Much like The Sierra Club these organizations and their messages have been co-opted by larger, more powerful groups. It is an identical process to the one where trusted browser extensions are bought up by malware peddlers who then update the code nefariously afterwards using the good name of the newly changed extension.
Who are they shilling/lackeys for...gun manufacturers? How so? Has it ever caused them to become at odds with defending the 2nd?
On the other hand, the ACLU which also shills and is a lackey for their varied masters has not been devout to the cause of civil liberties, when faced with pressure from its handlers.
Gun-grabbers hate them, and will tell you why for all kinds of reasons (except defending the 2nd), some in this thread, but they have not equivocated...as has ACLU.
Although their interests usually intersect, the NRA does not represent or advocate for the gun manufacturers. They have a separate organization. The NRA advocates for gun owners. But they do a lot more than legislative advocacy and litigation. They have a number of programs involving safety education, competitions, etc. That said, I have let my membership lapse for a reason that is, strangely, related to an issue addressed in Glenn's essay. Without going through the details, the NRA's finances, and spending by Wayne LaPiere, has caused me to withhold my dues.
Great points, I also left during Mr. LaPiere's tenure.
If the gun-grabbing whackjobs would allow it, there would be plenty more people educated about gun safety and responsibility. Those whackjobs simply assure that the general culture doesn't evolve to a mature perspective. But the reality is that those that want to be educated and responsible largely find their way and are safe, responsible owners/users/opt-outers.
Clearly for gun manufacturers and the defense industry. The same people "Senior Administration officials" were shilling for when they had Ollie's boss ship arms to Iran around a congressional ban that they didn't have the votes to overturn legally.
Those people would be Bush/Cheney/Weinberger etc the entire rogues gallery of shitlords who were in Reagan's cabinet and administration.
Now to M. neill_here's excellent points, which you ignore. The NRA has never lost it's singular purpose of protecting the 2nd, despite its internal financial shenanigans and "shilling." How else to explain its continued support? The ACLU is the opposite in essence. It most certainly does NOT protect civil rights; it now ONLY supports the rights of authoritarians.
The NRA did not defend legal cannabis patients from having to give up their firearms whilst "recreational" users of the exact same product and Hunter Biden are allowed to get firearms despite conceptually identical restrictions.
That is just one recent example of them not standing up for gun rights, much in the way Glenn shows examples of the ACLU not standing up for free speech. I linked above cases where the ACLU stood up for civil rights, see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (you know those pesky socialists also known as Nazi's).
No. the NRA does not deny the State legitimate reason to restrict the rights of an individual FOR CAUSE and in individual cases. "Recreational users" are a class, not an individual. Obviously, Biden should have been denied the right, but I didn't notice the NRA affecting/commenting on this individual's case.
The NRA does not advocate universal gov't provided gun ownership. Is that another case of "not standing up for gun rights"?
Reagan derangement syndrome lol....a dimwitted buffoon actor who was a dementia-addled puppet by the end of his second term.
Maybe you forgot that he was governor when they gassed the entire city of Berkeley because of peaceful protesters. Yeah Reagan woo hoo a real man of the people. NOT.
The NRA lost what tiny fraction of respect they had from me the day they put Ollie North as the face of their organization. Here is a man who ILLEGALLY RAN GUNS around a congressional ban (you can argue whatever the fuck you want about orders, etc) and you put him in charge of an organization dedicated to legal gun ownership?
The NRA is a joke. I smiled with too much foul glee when they reported they were bankrupt. They didn't do shit for CA medical cannabis patients and gun ownership.
I also have a problem with their forays into politics. When they had a rating scale for politicians and would decide to support/not support on that basis, it was very reasonable. It seems like they are just a Republican advocacy organization nowadays, which is not very effective in the long term. The funny thing is that there are lots of pro-gun rights Democrats in the House and even a few in the Senate. Couple dozen lawmakers at least. Why would you not court them, or make it hard for them to support your aims?
I have the same criticisms of the majority of leftist organizations as well, at least those that have cross-aisle appeal, which is not unusual.
All the more reason to defang the social media mob and restore some semblance of responsible governance. Paris wasn't fun to live in when the Jacobins were doing similar things, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in the early thirties, etc. Yes, I am making the direct comparison.
Yes, we should vote with our pocketbook, just like those individual BLM "investors." Then the books for those organizations, when dug out and made public by outstanding journalism, will reveal the story (follow the money).
Sorry Glenn, George Floyd was not murdered by the “Minneapolis Police Department.” He was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer. By saying what you did, you 1) impugned all of the men and women of that department, 2) lessen Chauvin’s personal culpability, 3) play into the narrative of institutional/ structural racism. You should edit that.
I take the point, and changed it to "a Minneapolis Police Department officer," but aside from the fact that there were multiple police officers involved in that action, even one police officer in the line of duty acts for the Police Department (which is why they say "the X Police Dept today arrested..." when they mean one officer did that). I used "murdered" not as my own judgment for what happened but because that's what the court concluded took place.
Glenn as an attorney you know police officers lose qualified immunity when they are engaging in criminal behavior, as this court found. Therefore he was NOT representing the MPD in the legal sense and from a legal theory standpoint I suspect a taxpayer in MN has the standing to sue the city to return those funds and demand they seek compensation from Mr. Chauvin and not the taxpayers.
I just didn't watch the trial or yet read the transcripts - I will - so the trial lawyer in me makes me hesitant to opine on the verdict without seeing everything the jury saw. My reaction to the video itself was that it was clearly excessive force but trials complete the picture that social media videos can't.
That is the correct answer. None of us saw all of the evidence given. None of us had to worry about our personal safety after the trial. None of us, except the residents, had to worry about mob violence if the verdict went the wrong way.
While I am not a fan of criminals or criminal behavior, I am not a fan of crooked cops, judges, or prosecuting attorneys. If George had been compliant and not drugged up, none of this would have happened. If the officer would have had him face down, cuffed, and his knee on the kidney, this might have been avoided. If the suspect starts to resist, more weight goes on the knee, and that hurts like hell. A hand placed on the back of the head or between the shoulder blades gives the offices more control.
Neither party is blameless in this incident, but the threat of mob justice brings back an ugly chapter of history better left in the history books because you can't get that genie back in the bottle.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
He was found guilty of murder in a court of law. Therefore referring to him as a murderer is appropriate, whether you agree with that determination or not.
Just because a majority agrees with something doesn't make it correct (as has been proven several times in history). One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the location - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
Really, and to think I contribute to the Innocent Project who are trying to assist those who were wrongly accused of crimes, even murder. So you would call these innocents murderers, because they were convicted, even though they didn't kill anyone. There is no logic in what you are saying.
I watched the trial. It changed my mind concerning the murderer's guilt. I thank the court for making it public, but how could that jury have NOT been sequestered?
If you followed the trial and don't get emotionally manipulated by the lies, you wouldn't find the verdict reasonable. What we had here is a political lynching by the mob.
"I only hope this new arrangement does not diminish or limit Glenn's ability to defend his position in the comments."
