Unbeliveably ironic

[B.D.F.]

Two weeks ago, a newspaper photographer, Ryan M. Kelly, gave his notice. He was leaving not only the newspaper but that entire field and going to work for a brewery. His last day would be yesterday, 12 August, 2017. I think most of us know how it is 'running out the clock' after giving notice but this time it would be just a little different perhaps: He worked for the Charlottesville, Va., Daily Progress, was covering the rioting that was happening there and this was his last photograph taken for the newspaper:



Brian

[maxtog]

Yep, a handful of crazy extremists giving the media a field day.  Important to note:

"Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating: "It is now clear that public safety cannot be safeguarded without additional powers, and that the mostly-out-of-state protesters have come to Virginia to endanger our citizens and property. I am disgusted by the hatred, bigotry and violence these protesters have brought to our state.""

I am just as disgusted at these extremists.  Also disgusted by the media's slant on it all, too.

[B.D.F.]

I made no political comment nor did I cast any political slant on this; I merely pointed out that it was ironic that this particular photographer's last day yielded these photos.

As to the crazy extremists, one must wonder what their view of your beliefs might be. No matter, all are protected fully under the First Amendment as far as I am able to discern. Well, all but the Governor of VA, who as a member of 'the State', cannot infringe on any rights given by any part of the Constitution; remember, the entire document is designed to protect us against them, not us against differing versions of us. And as Governor, he is most certainly a 'them'.

It will be interesting to see what his constituents think of the gentleman in 2018 when he is up for re-election.

Brian

Yep, a handful of crazy extremists giving the media a field day.  Important to note:

"Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating: "It is now clear that public safety cannot be safeguarded without additional powers, and that the mostly-out-of-state protesters have come to Virginia to endanger our citizens and property. I am disgusted by the hatred, bigotry and violence these protesters have brought to our state.""

I am just as disgusted at these extremists.  Also disgusted by the media's slant on it all, too.

[maxtog]

I made no political comment nor did I cast any political slant on this;

I wasn't implying so

As to the crazy extremists, one must wonder what their view of your beliefs might be.

One can only imagine how they would twist them to fit their expectations. 

No matter, all are protected fully under the First Amendment as far as I am able to discern.

Pretty much, as long as they can spew their hatred peacefully.

It will be interesting to see what his constituents think of the gentleman in 2018 when he is up for re-election.

Well, at least I know MY vote WILL count in that election, since it is the only one that is "at large."  Because of the way the voting precincts are drawn, none of my General Assembly voting ever matters.

[B.D.F.]

Ah yes, the 'crazy extremists' would twist views to fit their expectations while you would see things clearly and justly, and then impose your far more correct vision on who, everyone? Or just the 'crazy extremists'? How about a test, and then 'we' would know who 'they' were and could take the proper steps?

Do you not see why the First Amendment MUST be applied here? Can you possibly believe your beliefs and views are somehow 'better' or 'more correct' than others? And if not, what might be the limits of your 'superior vision or understanding'?

These last two posts are the very reason why the Constitution exists. To protect all against.... some, who would not allow all opinions and beliefs. After all, Joseph McCarthy was just trying to straighten out the gov't and get rid of the 'evil' ones. Until finally Edward R. Murrow stood up to him and his unlawful behavior, and Murrow, a true patriot, stopped McCarthy in his tracks using nothing but the truth and the Constitution. The underlying problem was, and is, that there is nothing illegal about being a Communist, or a liberal, or a conservative or anything else one chooses to be in the United States. And anyone who opposes that concept would be defined, at least in my opinion, as an 'enemy, domestic' as in the oath: to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The key thing here is that people CAN be whatever they chose to be here: Nazis, White Supremacists, Black Panthers.... whatever. And none of it is wrong or illegal, and all have the same rights. We have had some truly shameful moments in US history when we have forgotten these very basic rules: the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln, the Trail of Tears by Jackson, the Sedition Act by Wilson, the Internment via Executive Order 9066 by FDR, the Patriot Act under Bush and so many other illegal, immoral and unconstitutional actions and yet we learn nothing.

