. “[T]he fundamental principle behind content analysis is that government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” … To distinguish between speech facilitating access and speech that discourages access is necessarily to distinguish on the basis of substantive content. Asking a woman “May I help you into the clinic?” facilitates access; “May I talk to you about alternatives to abortion?” discourages it. Telling a woman, “It’s your right to have an abortion!” facilitates access; telling her, “If you have an abortion, you will regret it!” discourages it.

But when it comes to the government’s own speech, the government can pick and choose what to say. And that includes permanent or semipermanent items on sidewalks, on streets, or in parks, such as monuments, plaques, street signs (including for streets that have ideologically laden names), traffic control signs, electronic message signs put up by the Transportation Department, or ideological messages written on the pavement.

(Read his argument in its entirety.)

–Dana

133 Responses to “California City Removes Black Lives Matter Street Mural After Request for MAGA Street Art Is Made”

  1. Yeah, I don’t think this was a coincidence.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  2. Uh, what happened? My first comment was wiped along with yours, Dana.

    Gryph (08c844)

  3. “I’m a Trump supporter and the slogan is important to me,” said Rutenburg, 44, who is white…”

    How does this racial identification add to the conversation? It seems that the racial identity of the speaker may devalue their opinion in the reporters eyes.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. I’m not sure, Gryph. Do you mind reposting your comment?

    Dana (25e0dc)

  5. Anonymity on the Internet is fatally in conflict with the idea of a civil society. The risk of getting punched in the nose that prevents certain things from being said in person is completely missing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  6. Pretty sure that arresting federal agents lawfully engaged in their duty is a federal crime.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  7. I read that several federal officers in Portland have been permanently blinded by lasers. That seems like an escalation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. Let’s say you have video of someone shining a bright laser at officers, who are blinded (even temporarily). You then identify these laser wielders. You ask the city to execute a federal warrant, but the city refuses (“We don’t have to do your bidding!” and they don’t). You then send federal officers to make the arrest. Have you broken any law?

    If the city attempts to stop the arrest, have they broken any law?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. 4. I just said:

    “One helluva coincidence, eh?”

    And you followed up with what is now comment #1.

    Gryph (08c844)

  10. 5. Anonymity on the internet is a much thinner veneer than most people realize. All it takes is someone’s IP address, and they eventually can and will be found.

    Gryph (08c844)

  11. Pretty sure that arresting federal agents lawfully engaged in their duty is a federal crime.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/22/2020 @ 5:07 pm

    https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-08-09/apd-shooting-called-accidental/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Larry_Jackson_Jr.

    This shooting might be interesting to you, though this wiki article doesn’t really cover it.

    Detective Kleinert was investigating an unrelated event at a bank when Larry showed up and attempted to cash a fake check. Larry took off running, the detective basically made every mistake you could make in apprehending him. Commandeered someone’s car mid-commute, tackled Larry under a bridge, no backup, had a gun held to Larry’s head while handcuffing (I’m not sure if this is obvious but that’s incompetent). Gun goes off accidentally. Larry’s dead.

    I happened to be an acquaintance of Larry’s dad and had only started working for a different department a few months prior so this was a case I followed for years. Seemed like possibly manslaughter to me, but I wanted to hear what a jury thought.

    When they tried to prosecute Kleinert, he removed the case to federal court. Though he was a city employed cop, he was on a federal taskforce, and therefore, he argued, a federal agent. Judge said sure thing, and then dismissed the case because of the supremacy clause. Texas Penal Code couldn’t touch him.

    Rosemary Lehmberg’s second worst day on the job.

    Anyway, maybe you were being sarcastic and this is actually very obvious, but yeah, they can’t arrest federal agents.

    Courtroom aside, a police force can’t succeed in American society without the community’s support. It just doesn’t work. These feds need to be shaking hands and asking how they can help. Folks need to feel safer when they see them.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  12. I read that several federal officers in Portland have been permanently blinded by lasers. That seems like an escalation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/22/2020 @ 5:09 pm

    Link?

    Time123 (235fc4)

  13. All it takes is someone’s IP address, and they eventually can and will be found

    There are ways around that. Idle question: What’s your IP address?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  14. Anonymity on the Internet is fatally in conflict with the idea of a civil society. The risk of getting punched in the nose that prevents certain things from being said in person is completely missing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/22/2020 @ 4:17 pm

    It’s a gift and a curse.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  15. The city should have allowed both to stand.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  16. 14. Get a badge and a warrant and you can sleuth your way into figuring it out. All you need to know is who my ISP is. 😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  17. Those feds are not there to help anyone except Trump on Fox News. They’re provocateurs, escalating the protests into violent riots, a sideshow to distract from Trump’s utter worthlessness.

    nk (1d9030)

  18. Courtroom aside, a police force can’t succeed in American society without the community’s support. It just doesn’t work. These feds need to be shaking hands and asking how they can help. Folks need to feel safer when they see them.