Well, considering their track record, I'm more inclined to think his nitpickers are more in need of sympathy. But you refer to the time and energy, of course. A thousand bosses and word-twisters and forest (or tree!) miss-ers, and no time to correct them, that IS a worry. But this new boss demands GG ignore the ankle-biters, and get to writing forward. You can't please all of the bosses all of the time.
I have read articles that preliminary autopsy by the ME stated that there is no evidence of asphyxiationon in Floyd's autopsy. The cause of death is his enlarged heart and damaged lungs from his chronicle abuse of illegal drugs. Multipe drugs including more than fatal amount of Fentanyl was found in Tox report. According to this investigative journalist's article, the DC ME called this MN ME and blackmailed him if he does not include asphyxiation in his final report, he will do the smear campaign to discredit his reputaion etc. Also, this DC ME was found in MN having some meeting with the prosecutors of Chauvin. He was going around quashing anything that make people have a second thought on the Chauvin's case... threatening disbarment etc etc. and you have seen Maxine Water. The tide of the time was not favorable for Chauvin. There were multiple of credible material witnesses, they were pretty much threatened... their livelihood or life. Half the population in U.S. believe Chauvin was a sacrificial lamb for God of BLM. I would recommend to watch the tiral, and watch the body cam footage of the officers.. and also dig deeper. Juries were threatened, and rolled over by the pressure. We at least know one of the jury was BLM activist... which was ignored. Also, due process went out of window, anyways, you should do your own research. I do believe Chauvin is innocent.
On this issue I truly believe Chauvin did not get a fair trial, and most here no doubt know why I would make that statement, since his guilt was determined by the state, press, and BLM, as guilty before his trial began. They didn't allow for a change of venue, nor was the jury sequestered, and both should have been implemented. I have no doubt the jury was too afraid to find him anything other then guilty in the atmosphere that prevailed prior to his conviction. I find Mr. Greenwald's use of the term murdered, or referencing his death as a killing should have been tempered by these facts. Chauvin did not have his knee on his neck, but his back. It is extremely unfortunate as to what happened to Mr. Floyd, and I am willing to wait to see what happens in regard to the Chauvin case. I am fully aware of cases in the past in which undo force was applied and make no excuses for those behaviors, and I do believe the police need to have greater oversight of their officers, as well as additional personnel , such as social workers or mental heath workers in dealing with certain cases.
Totally agreed. Not changing the venue and not even sequestering the jury clearly shows this was a show trial to get mob justice.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But that doesn't make this absolute bullshit trial given to Chauvin fair. One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the venue - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
The same old axiom by Democrats and the faction of RINO Republicans. They create a problem with their poor governance and then pretend to have the solution. The solution is always more of the same after you scratch the new paint job.
Thanks, and the last point you made is why I feel very strongly about this issue. The following was written by Alan Dershowitz in referencing the ACLU. "Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees." I thought that's what Greenwald's article referenced as well.
Go watch "Berkeley in the 1960's" and watch what the police did to the hippies in the 60's for protesting in Berkeley. Where citizens got permanently blinded because the police used shotguns.
Everything you are saying is the same thing I am saying but you are getting bogged down in details and diluting the message.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Thats it. Thats the whole issue. Stop worrying about details and stay on message because we agree :)
The video clearly shows Chauvin's left knee placed firmly on Floyd's neck in the space below his right ear along the back jaw line and the top of his shoulders. The video also clearly shows Chauvin readjusting the position of his knee to penetrate even deeper into Floyd's neck. You couldn't possibly not see that unless you're being willfully blind.
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
The video is very damning. No doubts about that. It was unnecessary force, for an unnecessarily long amount of time and it was ‘probably’ influenced by racism and the officer’s personal experiences. But George’s physical condition and violent record does play a role here as well. And I don’t think it was right to have the trial where and how they did. No one gained anything except for the establishment who now gets to militarize the police some more and weapons manufacturers. Oh, and the media off course. Lots of ratings! But you and I didn’t gain shit from all that injustice.
The current American criminal justice system is designed to assume guilt for everyone but politicians, the rich and those who work for the paramilitary branch like police, prosecutors and judges. Those are the only three groups that ever get a presumption of innocence under American Law.
I personally believe Derek Chauvin was guilty, but things must have really gotten out of control if he received the type of unfair justice that is routine for the unwashed masses. Prosecutors get 95% of convictions through plea bargains and for those who go to trial prosecutors win 90%. Conversely, of the 15,000 cops who have gone to trial over the past 20 years less than 5 have been convicted.
We have multiple examples of innocent people being sent to life in prison and even death row based on prosecutors and police knowingly hiding evidence that would have proved their innocence (a Brady violation) and they were never punished for hiding it. Not even disbarred for knowingly sending and innocent man to death.
It says so much about the people who think the criminal system treated Derek Chauvin unfairly that they waited until this moment to complain about behavior like not sequestering the jury and false information spread in the media that is standard practice for how police and prosecutors treat everyone else.
Privileged, meet the system. I'm sorry it's not as fun when it happens to you as it was when you did it to others.
Don't talk down to me. I am well aware of how our judicial system functions and it's many flaws that affect both races, and especially the poor. Let me ask, what have you done to bring about any changes in this very flawed system? Not recognizing the propaganda that preceded this trial, and how it influenced it's outcome is to support a system that is in dire need of change.
I've given my entire life to defending the Constitution and it has cost me everything. Trust me, I'm the one guy you don't want to challenge with the "what have you done" thing.
The system is not just designed to crush the poor, it is also designed to protect the privileged within the government. Derek Chauvin is the extremely rare exception.
My question, which was not race based or intended to be condescending is do you have a history of pointing out the failures in the criminal punishment system, or like many did you only become aware of its failures when Donald Trump was elected or Derek Chauvin went on trial. I ask because many in those two groups have been ignoring the criminality of the legal system until it effected their guy.
I'm glad to have them on board with how corrupt law enforcement, the judicial system and the federal intelligence agencies now that it's their guy, but I fear now that they don't have a president they approve of they will go back to blindly trusting them when the start attacking the people they don't like, which is what happened with the left and their blind faith in the police state once we elected someone they hated.
I started pointing out the failures of the criminal punishment system when I got beat up by police and sent to jail on bullshit charges and I am a nerdy white dude who was just walking down the street.
When the police then lied in court and there was nothing I could do about it, I firsthand saw the problem. It was authority and the inability to hold anyone in power accountable.
I dont have any illusions that the people in power will do the right thing and reform criminal justice. They get too much benefit yelling how broken it is to ever fix it.
You say "privileged" how did that work out for those Duke lacrosse players? Its not just about privilege or race or $. Its about the system being used unfairly based on who is wielding it.
Who is manipulating it is irrelevant if the root problem is that it is being manipulated period.
None of this is new. Look at Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. The American media and voters never chose to hold him accountable and neither did the police.
BLM is obsessed with anti-Capitalism. Race baiting is only a con, a cover, to fool the "white people too" crowd, who fear being called a racist by racist Blacks more than anything short of death itself.