So by all means, support / oppose whatever group(s) you care to, I will continue to try my very best to follow 'the rules' as I can understand them.

Brian

I wasn't implying so

One can only imagine how they would twist them to fit their expectations. 

Pretty much, as long as they can spew their hatred peacefully.

Well, at least I know MY vote WILL count in that election, since it is the only one that is "at large."  Because of the way the voting precincts are drawn, none of my General Assembly voting ever matters.

[maxtog]

Ah yes, the 'crazy extremists' would twist views to fit their expectations while you would see things clearly and justly, and then impose your far more correct vision on who, everyone? Or just the 'crazy extremists'? How about a test, and then 'we' would know who 'they' were and could take the proper steps?

Do you not see why the First Amendment MUST be applied here? Can you possibly believe your beliefs and views are somehow 'better' or 'more correct' than others? And if not, what might be the limits of your 'superior vision or understanding'?

So by all means, support / oppose whatever group(s) you care to, I will continue to try my very best to follow 'the rules' as I can understand them.

For some reason I can't fathom, it sounds like you are using me as a stand-in for a "straw man" and implying I oppose free speech??    I strongly support the Constitution, all of it, including the 1st Amendment (well, I think the income tax is a mess and wasteful, but whatever, it is the law, although not even part of the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights).  And that does mean that KKK/White Supremacist/Nazi supporters should be allowed to PEACEFULLY assemble, protest, carry nasty signs, or burn flags.

But even so, yeah, I do think that my beliefs that all law-abiding citizens should have equal rights, equal protection  under the law, and the right to pursue happiness is a bit "better" and "more correct" than the apparent KKK/White Supremacist/Nazis' views.  I do find their beliefs disgusting, as I said earlier, not the Constitution that allows them the freedom to hold such beliefs.

I will, indeed, oppose their groups while I also continue my very best to follow 'the rules' as I can understand them, too.

[mikeyw64]

what I found interesting watching some of the coverage is that it's pretty obvious there are people from both sides going out and looking for a fight.

Ie there are groups on both sides equipping themselves with "riot" shields and helmets , also with identifying markers painted on many of them

[gPink]

Looks like post apocalyptic tribal warfare.

[Cholla]

Looks to ke that once again certain groups are more equal than others and if you dont bow down to them and submit you are labeled as a supremicist, racist and a Nationalist.
It it bad to be for our nation?

[B.D.F.]

What struck me about your last post, that I responded too, was the fact that you quoted the Gov. of VA. You can say whatever you want. I can say whatever I want. He may be able to say whatever he wants but he certainly cannot do whatever he wants. He is the 'them' that the Constitution protects all of 'us' from in the first place, and regardless of what he thinks, wants or hopes, he cannot actually do any number of things, one of which is to prevent the assembly of the people. Now, suspending an assembly that is already underway I think is w/in his power and abilities if that assembly has turned so violent that it represents a thread to the public safety, which certainly seemed to be the case here (the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact after all) but those rights must be restored as soon as practical or again, he would be over- stepping his power.

So you are correct that you did not say anything directly that suggested you wanted to infringe on anyone's rights, but by quoting the Gov., who I think may be infringing on some rights, and seems bent politically to do so, and then stating that you agreed with him on at least two specific points, I took it as general support for the man and his policies. If this is wrong, then we are not in conflict in this area. But as I said, I strongly and absolutely resist those in political office who seem to forget how things must work as they cast their views of 'right' onto all of us and downcast any who are not do not 'think correctly'.

But again, as I said before, I was really and truly not trying to start a political based thread. I simply found that photo (that is the last in a series BTW), probably the most poignant photo the man ever took in his career and probably his entire life, to be ironic as it was the last photo taken for a job he had already quit and was just hanging around, running out the proverbial clock. I had no other meaning or agenda, honest.