    Well, sure it can, depending on the value of “succeed” you choose. Not to mention “safe”, and whose safety you value.

    No police force will ever get everyone feeling comfy. Even the most welcome police force (e.g. the Americans entering Paris in 1944) will make some people (e.g. collaborators) unhappy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. 20. If everyone followed the law all the time, there would be no practical need for policing. On the other hand, policing works best (and is safest for police officers) with the general consent of the governed policed. That is why I am a pretty big supporter of Peelian Policing.

    Gryph (08c844)

  20. Those feds are not there to help anyone except Trump on Fox News

    So? Obama arrested “militias” to make his supporters happy, then dropped charges after ruining their lives. All quite legal, too.

    Make the case that they are not there on legitimate business. I don’t know what crap has been piled into federal law, but other than protecting federal property and persons, the Constitution pretty strictly limits federal responses in times of civil unrest, requiring them to be invited in.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  21. 22. The federal government really hasn’t made any pretense towards following the constitution since 1919, and they loused things up pretty badly in 1913 and 1861 before that.

    Gryph (08c844)

  22. Well, sure it can, depending on the value of “succeed” you choose. Not to mention “safe”, and whose safety you value.

    No police force will ever get everyone feeling comfy. Even the most welcome police force (e.g. the Americans entering Paris in 1944) will make some people (e.g. collaborators) unhappy.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/22/2020 @ 5:48 pm

    Well sure, if you define Succeed in a way I don’t, I guess.

    It’s kinda like working harder not smarter though.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  23. “Let’s say you have video of someone shining a bright laser at officers, who are blinded (even temporarily). You then identify these laser wielders. You ask the city to execute a federal warrant, but the city refuses (“We don’t have to do your bidding!” and they don’t). You then send federal officers to make the arrest. Have you broken any law?

    If the city attempts to stop the arrest, have they broken any law?”

    I’ve got a counter for you, and this one isn’t hypothetical. There’s a twitter thread here that goes into all the legal details, but I’ll summarize.

    On the 15th, a video came out of some anonymous feds grabbing a guy off the street and putting him in an unmarked van. Yesterday at a DHS press conference, Secretary Wolf was asked about it. He handed off to Deputy Director Cline, who said that that the guy was in the same area as someone else shining a laser at officers. The feds wanted to question the guy, and “because they felt unsafe”, they put him in the van and took him to the federal courthouse, and questioned him for 20 minutes.

    The problem here is that there’s no probable cause to arrest, which Cline admits, but the guy was de facto arrested. This is a Fourth amendment violation. Can the feds in question be arrested for this?

    Davethulhu (3a09c9)

  24. 25.

    Can the feds in question be arrested for this?

    I’d dare anyone to try.

    Gryph (08c844)

  25. A new Trump campaign ad depicting a police officer being attacked by protesters is actually a 2014 photo of pro-democracy protests in Ukraine
    …….
    A new ad for President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign used an image of pro-democracy protests in Ukraine from 2014 to show what it called “chaos & violence” in the US.

    The ad, published on Tuesday, includes a photo of the president listening to police leaders next to another photo appearing to show a group of protesters attacking a police officer on the ground.
    ……
    However, the image the Trump campaign used is not from the US – or from this year. It was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia’s public-domain media archive, in 2014 with the label “a police officer attacked by protesters during clashes in Ukraine, Kyiv. Events of February 18, 2014.”
    …….
    “Public safety vs chaos & violence,” the text underneath the photos says.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  26. On another note, the senile side made this statement:

    Joe Biden Calls Trump the Country’s ‘First’ Racist President

    https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-07-22/joe-biden-calls-trump-the-countrys-first-racist-president

    What a joke. Someone should remind senile Joe about one of the heroes of the Democratic party, Woodrow Wilson. See here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9766896/woodrow-wilson-racist

    Among other things, he imposed racial segregation on the federal government, when it had been integrated since Reconstruction.

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  27. The federal government…..loused things up pretty badly in….. 1861 before that.

    You disagree with the necessity to preserve the Constitution and the United States when the South seceded? Wow.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  28. It’s kinda like working louder not smarter though.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. 29. The 9th and 10th amendments specifically reserve powers not delegated to the Federal Government, to the states and the people. Given the history of America’s secession from the British Empire, I really don’t find Abrham Lincoln to be the hero so many Americans worship him as.

    Gryph (08c844)

  30. Biden ratchets up racism allegations against president, Trump campaign calls claim ‘outrageous’

    “There were far more racist presidents before me” Trump said.