At no point did I mention race, but she did in her response, which is a common pattern around here. I say something like "there is a problem with police unions" and the response inevitably includes something like "well it's not a black or white issue." I always think. "That's true, which is why I never mentioned it and why are you raising the topic at all?"
It leaves me to wonder who are the people really focused on race?
A knee could move a considerable distance in the course of 540 seconds, give or take, but all it takes is 2 seconds of any of multiple home videos for all these posters to KNOW EXACTLY where that infamous knee was the WHOLE time.
I am simply pointing out that what we see / are told is not always the truth.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
Lets hear it in detail, see it in detail, one shot, how long, and what degree of pressure was applied to that area? Based on that picture I can't tell, can't determine the degree of pressure that was applied to the carotid arteries, or the veins, if any. I'm not saying he's innocent, but what I am saying is he was determined to be guilty before he went to trial, and that is not how any trial is to be conducted. How many black, and white men have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, or are sitting behind bars for decades, and innocent of the crimes they were accused of because we have a very inadequate judicial system, and few get a fair trial, or adequate representation. I wonder how interested you are in that, or what knowledge you have on that subject.
I don't disagree that he didn't get a fair trial but that mfer should be happy he wasn't murdered in the street or pulled out his home.
He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If that was your loved one regardless of what their action was you would know as well as anyone that Chauvin was guilty. THE END.
What I do not understand is why the city paid millions to Floyd's family. The city didn't do anything wrong, that police officer did. When police officers commit crimes they lose qualified immunity. Chauvin should have paid, not the voters and taxpayers.
"He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes he did, but the question is did he have a fair trial to determine his guilt or innocence? No, he did not. If it were a loved one I would feel the same way. I grew up in a home where my father was very authoritarian and lied repeatedly to his extended family so that he could be seen as the victim and not the abuser. I saw them buy his lies, because psychologically it was less disturbing then recognize their brother was mentally ill, which would then demand a response. This society also wants to sweep everything under the carpet, but when you do that things only get worse. The money the city gave to the family said Chauvin is guilty, and it spoke to the jury pool who would determine Chauvin's innocence or guilt, and it said, find him guilty.
I've seen you passionately arguing for a ton of conservative things on here....yet you want me to believe if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world, you wouldn't be just as passionately claiming that cop was in the wrong?
This isn't about Chauvin being right or wrong - he's gonna rot in prison regardless of this case as he's got tax problems too.
This is about having a fair trial and until that happens, he's innocent. And if we are really talking about "if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world" and if this loved one was a history of breaking into pregnant women's houses with 5 other dudes and beating her up in front of her kid and then pushing the gun against her pregnant belly, then I wouldn't feel any remorse.
No. Its about accountability for government employees.
The same way conservatives for 10 years have been yelling for it from the Democrat FBI/Pelosi/etc the black community has been yelling about it for a hundred years from the police. And their citizens are being killed unlike conservatives who are just being silenced. The concept that their might be some reason to silence or kill is RIDICULOUS. At no point are those acceptable outcomes for a government employee to impose on any private citizen without full fair trial. The rule of law demands it.
They are identical issues (ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) framed completely differently by the uniparty fucking us and pretending they are enemies.
Most Conservatives I know distrust the government until it's a person with a gun, a blue clown suit and a police union with qualified immunity. Then suddenly that distrust turns into blind unquestioning trust for these vallorious truth telling Nights in White Satin.
I suspect Daddy issues, but the world may never know.
Not always - I am right leaning but as I have said several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
Maybe because unlike most conservatives sitting in the suburbs I've spent weeks in county locked up with real criminals. I've seen what crime and police and bullshit do on every side and every side is being full of shit about reality.
I dont trust the government period. I don't trust the police because I've seen them lie, steal, rob and kill for decades with no accountability. Just like EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT GROUP.
They are just a front facing one so its more in your face every day when they do it.
Not sure where your "daddy issues" comment comes from, but I suspect its because you don't know who yours is.
I take the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard pretty seriously. If Floyd said he couldn't breathe before the cops held him down, and then he died because of too little air, he may have died from what started earlier. That's a reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin killed him.
Anyway, we don't let people's loved ones serve on a jury in trials concerning them.
You say "who was presumed innocent until proven guilty". But then you don't give the same luxury to Chauvin himself despite you acknowledging that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. Until he gets a fair trial, shouldn't he be presumed innocent until proven guilty too?
Floyd did not die because of Chauvin. Floyd died because of his drug dealer friend in the car asking him to swallow the drugs, the crowd being hostile which made the situation worse (EMS didn't feel safe either), Floyd himself swallowing the drugs. I would have all 3 of those put behind bars before Chauvin himself.
Btw this is not Chauvin's defence - he's going to prison regardless of this case - for tax purposes (magically discovered after this incident). Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
Chauvin got a trial by a jury of his peers. You can argue that isnt fair, but he at least got a trial.
George Floyd didnt even get an arraignment hearing. Yet here you are being a shitlord and pretending the cop got a worse outcome than the criminal.
FOH!
You would sing such a fucking different tune if this happened to your loved one. It is IRRELEVANT that George Floyd was a drugged out piece of shit criminal. They have the EXACT same civil rights you and I do thanks to the fucking constitution.
Its kind of shocking to me how quick you are to defend this officer.
I don't deny being a police officer is a hard job but I dont see how any reasonable voter can be think Chauvin's behavior was acceptable or at best legal.
That was a difficult situation but that officer gets an F for how he handled it. Why? Because the person he was sent to detain was dead before he was even truly detained or received a fair trail. That is acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Its odd to me you aren't making this same speech for Floyd. A drug using piece of shit criminal still deserves the same civil rights we all do. It seems a lot of posters forget that.
Again I dont think Chauvin got a fair trial. But he didn't give George Floyd the luxury of one either so its hard to truly feel sorry for him.
But again now the narrative has changed from "accountability for government employees" to "do I think Chauvin got a fair trial and/or did he deserve one". Thats a different argument.
The issue here is accountability for ALL government employees for the rest of us fucking peons who dont have elite connects.
I agree with the first part of your comment though. It’sa good thing they’re so loaded with weapons. Otherwise there may indeed be some street justice. Once or twice the People are allowed to fish out some consequences and I guarantee you this brutality shit would halt.
Well, you know, street justice is working so well in the inner cities, right? /sarcasm
I mean the media does such a great job discussing the rampant violence in the cities when it doesn't spill over into the suburbs, right?
Vigilantism is never the answer. No one should be acting as judge, jury and executioner, and certainly not someone who is emotionally charged on any subject.
I don’t believe you should go after the employees if they struggle to keep up with company demands/work requirements. Police officers are employees. And one must admit their job requirements and work stress levels are demanding. The officer can and should be prosecuted. Lose his job, benefits, etc like any other fired employee. And be prosecuted by law like any other citizen. But when it comes to paying compensation it is the company victims should go after. It’s the company who is responsible for vetting, hiring, training and arming a dangerous individual to then patrol our streets. And as we all know the companies aka police departments don’t put a whole lot of effort into any of those criteria. And I for one believe police departments may not be directly responsible for the officer’s actions. But they sure are responsible for putting the officer, cocked and loaded, in our communities. And they’re responsible for the lack of training and environment the officers work in as well.