Brian

For some reason I can't fathom, it sounds like you are using me as a stand-in for a "straw man" and implying I oppose free speech??    I strongly support the Constitution, all of it, including the 1st Amendment (well, I think the income tax is a mess and wasteful, but whatever, it is the law, although not even part of the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights).  And that does mean that KKK/White Supremacist/Nazi supporters should be allowed to PEACEFULLY assemble, protest, carry nasty signs, or burn flags.

But even so, yeah, I do think that my beliefs that all law-abiding citizens should have equal rights, equal protection  under the law, and the right to pursue happiness is a bit "better" and "more correct" than the apparent KKK/White Supremacist/Nazis' views.  I do find their beliefs disgusting, as I said earlier, not the Constitution that allows them the freedom to hold such beliefs.

I will, indeed, oppose their groups while I also continue my very best to follow 'the rules' as I can understand them, too.

[B.D.F.]

Oh, it was far more serious that that: there were groups of people (civilians, apparently in support of the rally) wearing body armor and carrying AR-15's, moving through the parade route ahead of the actual parade to make sure it was safe. You probably do not know this but VA is an 'open carry' state, which means one can carry long arms at will as long as it is done so openly (not concealed, although concealing an AR makes one walk funny, at least it makes me walk funny). What they were doing was perfectly and completely legal but I think it goes to show the intensity of this issue.

Now that we are on this political bent, I will throw in a couple of comments: The issue is that there is a statue of R.E. Lee on public property, and some believe that represents both an acknowledgement of the norm of slavery but also indicates lingering support for slavery or at least the idea that slavery was not bad or wrong.

There are many statues of great Confederate military and some political figures throughout the south, as well as cities, towns, streets, et al. named after these same people. Personally, I do not think they are there to represent slavery or anything similar but a part of Southern history, which is a pretty normal and accepted thing to do. However, there is a significant segment of the population who are offended by these people being honored because they come from, and on some level represent, an opressive period in our history. All of that is fine and well. But a LOT of those statues are on public property and that makes the public's opinion meaningful (anyone can have a statue of anyone on private property) and this is at the root of these clashes. This is not an isolated event but one in a series of contests, squabbles, a few riots and a huge amount of anger, on both sides, regarding this whole issue. And here is the real problem: there is no clear answer. If a vote were taken, as it probably should be to settle this issue, I suspect most of the statues would remain. And that would leave a very significant minority of the population unhappy.

So there is the question: can and should a local gov't agency have any symbolism that offends a substantial minority of the population? I <believe> the legal answer would be yes. The moral question is harder and I do not have an opinion. Should town, cities and states remove these references, all the way to the state flags of several Southern states? Again, I am not able to find what is the right answer; a lot of southerners are proud of the antebellum south, and there is much to be proud of about that period. People such as R.E. Lee were great men, more than worthy of being honored with statues, again in my opinion and remember, I am a northerner and so bear no automatic or bred- in Confederate allegiance. But Gen. Lee was considered the finest officer in the US Army, and in facct was offered the command of ALL  US Soldiers by none other than Abraham Lincoln and possibly would have accepted but he could not bring himself to raise arms against his own home state (which was VA by the way). So we are not talking about Joseph Stalin here. I personally think he was a great man, more than worth respect and even admiration but he was also a slave owner although I do not know if he actually supported slavery (many Southern slave holders thought slavery wrong, a true paradox of American history: Thomas Jefferson, himself a slave owner, said several times 'Holding onto Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ear; you do not like it but you do not dare let it go', and freed all of his slaves upon his death).

The issue seems to be moving pretty briskly toward ridding the South of these references. That may be the best thing to do but maybe not. But either way, it does appear that there is going to be more than a little blood spilled over the issue and we are not done or even near the end of resolving it as far as I can see.

Brian

what I found interesting watching some of the coverage is that it's pretty obvious there are people from both sides going out and looking for a fight.