    /s

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  31. Wilson was the worst by a country mile he was the malan

    Narciso (7404b5)

  32. And no, not because I have a yen for slavery. My view is a more nuanced than that.

    Gryph (08c844)

  33. Interesting, since there was no allowance for secession in the United States Constitution, nor in the Confederate Constitution.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  34. 32.

    “We’ll have those n*****s voting Democrat for 100 years.”
    — Lyndon Baines Johnson

    Gryph (08c844)

  35. 35. Ahem…what did you miss about “powers not reserved to the government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people respectively…” did you miss? The framers debated the question and didn’t definitively answer it, but that was why the 10th amendment was in there.

    Gryph (08c844)

  36. Malan the founder of apartheid,

    Narciso (7404b5)

  37. I think the claim about racist presidents goes back rather further than Wilson. Lincoln was an admitted white supremacists, at least as we use the term now. Buchanan thought slavery should go nationwide, and talked a reluctant Supreme Court into ruling as the did in Dredd Scott.

    But even later, the Supreme Court judges that gutted the 14th Amendment and the era’s Civil Rights laws with decisions like Slaughterhouse, Cruikshank and Plessy were almost all appointed by Republican Presidents.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  38. Joe Biden Calls Trump the Country’s ‘First’ Racist President

    I think we’re supposed to take him seriously but literally, aren’t we?

    Or was it the other way around? I can never keep it straight.

    Dave (1bb933)

  39. And no, not because I have a yen for slavery. My view is a more nuanced than that.

    No one will care. It’s like discussing Hitler’s grievances over Versailles without touching upon WW2 or the Holocaust.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. Just when you thought that the Democrats could not possibly find a less appealing candidate than Hillary…

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  41. ” The 9th and 10th amendments specifically reserve powers not delegated to the Federal Government, to the states and the people. Given the history of America’s secession from the British Empire, I really don’t find Abrham Lincoln to be the hero so many Americans worship him as.”

    Consider it a war of conquest then. The south were technically the aggressors, so they only have themselves to blame.

    Davethulhu (3a09c9)

  42. powers not reserved to the government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people respectively…

    The inkblot may be large, but it does not cover everything.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. 37 What part of “the supreme Law of the Land; […] any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” did you miss?

    Dave (1bb933)

  44. Given the history of America’s secession from the British Empire

    Remind me. When did an independent America join Britain?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  45. Buchanan wanted more territory, if they be slave states the better.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  46. Is this your card

    https://lidblog.com/andy-ostroy/

    Narciso (7404b5)

  47. Consider it a war of conquest then.

    Heh.

    But that little revisionist jiu-jitsu move still calls Lincoln’s legacy into question: there were so many other, nicer places he could have conquered…

    Dave (1bb933)

  48. Davethulhu: Can the feds in question be arrested for this?

    City officials have already been sued, by the ICE union. I imagine the Feds could be sued as well, and that neither lawsuit will go anywhere.

    It’s a sort of anarchy, so I guess mission accomplished.

    beer ‘n pretzels (883307)

  49. @35 Akshually the so-called Confederate constitution explicitly forbade secession.

    Dave (1bb933)

  50. 43. The south were the aggressors because they believed the Union was illegally occupying Fort Sumter. I’m not saying they were necessarily correct, but I find it odd that they were denied the right to overthrow a tyrannical government a mere “four score and seven years” after George Washington was practically crowned a king for doing functionally the same. You know, the Continental Congress of the United States of America were called “rebels” and “traitors” by King George and Parliament for their refusal to fund the French and Indian War. And their grievance was arguably a lot less consequential than the Confedracy’s.

    Gryph (08c844)

  51. What compromise would you have accepted gryph, the blood price was probably 6 million in todays numbers, but what was the opportunity cost of jim crow.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  52. 54. That’s a good question. I’ve had many an hour of debate over whether war was necessary in America to end slavery. I don’t like to second-guess history, but I really don’t think Abraham Lincoln understood the principles on which our nation was founded. And many thousands of American soldiers paid for his misunderstanding with their lives.

    Gryph (08c844)

  53. 52. …from the Confederacy. That two-faced double standard was one of the most ethically cloudy aspects of the nascent Confederate government, IMO. Regardless, they were so busy fighting a war against the Union, they never really had much of a chance to establish a government. What many people think of today as the “Confederate Flag” never actually flew over any government buildings; it was a battle standard.

    Gryph (08c844)

  54. We knew we could not remain half slave and half free, do you disagree with that?

    Narciso (7404b5)

  55. 57. George Washington himself shared that sentiment, as did Ben Franklin and most (not all) of the men present at the Constitutional convention. What historians disagree on is how long slavery would have taken to fade away on its own without a war.