Whether you choose to realize it or not, your choice, but your neck is not your back. The difference is significant in that the neck has significant arteries and veins which supply the brain with oxygenated blood as well as the organs of the head such as the eyes, and returning deoxygenated blood, through veins, back to the heart. Putting a knee to someone's back is not the same as placing a knee on someone's neck.
Actually it was not "murder". It was at most manslaughter. "Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed." https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
Chauvin did not seek out Floyd to kill him. He and the other police officers were called because a crime had been committed. There is no record of Chauvin having contacted Floyd previously.
The entire conservative movement needs to stop defending this situation. Chauvin is a piece of shit who doesn't deserve even a moment's worth of defending. Stop letting the talk go away from anything other than accountability for government employees which is what that case is 100% about! The cops had never been charged for this same behavior under multiple DA's! Why would they think they would start now? Listen to Bill Burr talk about Arnold and its the exact same situation!
Police and ALL government employees need MORE accountability! But again, this isn't a conservative city. That is not a conservative state. That is an elite-echelon area of the DNC and its no surprise this all went down in a city they control. Just like with Baltimore and Freddie Gray.
For those of you out there who vote Democrat, please tell me what cities are doing a good job that have been run by Democrats since the 1960's. 60+ years of complete control and they are still blaming conservatives, getting 0 results, and spending money like there is no tomorrow. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SUPPORT THAT PARTY, OR ANY PARTY FOR THAT MATTER?
When the prosecutor has three different theories for cause of death, that is reasonable doubt.
When the prosecutor doesn't ever mention racism as a motivation, it's hard to swallow that Floyd is dead because he's black and the police are white supremists.
We have PLENTY of prime examples of police killings that are 100%, no doubt the fault of the police. Look at Atatiana Jefferson, for example. Yet the riots only seem to come out for the shady cases. Sure is strange.
Can the profess-ors of institutional racism (not to mention a "war" on Blacks) come up with 1 (one) instance of a white officer of the law shooting/tasing/yelling-at/over-reacting-to-uppityness-of a Black co-operator?
Chica was dragged out of her vehicle and thrown to the ground because she didn’t think an officer had the right to tell her to put out her cigarette in her own vehicle. She was subsequently arrested for bullshit.
I could imagine myself mouthing off to the cop in a similar manner because when they have annoyed me on the wrong day, I frankly have, probably not difficult to imagine after reading my posts.
Also I agree with her. Smoking a cigarette in one’s own vehicle is not “patrollable” behavior.
I will research that case, but am willing to concede its validity (although not putting out a cigarette when asked to can hardly qualify as co-operating. If she had survived, and she should have, would she have so "co-operated" in court? "Judge, you're going to have to pry this cigarette from my cold, dead fingers.")
Now to ask two unfair questions. 1) name another. 2) make a list of BLM's martyrs and their rap sheets (can't they find ANY deserving of a riotous response?)
Look, police reform is a constant necessity (they are part of the State, after all) and there are too many power-hungry cops.
But there is no war on Blacks, by police or Capitalism. They are free to co-operate, and they are free to build capital, just like their white countrymen.
My response wasn't to you but SS isn't the easiest in terms of following comment threading.
The AG in Minnesota is former head of the DNC who had to step down from the position he hand picked Ilhan Omar to transfer to. Who the fuck are we kidding that entire situation was as rigged as it gets from the cops getting away with it for decades to it suddenly being a media shitshow at Election time.
But, as you know counselor, "malice aforethought" is a mountain to show. What if Chauvin had an additional charge of murder, for which he was found not guilty (in addition to the manslaughter convictions we have obtained)? The public knows this. The public knows it WAS murder. The practical ramifications of such a high-profile and important case (in the changing of police procedures, if not personnel) means that it IS accurate, if not strictly "legalistical," for journalists and their public to refer to THIS manslaughterer as a murderer.
What do you think of the defence and other witnesses during the trial admitting that it is often the case that people high on drugs often act more violently even after fainting for a bit? Not saying I am for this defence but I am curious what's your take as Floyd was resisting arrest even prior to and had claimed he can't breathe even before Chauvin had his knee on him - so Chauvin could have just thought Floyd was lying.
Thank you for the question. What you post here are completely reasonable points that could end up winning an appeal, imo. Yes, these high-profile, and highly politicized, court cases are rife for all manner of manipulative chicanery, but I still trust the courts. I trust that the judge did the best he could under the circumstances (he certainly erred in not sequestering), I trust that the jury DID take into account all the evidence presented, including facts such as the well-known erratic behavior of those under the influence (although that is abused as an ex post facto excuse for just the type of behavior displayed by the defendent)
Yes, Mr. Floyd WAS resisting, even as he WAS over-dosing. (Can we go after his dealer/counterfeiter/taker-of-the-5th/"friend" who told him to swallow his shit? Didn't THAT guy murder his friend?)
But, the trial did change my mind. Chauvin could have let up after a couple of minutes. Handcuffed, overdosing: Floyd wasn't getting up again, imo, and if he did they could have methodically subdued him again. That would have been the action of the policeman we all want, not the animal I saw holding a man down until he died.
M. News, I so admire your posts. Your arguments are excellent and well-supported, and you are obviously very well-informed (not to mention I judge you a fellow classical liberal), so I have a question you probably can answer: Why did it take so long for police back-up to arrive?
Actually, since the case will most likely be appealed and the verdict overturned, it may eventually turn out that Floyd wasn't "murdered" by anybody. After all, his O2 count was 98%.
Mr. Greenwald is typically careful on such points so I suspect it was not a mistake.
Without starting a debate, here's a different take than the 3 points you propose.
For some, what happened to George Floyd was less about race and more about a fundamental problem with policing in America. For this group, yes Derek Chauvin was the individual who killed Floyd, but he was emblematic of a larger structural problem with policing in America. For this group, things like Police Unions, the thin blue life of silence, qualified immunity, asset forfeiture along with prosecutors and judges willing to look the other way and excuse illegal and corrupt police behavior resulted in George Floyd's death as much as Derek Chauvin did.
Under this model, you can exclude racism as a singular factor without thinking every cop is a racist or bad, but that the death of Derek Chauvin was part of a larger systemic problem that needs to be reformed.
The alternative and historically more common belief was that Derek Chauvin was a singular bad apple plucked from a barrel of goodness. A view that people are increasingly beginning to challenge even if we remove racism from the equation.
As I said, my goal is not to persuade anyone on this. Just to lay out a popular alternative view to the one you described. A view that was becoming increasingly popular even before the rise of BLM and George Floyd.
Did it ever occur to you that Chauvin was actually trying to SAVE Floyd's life? The videos show the man had practically gone berserk. He was being restrained until medical personnel could arrive.