Ie there are groups on both sides equipping themselves with "riot" shields and helmets , also with identifying markers painted on many of them

[gPink]

The War of Northern Aggression was the only war I can think of that the losers got to immortalize their heroes as if they were winners.

[Cholla]

They werent immortalized as winners. They were immortalized for standing up for the cause. There cause was NOT slqvery.
By eliminating these monuments we are doomed to forget history and setting up for failure.

[gPink]

They werent immortalized as winners. They were immortalized for standing up for the cause. There cause was NOT slqvery.
By eliminating these monuments we are doomed to forget history and setting up for failure.

That is the normal course for the human race throughout history.

[mikeyw64]

They werent immortalized as winners. They were immortalized for standing up for the cause. There cause was NOT slqvery.
By eliminating these monuments we are doomed to forget history and setting up for failure.

Think I've got this right but I'm sure one of the reports I saw over here on it suggested that a "compromise" may be something like.

1) Leave these statues in place
2) Add new memorials for the slaving side of things (eg at some of the places that were used as markets etc)


Of course I may have over simplified that and as the old saying goes you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time

[B.D.F.]

And so it continues. A Springfield, MA (that is a LONG way from Virginia, and solidly in the north, not the southern, US. I mention this for any non- US readers) has posted on FaceTwit: "Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn't block road ways."  This is a classic case of what a gov't official CANNOT say in the currently 'politically correct' environment that is the US of A. It is his opinion, is protected under the Constitution and he cannot be punished in any way by the Gov't for saying it. However, he most certainly can and probably will be punished to some degree by his employer, the Springfield Police Dept., yep, the man is an active duty L.E.O. and me thinks he's gonna' pay for this one. The gentleman apologized but that ain't gonna' feed the bulldog. The chief of the dept. as well as the Mayor of Springfield immediately jumped on the 'let's get 'em!' bandwagon.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-officer-accused-mocking-charlottesville-violence-051513823.html

Brian

[B.D.F.]

Certainly possible but unlikely I think. The politically correct atmosphere here is so thick that it is really becoming impossible to oppose, even by comment, the "correct" flow of things, and right now, all things linked in any way with slavery are just 'out'. I do not see any compromise coming or being viable.

But because you are not an American, I am going to go way out on a limb here and expand on this a little: of course we had slavery until 1865 and of course it was pretty brutal and certainly morally wrong. And still further, while we ended slavery in 1865 technically, the basic method of treating the black population as second- class citizens continued on, in many ways exactly as it had been before emancipation, until the 1950's / 1960's, and even then only began to change, it was not eliminated quickly; some would say it continues to this day but I do not subscribe to that. Certainly there is prejudice but IMO, all significant 'walls' have been eliminated and a black person can go wherever and do whatever he / she chooses to, within the confines of our society that apply to all, of course.

But in the last few decades, we have entered some strange (to me anyway) era where we have new, unwritten rules about our behavior and even, maybe especially, our views. For example: it is not enough to leave homosexual people alone and not discriminate against them, we are basically required to at least like it and in many cases, love it, and further, must hate anyone / everyone who does not also profess to love it. This applies to all minority groups but especially any of those who were at any time in the past ill- treated. And finally, and this is the part that is really 'going down sideways' for a LOT of us, we must also feel terrible, ashamed and so forth for 1) our ancestors past deeds (I have never enslaved anyone and further, my own ancestors were NOT in the US when anyone WAS enslaved) and 2) be ashamed and also feel horrible for not being a minority, a member of a disenfranchised group and especially, a member of "the privileged race / gender". A lot of what you are seeing in the US is the crankiness this last part has generated 'cause as a white, middle- class male, I am not ashamed of my being white, my being male or anything I have EARNED (if there is some place where us 'privileged' people get some kind of free ride through life or even discounts, I have not yet found them and the clock is running out). I am not pleased when black people or organizations not merely accuse but state outright that "I" have somehow wronged "them". I am not pleased when females group me in with rapists and all others who have behaved badly and incorrectly toward females: I am not a rapist or abuser and refuse to hang my head in shame as a member of any abuser's 'group'. So while I am not seething with rage, I am not at all happy with this new political landscape.