    Gryph (08c844)

  56. Davethulhu: This is a Fourth amendment violation.

    Sounds like law enforcement should get involved.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7b79e1)

  57. Yes but they though it could be resolved within a generation probably, so what was the alternative seriously

    Narciso (7404b5)

  58. denied the right to overthrow a tyrannical government

    What risible nonsense.

    South Carolina and six other states seceeded before Lincoln even took office.

    Comparing the slave states to the Thirteen Colonies – who had no representation or other political rights in the government that claimed unlimited power over them, held them under martial law, blockaded them and incited Indians to attack them – is Trump-level ignorance and/or dishonesty.

    Dave (1bb933)

  59. The Northern bourgeoisie plutocrats could not afford to let the nascent Southern socialist experiment succeed because it already threatened their oppressive and exploitative profit system. So they labeled the workers cooperatives as “plantations” and the workers as “slaves” and under the propaganda of “emancipation” destroyed the cooperatives and communes and ripped the workers out of their cradle to grave security, guaranteed employment, housing, and sustenance.

    That is the true history of the so-called American Civil War, comrades.

    nk (1d9030)

  60. @37-
    Funny, the secessionists never mentioned the 9th or 10th amendments, but they did mention slavery. </a

    Rip Murdock (361788)

  61. Meanwhile ma gardner indicted the mcclosleys over a non functioning weapon, holy bobby lee swagger (the movie)

    Narciso (7404b5)

  62. 61. The Confederates believed they had no representation in Lincoln’s government, either. I’m sure if you went back to 1776 and asked King George, he would have begged to differ as well.

    The fact that Lincoln would never have been elected if not for their secession might have been a large part of the reason for their disaffection.

    Gryph (08c844)

  63. 63. The important thing is, they believed that their right of secession followed from the rebellion of the 13 colonies against King George.

    Gryph (08c844)

  64. @62

    Da.

    Is small wonder descendants of former Southern kolkhozniks still resent bourgeois plutocrat “Republican” party over 150 years later.

    Dave (1bb933)

  65. The fact that Lincoln would never have been elected if not for their secession might have been a large part of the reason for their disaffection.

    /facepalm

    They seceeded AFTER they lost the election Gryph, not before…

    Dave (1bb933)

  66. 68. Lincoln’s name was not on the ballot in 10 southern states.

    Gryph (08c844)

  67. House votes to remove Confederate statues from Capitol
    ………
    The bill would remove the bust of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from the Old Supreme Court Chamber, in the Capitol. Taney authored the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which declared African Americans couldn’t be citizens and was later widely panned. The Taney bust would be replaced with a statue of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice.

    The legislation would also remove three statues of Americans who promoted slavery and white supremacy — Charles Aycock, John C. Calhoun, and James Paul Clarke — and require states to reclaim and replace their Confederate statues in the Capitol. There are 12 Confederate statues in the Capitol collection.
    ……….
    ……..[I]t’s unclear whether the GOP-controlled Senate will take up the legislation. Senate Republican leaders have so far declined to take action on the issue, saying it is up to states to replace the statues they send to the Capitol. ……

    It’s also unclear whether President Donald Trump would sign the bill given that he has used Confederate symbolism as a cause célèbre to rally his supporters in recent weeks.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (361788)

  68. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/22/portland-federal-agents-protesters

    If Trump’s intent was to calm things down, he has failed. But if, as some suspect, the president wanted to ratchet up confrontation for political gain, then it is not clear that it has been a success either.

    “It’s a power play by Trump. He thinks he’s going to get his base all riled up by pitting the forces of law and order against the anarchists,” said Josh O’Brien, who travelled from Seattle to join the protests. “But he’s f[]ked it up like he f[]ks everything up. Look who’s here with us. Grandmothers. Doctors. Because like most Americans they don’t think people should be abducted from the streets by the president’s secret police.”

    nk (1d9030)

  69. Except they arent secret police, and well theres been 53 days of rioting so, that

    Narciso (7404b5)

  70. “Except they arent secret police, and well theres been 53 days of rioting so, that”

    No name tapes, no organizational insignia, unmarked vehicles.

    Davethulhu (3a09c9)

  71. Look who’s here with us. Grandmothers. Doctors. Because like most Americans they don’t think people should be abducted from the streets by the president’s secret police.”