The events of 1/06 were in my experience incited by Ms. Pelosi, the Capitol Police and Antifa. It was beyond foolish of people to enter the building. The "insurrection" served it's purpose: using that excuse, they certified the election results and denied us the audits we were demanding.
Yes, I beleive many people truly believe that and it concerns me.
I'm not sure how a pluralistic democracy continues to function when you have groups of people within it that have such different partisan views of how, why and what happened.
FOR SOME....EMBLEMATIC....We are talking about a case. With facts. The rest of your feel good crystal talk is irrelevant to the actual individual case.
Exactly. The non-legal aspects of high-profile cases are more important, more enlightening, than the procedural and legalese ones. Of course justice is not served or arrived at through procedural/definitional error, but once the people accept that legal procedure has been proper, then definition of terms revert to colloquial, public, and social definitions, as they should for people to then make a collective decision on societal change.
Oh look, another authoritarian bootlicker. The "not all cops" narrative is belied by all those cops who stand around and watch their fellow goose-steppers brutalize and murder citizens. Police forces attract authoritarian right wing law and order fetishists who are often extremely racist and are willing to do the bidding of society's elite. Have to control the riff-raff, after all! All big city police departments have long histories of murderous brutality. I have witnessed immense and grotesque brutality in person just over 50 years ago. Seattle cops beat a black classmate of mine unconscious and dragged him face-down over concrete steps. There were 8-10 of them. Only 2 of them ground up his face, while the rest DID NOTHING to stop them. No cop turns in another cop, as a hard and fast rule. And if they do, they are in for a world of pain and hurt and possibly "friendly fire" as well.
50 years ago. Thank goodness they can't get away with that anymore. Perhaps you should lose your hyperbole and apprehend today's reality. Policing has improved, and will continue to improve, imo.
Moronic statement in light of ubiquitous videos showing cops brutalizing and murdering people... the same as it ever was. They kill about 1,000 people a year in death cult America. The sharp tip of the iceberg for their brutality. There are also other endemic abuses as we saw in the well documented Chicago cop torture dungeon that tortured false confessions out of black men for years. Of course, it is your privilege to believe otherwise, the facts notwithstanding.
I am right leaning but as I have commented several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system. Because if not, then the situation will get worse.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
Sure, most police officers are law abiding, but still Chauvin was a representative of the MPD. And just like all the other police depts. around the nation, it was the MPD's responsibility to weed out hate speech and murderers. Our federal, state and local governments have condoned this for way too long.
Good points, James. Whether intended or not, generalizing criminal killing to entire departments, or cops in general, is also dangerous. With the exception of the nut job fringe, everyone knows we need cops to maintain a civil society keeping the criminal element in check.
What a wonderful phrase! Jan. 6 comes to mind. Whenever I hear the word "coup" used in current discussion, my first thought is how lucky can a lowly dictator get?
You misunderstand my sentiment, or I mis-communicate, if you think I am claiming either Trump was a dictator, or Jan. 6 was a real coup. The attempt at irony in my last sentence was NOT meant to be a reference to DJT, but to the power mad neo-liberal Statists and would-be dictators of the Democrat Party who attempted to use Jan.6 as their "self-coup."
As usual, M. Amy, your post is better-written than mine!
I somewhat disagree with your last para. If DJT gave the American people any gift, it was to goad the Left into over-reaction, and over-playing of their hand (not that he realized that himself!). I suppose the mid-terms will determine whether my optimism or your pessimism is better placed.
But those Dems are right: the GodXi's gift of pandemic allowed the control-freaks to freak out the people enough to accept just this side of martial law, destroying an amazing economy that DJT would have rode to landslide. And despite your extreme dislike of the 45th POTUS, don't you agree that would have been better?
I also do not think the Democrats will attempt a SCOTUS expansion in the end for political calculation. They aren't nearly as popular as the media would have you believe. Well, I hope I'm right and you are wrong! (No offense intended.)
Per Tulsi Gabbard....check out the Megyn Kelly podcast interview with Tulsi. It's pretty illuminating. Asked if she would ever accept a split ticket, she said yes. I don't think she'll become Republican but I have a strong sense she'll become an Independent.
Tim Scott is a RINO, don't fall for it. Watch Richard Baris's expose on him. Despite all that Trump did for Tim Scott, including sponsoring his police reform bill, Tim back stabbed Trump and used to speak ill of him behind his back. Don't trust him.
Can't find anything specific in a quick search. Can you post a link? I'm interested in reading more about this. Tim Scott needs to stop listening to Lindsay Graham.
Good lord. AOC is a grifter. Jimmy Dore has been exposing her almost everyday and because of this AOC claimed Jimmy was inciting violence against her. She called the cops on a lefty who was criticizing her on twitter. Stop being fooled by her and Bernie. Otherwise people deserve all the pain they get for supporting these people.
Fantastic article but I will disagree on one point
"affirmatively defending the stifling of political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group"
This lack of interest in the central free speech issues of the day is bad enough, but the ACLU has sued a woman in Washington state to block a FOIA request.
The ACLU has spent decades pushing for these types of public disclosure laws, used them extensively to try and hold various governments to account, published information to educate private citizens on how to use those laws to good effect. This woman went on the ACLU's website, followed their directions on how to file a FOIA request and then was sued by the ACLU of Washington state to try and prevent the disclosure of information on state run prisons. The ACLU has actively started fighting its traditional role. They're not just sitting on their hands and offering empty platitudes; they have crossed the line into helping the state keep private citizens in the dark about how their government functions because this deals with trans rights in a way that does not line up with their position.
Great comment. In my experience the Washington State ACLU has become one of the worst chapters in the country, content to take political donations from the very prosecutors in the State who make their living violate the civil rights of citizens on a daily basis.
They have simply become a wine club for overly privileged house wives with little interest in defending the civil rights of the marginalized.
Since you joined this thread I keep hoping for something more than snide, adolescent and off topic comments. Do you have an opinion on the Washington ACLU we are discussing. or are you just here to troll?
Amazing! The founders of the ACLU must be rolling over in their graves. Think about this. Citizen makes a FOIA request. Instead of a response from the appropriate government agency, she gets sued by the ACLU, which also Sue's a newspaper. How in the world does the ACLU even have standing to bring this lawsuit?
its clear whoever is actually in charge of the ACLU has made trans priorities more important than anything else for the group, as Glenn has shown in his article.
its a shame, because, as he mentions, there are plenty of other well-funded groups doing this.
Its also a shame no one is naming the person or persons in charge of the ACLU currently.
I dont feel like researching it right now but maybe will revisit.
"[Cullors] denounced the Post reporting as "frankly racist, and sexist.”"
Mostly off topic, but I'm so sick of this reflexive response whenever a woman and/or non-white on the political left is subjected to scrutiny. It's one more way of saying off limits - shut up!
It's also indicative of a change in tactics by liberals to tear down the system. For years, liberals have been trying to put a wedge between people based on economic status. Economic class warfare was their tool of choice for trying to split the country and have two or more very divided and hostile parties. That really hasn't worked for the most part. But with Floyd and the BLM movement, they've latched onto race as the wedge issue that will inevitably tear the country apart and allow them to rebuild it in their image.