I am not a radical and yet a lot of this situation is making me cranky. So frankly, I do not see a compromise coming, in fact, I see more clashes and move violent confrontations coming. And while I am being blunt and out here on the limb.... that the moderators may well saw off <grin>, let me add that while I live in a very quiet, non- urban area with zero racial conflict, I personally would not take very kindly to some of the behavior I have seen demonstrated recently. To put it even more bluntly, masses of protesting people blocking a highway I am traveling on are not going to be sympathized with, in fact that would probably go badly, for all of us. And I am not a radical.....

So I hope that sheds a little light, perhaps from a different angle than you may be getting from official news sources, about the underlying causes of some of what is going on here Mike. I will also send this post as an e-mail should it become..... unavailable. :-)  Or sent off to the Arena, where you may not participate (I do not participate in the Arena).

Brian

Think I've got this right but I'm sure one of the reports I saw over here on it suggested that a "compromise" may be something like.

1) Leave these statues in place
2) Add new memorials for the slaving side of things (eg at some of the places that were used as markets etc)


Of course I may have over simplified that and as the old saying goes you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time

[mikeyw64]

Positive discrimination is just as bad as negative discrimination.

Actually if it's government endorsed then IMHO it's worse

[wally_games]

Just a couple of "civil" war facts.
About 6% of Southerners owned slaves; about 3% owned almost all of the slaves. While slavery was a factor in the war, it wasn't THE cause for the war.

Regarding removing symbols that honor Confederate generals/soldiers/politicians, this would have effects other than just removing a few statues. In our part of the state (Texas), I can name a quick few:
1. Hood County, named for General John Bell Hood.
2. In that county is the town of Granbury, named for General Hyram Bronson Granbury.
3. Nearby town of Cleburne is named for General Patrick Ronayne Cleburne.
4. Cleburne is in Johnson County, named for Middleton Tate Johnson who was a member of the Sucession Convention and was regimental commander in the Confederate Army (he raised the Fourteenth Texas Cavalry Regiment).

These are but a few within just a few miles of each other. Are we to rename all of the counties and towns/cities that have a link to the Confederate side of the war? Or, can we just accept our history, remember it for what it is, and move forward to see that such things are not repeated?

[VirginiaJim]

How about Fort Hood?

In VA we have Camp AP Hill and Fort Pickett, both named for Confederate generals.  I would daresay that quite a few military installations in the south are named after the confederate military.  I don't have any issues with southern military folks, monuments, roads, etc.., but I'm a middle aged white guy in Virginia that wears armour (Mikey) and flaunts the St. George's Cross and waves a long sword.

As far as the resurgence in the Confederate side of things (and in saying this my ancestors fought on the Confederate side), we lost and need to get over it.  It's been over a hundred years since that war was fought.  It's over and done with and I'm quite happy we're still a somewhat unified nation.  I don't hold a grudge against GB for the War of 1812 or the oppression of the Colonies.

I think it's important to understand the history of our nation and why things happened the way that they did.

Now as far as Nazi's go, I do hold a grudge as they support an organization that tried to kill my mother in England during WWII.   As far as I'm concerned they should put them all against a wall and Fn shoot em or run them over with cars.

What strikes me as strange is the consternation about the Sam Houston statue in Houston.   He refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy yet the Confederate supporters are rallying around keeping the statue intact.  From what I know he had very little to do with the Confederacy although he did refuse Federal assistance to put down the Confederate rebellion in Texas.  From what I read he's an all American true hero and is above the fray about the angst against southern memorials.  If there is talk about removing his memorials and statues because they think he was for the Confederacy they're a bunch of fidiots.  What else are they going to do, rename Houston?