    Translation: They are our human shields, and they better continue being shields if they know what’s good for them.

    felipe (023cc9)

  72. Yes its like raccoon city, with slightly more articulate zombies

    Narciso (7404b5)

  73. Cancel culture claims another head.

    https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2020/07/cleveland-high-football-coach-ken-duilio-says-hes-been-fired-because-of-his-job-as-a-portland-police-sergeant.html

    Duilio said there was a group — he did not know who — that put pressure on the school district to fire him as football coach. Duilio believes a campaign to remove him at Cleveland began after he spoke during a news conference at North Precinct on June 26. Fliers with Duilio’s picture attaching him to past incidents as a police officer were stapled to telephone poles throughout Portland in recent weeks.

    beer ‘n pretzels (b27f61)

  74. 2 Cafeterias Used by White House Staff Close After Employee Contracts the Virus

    Two cafeterias used by White House staff members were closed and contact tracing was conducted after an employee tested positive for the coronavirus, a Trump administration official said on Wednesday night.

    The cafeterias are in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the New Executive Office Building, which are part of the White House complex and are next to the West Wing.
    ………
    The White House notified employees about measures in an email and said that there was no need for them to self-quarantine, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about the situation.
    ……..
    It’s getting closer……

    Rip Murdock (361788)

  75. I read that several federal officers in Portland have been permanently blinded by lasers. That seems like an escalation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 7/22/2020 @ 5:09 pm

    Link?

    Time123 (235fc4) — 7/22/2020 @ 5:38 pm

    BTW, that’s a war crime.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  76. @79 Possible, but I don’t know how likely. Generally speaking it’s good for the police officers, the students, and the parents to have positive interactions through the schools. We generally like it, even in California. Looking at Duilio’s history, he’s coached at at least 3 different high schools (Madison, Wilson, Cleveland) and never longer than 5 yrs). It also looks like he was only the interim head coach, so he didn’t have a guaranteed contract for this coming year. And the school has their fourth principal in 2 years and they have several other admin positions either interim or vacant, and the new principal only has 2 yrs of admin experience. It might just be bad luck, but it looks Something Is Going on in the upper echelons of that school.

    Nic (896fdf)

  77. BTW, that’s a war crime.

    So is deliberately attacking non-combatants.

    Dave (1bb933)

  78. how’s that pussy hat fitting dave?

    mg (8cbc69)

  79. 68. Lincoln’s name was not on the ballot in 10 southern states.

    Gryph (08c844) — 7/22/2020 @ 7:24 pm

    It’s tiresome how people want to get cute about why the south wanted to leave the union.
    -The didn’t like Lincoln
    -States rights
    -heritage
    -Tradition
    -Economic freedom

    The fact is the south succeeded because they wanted to keep owning slaves. Everything else derived from that. Lincoln didn’t support slavery. The only rights under dispute had to do with owning slaves. The heritage, tradition, and economic freedom were all based on slavery and white supremacy. There are mountains of evidence of this.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  80. Rich jerkoffs and white trash. The antebellum South and the 2020 Republican Party.

    nk (1d9030)

  81. 87. The only rights that were under dispute that we care about now had to do with owning slaves. To say that was the only reason for the Civil War is just another example of why modern public schooling sucks. The confederacy was not pure unvarnished evil, just as the Union was not pure as the driven snow. Lincoln himself said that his first obligation was to preserve the union at all costs, whether that meant freeing the slaves, freeing none of them, or freeing only some of them. That cost was paid in human blood and men of good conscience can debate over whether that cost was necessary.

    Robert E. Lee had no slaves, had never owned a slave, and in fact had a cousin who was involved in the abolitionist movement. That’s kind of a curious cirriculum vitae for someone who led a pro-slavery army, but no one these days stops to ask how that could have been.

    Gryph (08c844)

  82. The South didn’t fire on Fort Sumter because they had a yen for slavery; how in the heck could firing on Fort Sumter have advanced the cause of slavery? They fired on the fort because they believed that The Union Army was illegally holding Confederate military assets and they didn’t recognize Lincoln’s legitimacy as president (since the vote was split four ways and Honest Abe won on a plurality without 10 Southern States).

    I think the #1 reason for Lincoln’s canonization as a war hero was his assassination, even more so than emancipation.

    Gryph (08c844)

  83. 87. The only rights that were under dispute that we care about now had to do with owning slaves. To say that was the only reason for the Civil War is just another example of why modern public schooling sucks. The confederacy was not pure unvarnished evil, just as the Union was not pure as the driven snow. Lincoln himself said that his first obligation was to preserve the union at all costs, whether that meant freeing the slaves, freeing none of them, or freeing only some of them. That cost was paid in human blood and men of good conscience can debate over whether that cost was necessary.

    Robert E. Lee had no slaves, had never owned a slave, and in fact had a cousin who was involved in the abolitionist movement. That’s kind of a curious cirriculum vitae for someone who led a pro-slavery army, but no one these days stops to ask how that could have been.

    Gryph (08c844) — 7/23/2020 @ 4:43 am

    1. The main reason the south succeeded was slavery. If you think otherwise please state what that reason was. Here’s an explanation by their VP.