Anyone who disagrees is racist. The Supreme court is racist because it has nine justices, so we need to add another four. The filibuster is a racist tool. If you believe there is a big problem at our southern border it must be because you are a racist. White people were natural born racists and need to be re-educated. All police shootings of black people are unjustified and obviously racist. And it goes on and on and on.
Sadly, it's gotten to the point where BLM, Antifa and progressives have organized so well that the minute you are labeled a racist, you are a target. We're at a tipping point where I'd imagine many people are sick of the extreme identity politics of the left (real racism under it's long forgotten definition), but are too scared to speak up or do anything. It's getting to a perfect tipping point where something is going to give and it's not going to be pretty.
I think you got all the symptoms right, but the diagnosis of illness wrong - all of this is exactly to preserve the system not to tear it down. After 30+ year of neoliberalism, it finally started to dawn on the public that they are economically doomed, their kids won't have social mobility and that their communities are disintegrating. There was real danger that - with right leadership - populism may direct the anger at the owner class which captured all the wealth of globalism, while leaving all the downsides to the working class ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:119;series:Assets;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7;units:shares;range:2005.2,2020.2 ) .
Nothing better to deflect from that danger than to inject any number of wedge / red-button issues to break up / atomize the population into a state of perennial strife. Even better if the party in power becomes the arbiter of which group deserves higher or lower ranking in the hierarchy of grievances and hand out occasional candy to one versus the other pitting further one against the other.
Edgar J. Hoover famously said that the biggest internal threat to America was when Black Panthers started to offer free breakfast to poor white kids too. He was 100% right. To prevent anything like that happening, injecting racial strife is crucial, so that poor blacks and whites - and anybody else - has so much animosity towards each other that they never realize that their key interests are essentially the same. At today's "BLM breakfast table" white kids would never be invited, or if yes, only to be lectured how inherently "privileged" they are - even as they are just as hungry like all the others.
I don't recall misogynistic attacks on Phyllis Schlafly, though she was definitely a flash point for vitriol - for and against. Not saying there were no misogynistic attacks, just don't recall them.
Why do you think Biden put people from WOKE group part of his administration?
You want your $2000 you were promised? You want the $15 minimum wage or medicare for all you were promised? You want to stop forever wars or want to hold Wall Street accountable? You want businesses to open up and stop covid fear mongering? You want a better infrastructure bill or stop oil pipelines?
You are a sexist for speaking against the first female treasury secretary, racist for speaking against the black DOD secretary, transphobic for speaking against the trans health minister, inciting violence against AOC for "force the vote", poor uneducated deplorable for wanting $15 minimum wage, racist for speaking against the first Native American interior secretary. Oh and Russia!!!
Put all the minority pawns and then exploit them for any criticism that comes your way while you do evil things.
The marxist take over is basically being exploited by the deep state to divide and conquer. The "leaders" of the useful idiot "progressives" need as many oppressor-oppressed relationships to divide and conquer the people. So originally it was based on ruling class oppressing the people. But the "leaders" figured out they could take it a step further by creating artificial oppressor-oppressed groups based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation and what not. Divide and conquer has been used for centuries to retain power because as long as the people keep fighting each other over things like race, sex etc, they ignore the real enemy - the establishment politicians and elites.
> How Marxist ideologues took over our culture. The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics Is Dividing The Land of The Free: cultural marxism: Before Gramsci, Marcuse, Millett, and the rest, there were, of course, Marx and Engels. But seeing everything through the lens of economics and property produced blind spots for Marx and Engels and their followers, notably the role that race and ethnicity could play (and would go on to play) in the revolution to overthrow the ruling class.
I mean, the whole Facebook thing - I deleted my account in early 2017 after the 2016 shitshow there, and it was obvious where it was going. Isn't that the correct response here? Vis a vis the ACLU, isn't that also a lost cause? The organization is not coming back from where it has gone.
Formerly respectable organization gets taken over by the left, which then guts the organization and wears it like a mask, all the while demanding respect for what they used to be.
..."Formerly respectable organization gets taken over by the LEFT, which then guts the organization and wears it like a mask, all the while demanding respect for what they used to be...."
A nice thought but why it contains word "left" -- the ones taken over by the "right" are OK?
And -- since when are DNC oligarchs "left"? The use of "left" and "right" epithets diminishes discussion, including when the right masquerades as "left".
Anything "left" has left long ago any of the Clintons, Obama, Biden and their sycophants...
Yes, yes, Boris, we know that you spend all day here "correcting" people that the left isn't really the left. Consider this a disclaimer for all future posts I make so that you can save your time commenting.
Well, I'm guilty of similar offense on the right. Every time someone from the left/Left/"left"/anti-wealth/anti-wealth-disparity/equality-of-outcome/"fairness" crowd (sorry M. Boris, I hope I cover it all for most people) equates crony-Capitalism with real Capitalism, I blow a gasket and spew here.
"I'm not interested in having the same conversation with you again."
A-ha! So you have elsewhere divulged what is wrong with you, you right-leaning scoundrel! (Sorry, I should have expanded "right" with my own 5-page definition.)
I agree with you that we should probably stop addressing people as left and right as the definition of "liberal" is no longer true for these people. But I am curious about this. We know that trust in media is at an all time high amongst the democrats (75%) while lowest in republicans (10%). Glenn also pointed out that vast majority of ACLU funding is coming from democrats. So now either you agree that these are overtaken by Democrats and democrats consist of the left. Or you would claim that democrats are somehow made up of right wingers and right wingers are funding BLM? This weird logic doesn't make sense imo.
I think a better way to address this would be to call them all establishment cronies which exploit both the left and right. Similar to how we call people like Bush, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney etc "RINOs", you should start calling these democrats "DINOs".
Social media is a walled garden with no dissent permitted. It wasn't the original intent, but it is what it has become. If you have a differing opinion, you will be squelched there.
My conclusion is that it would be best to leave and withhold my consent to some propagandistic narrative being pushed by the censors.
So to simplify, my answer to 1 is no, because that illusion is already present and there's not a thing to be done about it _on_ the owned platform.
The answer to 2 is obviously "an illusion of such".
The answer to 3 is "who cares, you aren't going to be able to do anything about the foisted narrative anyway". You already are othered, so do you sit there and take it or move on? I say move on. No pun intended. ;-)
Indeed, that has been my perspective for a long time now as well.
I suppose I just can't help wondering if departing to maintain my own individuality of opinion and sanity perhaps was the wrong move. Hindsight can plague with questions like "what if I had spoken up or been more active against censorship" from earlier on.
It likely isn't worth ruminating over now. Yet, it still stings to see how far we've fallen with technology that had such promise to elevate us. Thank you for your insight.