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

    2. I never said it was a war between pure good and evil.
    3. Are you really saying that it’s debatable if ending slavery was worth the cost?
    4. Lee Owned slaves that he had inherited. He felt slavery was a greater evil to the white man than the black.

    He inherited 10 or 12 from his mother, but it is difficult to determine whether he freed any of them. Before the Mexican War he wrote a will that would have liberated one family; however, since he was not killed, those provisions never went into effect. There is no evidence of Lee’s slaves being emancipated—no courthouse records, no mention of it in his massive letter books. One of his sons later said that he had freed all his slaves before the war, but had taken no legal action so they would not have to move out of Virginia. That seems questionable, however. A freed African American really could not exist in Virginia without papers; the law would put him right back into slavery.

    As late as 1865 he was still asserting that “the relation of master and slave…is the best that can exist between the white & black races.” …It is important to note that these are not random comments, written on a bad day, but a constant pattern in Lee’s writing.

    Seems like you want it to be about something other than it was. The south owned slaves. Their economy was dependent on slave labor. Slavery and white supremacy was part of the culture. When they saw that abolition was likely inevitable due to new states coming in as free-states they succeeded from the union.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  84. Re post #36. Actually, it was 200 years, not 100 – re LBJ’s statement. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-lbj-say-ill-have-those-nggers-voting-democratic-200-years/ – GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (a1521c)

  85. 91.

    1. Oh yes. Slavery may have been the main reason. But the nuances of the war’s beginning have been lost through the fog of time due to politics.

    2. That is how it is cast in schools these days. In the Revolutionary war of 1776, the rebels and traitors were the good guys. In the Civil War of 1861, the rebels and traitors were the bad guys. We really need better civics lessons.

    3. I’m saying that historians debate that ending slavery required bloodshed. And they do. My opinion on that particular matter is not something I’ve expressed here, though you could probably make a correct, educated guess.

    It has nothing to do with what I “want.” I said that slavery wasn’t the only reason the South seceded. And it wasn’t, even if it was the root cause. When you look at how America seceded from the British empire and succeeded (pun intended) while the Confederacy seceded from America and ultimately failed, it becomes quite apparent that history is written by the victors.

    Gryph (08c844)

  86. 92. I stand corrected.

    Gryph (08c844)

  87. Let’s stipulate a couple of things here:

    Yes, the Confederacy fought a war for slavery.

    Yes, it is a good thing that slavery ended in America.

    With both those things true, Abraham Lincoln opened up the possibility for an expansion of federal power that, before the Civil War, was unthinkable. Direct taxation. Central banking. Popular election of senators, and one could go on. It took a few decades for these things to finally happen, but I am of the considered opinion that Abraham Lincoln made it all possible. I really don’t see him as the hero or martyr that many Americans make him out to be.

    Gryph (08c844)

  88. Formerly sensible people turning schiff-for-brains woke right in the comment section.

    Heinlein wrote of these years.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. 85… he says it smells of something he’s never smelled before…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. POS from the Windy City… https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/bobby-rush/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. Let’s stipulate a couple of things here:

    Yes, the Confederacy fought a war for slavery.

    Yes, it is a good thing that slavery ended in America.

    With both those things true, Abraham Lincoln opened up the possibility for an expansion of federal power that, before the Civil War, was unthinkable. Direct taxation. Central banking. Popular election of senators, and one could go on. It took a few decades for these things to finally happen, but I am of the considered opinion that Abraham Lincoln made it all possible. I really don’t see him as the hero or martyr that many Americans make him out to be.

    Gryph (08c844) — 7/23/2020 @ 6:24 am

    This is much clearer. I honestly don’t have much opinion on Lincoln’s role in central banking or popular election of senators. Honestly given his role in the civil war those feel a little like “other than that how did you like the show Mrs. Lincoln?” but YMMV

    Time123 (653992)

  92. Re some support for the argument(s) raised in posts nos. 93 & 95 – see books When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (2000) by Charles Adams https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1731431.When_in_the_Course_of_Human_Events

    AND
    Prelude to Civil War – The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (1965) by William W. Freehling https://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Civil-War-Nullification-Controversy/dp/0195076818#reader_0195076818

    And there are probably others. As has been said, History is written by the victors and “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana. Moreover, too often, especially today, too many people are ignorant of history, do not know about the struggles of the past, how slow and hard it has been for man to crawl out of the mud, never considering the values that existed at a certain time in the past – yet are way to quick to judge and quicker to condemn on whim, to impart/impose today’s values on those of the past who had courage to enter the arena and struggled with their time’s conflicts. Example. Christopher Columbus. Today his statues are pulled down, his name and accomplishments slurred. But how many of those pulling down the statues and doing the slurs – would have the courage to get on a ship in his day? Most thought the earth was flat and the seas full of monsters, the voyages took years, the seas & sailing then were simply treacherous, scurvy and other diseases plentiful, there were no weather reports – and many times they had no idea where they were going – hence the term EXPLORERS. And without them – Christopher Columbus and others, where would the world be? Of course, they all came with faults – they were all human. But I guess the Antifers, the Black Life Matters, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, H. Clinton – are all just perfect, huh?

    Here is a great quote, the ending paragraph, from a very good book The Moral Sense and Human Character (1993) by a very brilliant, good and wise man – Professor James Q. Wilson (co-author of the Broken Windows theory):
    Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows., flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/581221.The_Moral_Sense

    Liberty & Truth require constant vigilance. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (a1521c)

  93. Yes, the Confederacy fought a war for slavery.

    Actually, some of the leaders were fighting for slavery, most of the South was not fighting for slavery. That’s why at the end of the war, the Confederate Congress gave freedom to any Slave that joined the Confederate army. And of course, 3/4 of the Confederate Soldiers were Not slave holders.

    So, while the Condederacy was certainly “Pro-slavery” to say it fought ONLY for Slavery or Primarily for Slavery is dubious.

    rcocean (2e1c02)

  94. Re some support for the argument(s) raised in posts nos. 93 & 95 – see books When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (2000) by Charles Adams https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1731431.When_in_the_Course_of_Human_Events

    I’m familiar with this line of argument. There’s a valid point to be made here. The north was moving to more a more industrial economy while the south maintained a more agricultural economy that was highly dependent on slave labor.

    But again, the root of the problem in this case was that the south needed slave labor.

    Time123 (306531)

  95. That’s why at the end of the war, the Confederate Congress gave freedom to any Slave that joined the Confederate army.

    No they didn’t.

    Dave (1bb933)

  96. Yes, the Confederacy fought a war for slavery.

    Actually, some of the leaders were fighting for slavery, most of the South was not fighting for slavery. That’s why at the end of the war, the Confederate Congress gave freedom to any Slave that joined the Confederate army. And of course, 3/4 of the Confederate Soldiers were Not slave holders.

    So, while the Condederacy was certainly “Pro-slavery” to say it fought ONLY for Slavery or Primarily for Slavery is dubious.

    rcocean (2e1c02) — 7/23/2020 @ 7:19 am

    The main reason they succeed was slavery. There was more than 1 reason, but none of the others, separately or in total would have caused the south to form the confederacy had slavery not been an issue. Nor would the North have gone to war to end slavery during Lincoln’s first term.

    Time123 (306531)

  97. That’s why at the end of the war, the Confederate Congress gave freedom to any Slave that joined the Confederate army.

    Since the Confederacy was defeated at the end of the war, I don’t think they had a choice. (Assuming what you say is true, do have a source?)

    Rip Murdock (361788)

  98. Also, blacks weren’t allowed to enlist until March 1865, and the Confederacy surrendered the next month.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (361788)

  99. and we operate with illegal labor, this doesn’t obviate that thousand currents and tides foundation, are the pass throughs for black lives matter, yes they scrubbed the records if you were wondering,

    narciso (7404b5)

  100. and we operate with illegal labor, this doesn’t obviate that thousand currents and tides foundation, are the pass throughs for black lives matter, yes they scrubbed the records if you were wondering,

    narciso (7404b5) — 7/23/2020 @ 7:51 am

    Can you re-type this in standard English?

    Time123 (653992)

  101. C’mon Time…thats almost as bad as calling him Narco (which a few posters had the deliberate habit if doing).

    urbanleftbehind (b83871)

  102. I honestly want to know what he’s trying to say there but the typo’s / non-standard grammar prevent that.

    Time123 (306531)

  103. and this is the sanitized version,

    https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/thousand-currents/

    narciso (7404b5)

  104. i know one has to use small words for uruks to understand

    https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=326090465064329

    narciso (7404b5)

  105. 104.

    rcocean (2e1c02) — 7/23/2020 @ 7:19 am

    The main reason they succeed was slavery. There was more than 1 reason, but none of the others, separately or in total would have caused the south to form the confederacy had slavery not been an issue. Nor would the North have gone to war to end slavery during Lincoln’s first term.
    Time123 (306531) — 7/23/2020 @ 7:27 am

    That’s not fair to rcocean. I totally believe he’d lay his life down for the Confederacy just to own the libs.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  106. Oh, it doesn’t have anything to do with what we were talking about immediately prior.

    Sorry for the confusion. thank you for trying to clarify.