I never got into social media and I am millennial. I am also not surprised what the social media has become. Even as early as 2010 I despised everything that it represented (fake drama, fake friendship and happiness). Everything was "fake" to me so I decided not to partake. Everyone who participates in social media, doing it with very heavy emotional toll, so leaving is the only option. Social media can be useful on small scale, but majority of humanity has no capacity for moderation and responsible behavior, so it will always turn into "high school". Everyone who participates in all that deserve all the misery. You can't save the world by being on social media, so My advise be happy that you removed yourself from it
I am a boomer. I believe you represent the "silent majority" of millenials (and foretell of those of all generations after). Thus my optimism in "the kids these days."
Oddly, I share that optimism. As a GenX/Boomer (cusp year), the young people (late 20s, early 30s) I engage with (neighbors and professional colleagues) don't spout radical ideas or engage in performative sneering. They are hopeful, hardworking, polite and respectful. Given the way millennials are portrayed in the media, I was surprised by this.
No, I disagree. Yes, there will always be apathy and ignorance, but individuals change, and the level of ignorance can be reduced. Permit me to replace "the" with "today's" before "ignorant"?
i think those are terrific questions, and that a journalist like glenn (or matt, or bari) is perfectly poised to tackle.
when functioning "correctly" the social media platforms could be as useful and egalitarian as the "speakers' corner." however, the speakers' corner hasn't been monetized, is highly localized, and caters to those who have no or limited fear of public speaking as the format isn't quite anonymous. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner)
as to your last point, it seems clear that those who reject censorship will soon not be able to have a presence on the platforms, voluntarily or not.
you touch on an important issue that often -- always?? -- goes unremarked: the role that FBs "customers" play in tacitly supporting FBs behavior by remaining on the platform. unless and until a large bloc of users mass-cancels their accounts, nothing will change.
Social media is a natural monopoly. You can't just create a site and expect users to show up. This is what Google found out with plus. That said, Facebook relies on ubiquity. Each person refusing to have an account there is a grain of sand in the avalanche when users abandon the site. They probably won't delete their accounts, but they'll stop using it.
I can't predict the time frame but I can predict the result.
What you are seeing is why lifelong conservatives have never, and will never trust the liberal media.
A lot of people would call me a fucking hippie. I worked in the environmental industry in the early 90's, well before it was cool to be green. Everything they say in the media, on the left, is almost 100% BULLSHIT.
The right has its own myriad problems, but the left does not know how to do anything but lie in the media and frame narratives 24/7.
Just google Walter Duranty. Google Jayson Blair. Google Brian Williams. The list goes on and on and on. Liars and PR shills, ever since 1996.
This was my experience working at a highly respected affordable housing non-profit. The board was packed full of private housing developers, who were the biggest donors. And all the research/policy/advocacy (lobbying) we did, somehow always seemed to fundamentally be about putting more money in their pockets. Sometimes they and we were on the right side of issues. Sometimes not.
But you would have a research and data staff who were brilliant and amazing at picking apart all the special pleading, red herrings, non sequiturs, false dichotomies and other argumentative and data manipulation in conservative research and statistics. But then if you pointed out we were doing the exact same things in our research they would be like "no no no no this is for a good cause". As though our opponents also didn't think their cause was good...
It was a good cause, but the people seemed absolutely as self deluded as any "privatize the roads" Norquist wonk, and perhaps more dangerous because they 100% believe they are the righteous.
Well, perhaps when we, as a society, realize that there are some issues that cannot and will never be solved (in a just manner), then we can have open and honest discussions about mitigating the problems we face together.
'Til then, there are voters to be conned and money to be made.
Yes, the '96 POTUS campaign is a good place to locate the "inflection point" of the authoritarian Left's media co-opt, when the corruption of the Democratic Party, which had always been present (slavery, anti-Capitalism), really entered the steep part of the curve. The impetus was the '94 capture of the House, after 40 years of Democrat Statism. The Left could not let that keep happening. More drastic (subversive) measures were required.
Ah. I thought you might be refering to that, also, but I am in the minority that disagree with the import of that decision (I don't want to argue that point), so I plead guilty to hijacking your post to make my own point.
Are you just watching fox news? Also they are not liberal press, they are press of establishment and for capitalism, so right wingers/conservatives should be proud. The money that you have been worshiping for centuries won, so why are you complaining now. All American media is corporate media, which only cares for corporate interests and I wonder who gave them those powers (Citizen's VS United, trickle down politics and etc). Don't pull that cap like "The right has its own myriad problems", but accept that even so called democratic party has mostly "right wing polices". Try and defend polices Mr conservative, don't just name call "liberal". The majority of USA issues are brought to by conservative shit heads, so enjoy your shit show.
I can see you are defending your polices as a proper conservative with name calling and just overall BS. People like you deserve all the misery because they never accept their fuck ups. I got news for you Mr Conservative, the shit is just starting. New anti terror laws are being targeted on fellow Americans and I wonder whose polices normalized that.
When you say absolutely moronic things like "The majority of USA issues are brought to by conservative shit heads" and then say I am name calling, you simply expose that you are a massive inbred shitlord and aren't worth any more of a response to on this forum.
Which part of the statement is wrong? For decades conservatives supported war on terror, trickle down economics, Citizens VS united and various other polices that are destroying the republic now. Right now so called democrats do the same thing, but the ideas are conservative. Now all the tools that corrupt government was allowed to use against people of the world, are being turned against citizenry and I see people like you somehow thinking that liberals did it. The best part about the situation is that people like you can't hide behind "America first" BS, as in all evil that USA does is justified because people lives are better. This is the third attempt that I bring up in regards polices and twice already you avoided arguing polices and that is the truth of people like you. When you are cornered, you sleather like a snake.
As a long time-admirer of the ACLU, it has been very sad to see them devolve into an identity-politics advocacy group. Their rapid and drastic metamorphosis has left a void in the fabric of US society (despite the existence of FIRE and other, smaller, similarly-minded groups). I foolishly held out hope that the departure of Trump to Mar-a-lago and authoritarian, identity-obsessed "liberals" to brunch would see the ACLU pivot back to its core mission, but unfortunately the opposite has occurred. Their ongoing, bizarre obsession with transgender "issues" during a period of time when free speech itself is under concerted attack by virtually ever power structure in the country is sickening and astounding. Just as bad as ACLU's silence on these critical issues, has been their proactive, such as their defense of privileged, bigoted asshole Oumou Kanoute, who falsely defamed several low-wage workers at Smith college as racists. Very simply, the ACLU bears absolutely no resemblance to the organization it once was, despite the lingering presence of some older lawyers who may still (silently) support their founding principles. When I get their solicitation for funds these days, it goes right into the trash.
With courage in such short supply among left-leaning organizations, this sort of tawdry behavior isn't too surprising. Like the NYTimes and WaPo, ACLU has determined that they make more money by giving a slice of their audience what they want instead of sticking to their foundational principles. Given the epic grift of the #BLM organization and its leaders, I wonder which of these groups will be the first to break the wall of silence and shout that the emperor has no clothes.
I question whether it's the greed of internal staff or coercion by increasingly raging currents of outside money with specific goals. I don't think the staff at NYT and WP made strategic decisions to be scriveners for power because that sells papers; indeed, Greenwald has credibly argued this watered down journalism doesn't sell.