    Time123 (306531)

  107. Have battle re-enactments been suspended this season, ostensibly due to the virus, but also due to contentiousness about the battle flag? Thought of this movie from back in the cable TV days: https://youtu.be/sgXlr5_KRBI

    urbanleftbehind (b83871)

  108. 110… it will take a lot longer than you’ve lazed around here to develop the ability to decode narciso’s writings. It’s well worth expending the energy, especially for a person like you, as it will open your eyes and steer you away from the conventional liberal sophistry.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  109. Discover the Networks, the foreign funding that promotes and elevates woke sh*theels into positions of power to do the damage they do.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. Is this one of the times you’re lying? or one of the times you’re trolling? I can’t remember the last time you had a point interesting enough to be worth trying to figure that out.

    Time123 (306531)

  111. maybe tides foundations, pays them, but he drew the short squirrel,

    narciso (7404b5)

  112. Truth is, you can’t remember what you had for lunch yesterday either.

    Smarten up.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  113. Patterico thinks narciso’s comments are worth decoding. I don’t because it isn’t worth that much time.

    DRJ (aede82)

  114. DRJ, It looks like Narciso has something to say, and is honestly trying to get that point across but either lacks the time or ability to make the point clear to a casual reader. For instance here I thought he was trying to make a point about modern day forced labor that was pertinent to the previous conversation. But it was something else.

    Time123 (653992)

  115. I know he has points to make. I wish he would make the effort to clearly state them.

    DRJ (aede82)

  116. illegal labor is like slavery today, encouraged by the government and corporate america, at the expense of the citizen, just like the slave labor at urumqi, heck the citizen and the legal resident don’t even count in the big scheme of things, can I be more crystal clear,

    narciso (7404b5)

  117. we have made this devils bargain with china, I don’t give nixon any more credit in this, that fdr with stalin’s soviet union, now dubois and robeson to cite two examples, embraced the soviets as the solution to their peoples plight, he never consulted the kalmyks chechens ingush, ukrainians, to see how the soviet inclusion, drove them into greater servitude,

    narciso (7404b5)

  118. 122.

    Looks like a rare case of hyperpartisn anomic aphasia.

    Anomic Aphasia
    : “This term is applied to persons who are left with a persistent inability to supply the words for the very things they want to talk about-particularly the significant nouns and verbs. As a result their speech, while fluent in grammatical form and output is full of vague circumlocutions and expressions of frustration. They understand speech well, and in most cases, read adequately. Difficulty finding words is as evident in writing as in speech.”

    Before anyone offers a bemused, earnest response, I’M KIDDING.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  119. Covfefe!

    nk (1d9030)

  120. slavery in urumqi, and the other segments of the laogai, gulag archipelago in mandarin, and their enforcers through huawei’s eyes and ears, in the sudan, congo, (7th level of hell) shared with mark rich’s glencore,

    narciso (7404b5)

  121. Narciso must be going to Rutgers:

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Distinguish Satire from Earnest Wokeness, II
    ……
    ……Rather than merely deemphasizing standard grammar, the (Rutgers) English Department declares that standard grammar is “biased,” and endorses “critical grammar,” which “encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

    In short, the Rutgers English Department wants to make sure that students who come to Rutgers with a poor grasp of standard written English not only remain in that state, but come to believe that learning standard English is a concession to racism……
    …..

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  122. Gotta love the way the MSM is portraying the Portland dumpster fire tantrums:

    “Tensions rise as Federal officers called in” (to protect citizens, officials and property from rioters when local police stood by or fled).

    Also gotta love the fact that the thugs who compare themselves to D-Day soldiers storming Omaha Beach had to call their mommies in for protection. Then again they needed exams cancelled, coloring books and play-doh when Trump was elected.
    _

    harkin (470cbb)

  123. Re #116 – urbanleftbehind.
    Fast forward nine (9) years and here is another HBO film: The Second Civil War (HBO, 1997) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120086/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGKBfew6hSU – partial excerpt.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=youtube+The+Second+Civil+War&iax=videos&ia=videos – click on link, go to second item, there find the ENTIRE movie.

    Liberty & Truth require constant vigilance. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (a1521c)

  124. lurker (d8c5bc) — 7/23/2020 @ 9:47 am

    Yes, you are joking, but are also onto something, because a failure to communicate occurs. But it would be helpful if Narciso’s cryptic comments were (stick with me, here) thought of as poetry as opposed to prose. One can restate poetry into prose, but essential components are lost.

    What we (those who like his style) would lose if narciso were to forego this style, is the pleasure of the common connections, allusions, and mental paths traveled in getting to his point. Much as we would miss the charm of JVW’s description of AOC, nk’s use of happyspeak, and our collective use of the shorthand (IMO, TL;DR, IANAL, SMDH, etc.) used here. You can live a life without emojis -if you want to call that living.

    felipe (023cc9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5303 secs.