I think we have a handful of people with more planetary financial power than anyone in history, and the interconnected planet that makes that power more universal than at any prior point in history. They are buying out the store. They are going to write the ONLY narrative. They will create reality day in and day out, however it suits them.
I'm not so sure I buy the argument about NYTimes and WaPo. They surely know that they're turning off a large majority of their readers, but they did gangbuster business during the Trump years by leading the 'resistance'. Much of their reporting these days is embarrassingly bad, yet, again, they do it anyway. Whatever the reason, it ain't a good thing! :-) I agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph, BTW.
The ACLU lost its integrity years ago, and yes, it was over BLM/Antifa. It has refused to counter Antifa's suppression of free speech for years. Now it's an apologist for BLM. Liberals have chosen power politics over constitutional law, from the White House to the grassroots, they are corrupting the system.
I'm wondering, Glenn, if you have any thoughts on alternative organizations that are, or can, take up the mantle of the ACLU's prior uncompromising defense of free speech. The group Defending Rights and Dissent seems as if it is in the right ballpark, and yet I don't see combatting internet censorship getting much emphasis from it. There's the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, but last time I checked, it also seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy. I pose the question because I'm wondering whether a new organization needs to be created. As a constitutional lawyer myself, I would be willing to support such an endeavor if there does not appear to be a better alternative.
Duck-Duck-Go-ing "conservative ACLU" reveals recently-launched America First Legal (which founder Stephen Miller describes as "conservative response to the ACLU") as well as the American Center for Law and Justice. I'm not familiar with either group and am also curious to hear Glenn's thoughts.
Your question is directed to Mr. Greewald, so I will leave it to him to answer, but I do have a question:
"There's the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, but last time I checked, it also seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy."
I follow and am a small donor to the EFF. Can you provide an example of this? If it's true I would like to know.
Take a look at their halfhearted (if any) response to recent censorship. The EFF is still at least claiming they want to support the mission of free speech, but their actions are being deterred by wokeism. If they wanted my support, they'd have to be as vigorous as they were 15 years ago, say in fighting National Security Letters or keeping us informed on the SCO case (if you weren't already following it on Groklaw).
See Incarnadine's reply below, which strikes me as accurate. I do support the work of the EFF, but I can't very well furnish an example of something it is NOT doing; that's like trying to prove a negative. The point is that it seems to be leaving the issue of actual internet/social media censorship off of its agenda, or at least it's principal agenda.
I will respond to Incarnadine below, but your response (and Incarnadine's response below) do not support your claim about "liberal orthodoxy" at the EFF.
My request for an example was made in good faith since no one can know everything a group does. I'm not a part of the EFF, just one small donor, but I don't give money to organizations that place politics and orthodoxy above principle. If you are going to assert the EFF follow a liberal orthodoxy, you can't defend that assertion with a statement that you can't disprove it's not true. You need to support it with some evidence they are following a liberal orthodoxy.
With the ACLU for instance, I can point to real examples (failure to defend sex workers rights, the 1st amendment, fighting civil rights reforms to Title 9) as proof they have chosen personal ideology over principle.
As for a recent review of the EFF, they have stood up to Google, Facebook and Twitter by defending section 230 of the of the Communications Decency Act. They fought against FOSTA/SESTA, the Earn IT Act and criticized the take down of Parlor.
This was the EFF's reaction to the take down of Parler:
"Infrastructure Takedowns Are Equally If Not More Likely to Silence Marginalized Voices"
"Whatever you think of Parler, these decisions should give you pause. Private companies have strong legal rights under U.S. law to refuse to host or support speech they don’t like. But that refusal carries different risks when a group of companies comes together to ensure that forums for speech or speakers are effectively taken offline altogether."
Given all this, it seems clear that internet/social media censorship is a focus of their agenda.
Thank you for providing additional information about the EFF. Perhaps it is doing more on this front than I had realized from my previous exploration of its website. I will have another look and reassess. I appreciate the constructive feedback.
Exactly what I was just going to post in your defense, M. Richard Whitney!
The issue is the LACK of examples of protesting neo-liberal censorship. Perhaps your naysayers, who make good points about the "sphere" or focus of the EFF, could speak to your larger point that a new, properly-focused organization need form.
A nitpick, since most posters seem to get your meaning, but shouldn't your sentence read, "...from confronting censorship that ORIGINATES IN NEO-liberal orthodoxy." or, "from confronting censorship that targets CLASSICAL liberal orthodoxy."? I think the distinction needs to be made for logical clarity.
Do you have any examples of where the Electronic Freedom Foundation “seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy.”
This type of issue (from Glenn’s article) really isn’t where EFF generally focuses their efforts. And it’s not where we need them focusing their attention - we need civil rights advocacy groups for that. Let EFF focus on why you might not be able to post a picture of your dog on FB because you don’t really own the image.
Their halfhearted response to the Twitter/Facebook/Google/Amazon targeting of particular organizations for censorship. This is bread and butter for them in the past. They'd be screaming from the rooftops if this were conservatives doing it in the 2000s, and you can look back at the EFF's history to see that they did so. Hell, it was every day or two on Slashdot there would be an article referencing the EFF in this context. Mostly dupes, but still...
Can you provide an example of where this would be part of their bread and butter in the past? I did a few recent searches on their site before my initial post but didn't find anything that seemed to be going against their organizational mission or be partisan. It's not so easy to just go find stuff on the internet if you don't have the cases or search terms to use. So if you have some examples, I'd like to see them. I don't follow everything on EFF.
I do agree on the Parler response being halfhearted (and incorrect) if this is what you are referencing by, "response to the Twitter/Facebook/Google/Amazon targeting of particular organizations for censorship." However, this is not what I see as in their main mission. That is an old-school Carnegie/Rockefeller, Steel/Railroads collusion and antitrust issue. The fact that they are tech companies doesn't take that out of that broader law and put it into the EFF arena. I have never seen EFF go after Disney on antitrust issues - I have seen them go after "Disney laws" and other tech companies utilizing those laws or similar IP laws. If you jump over to the EFF podcast launched in November 2020 - right in the thick of a lot of these censorship issues - you see that this isn't really their thrust - hell they even have someone on from the Cato Institute, not exactly a "liberal think tank." (But showing the American libertarian aspects of the tech world).
I questioned Richard Whitney for an example of his claim that the EFF follows a "liberal orthodoxy." You are responding to my question about this by pointing out that Glenn's article here is not the focus of the EFF's attention. That is not an answer to my question asking for examples of a liberal orthodoxy at the EFF.
The EFF is a civil liberties organization that has worked for 29 years to protect consumer interests, innovation, and free expression in the digital world.
As far as I am aware, the EFF has been consistently against all Internet censorship right and left and have used their attorney's to fight against internet censorship in court. You can see their opposition to the take down of Parler I posted above for Richard Whitney. This hardly sounds like the voice of a group with a liberal ideology. Those with a liberal ideology I know of supported the take down of Parler at the time under the "well it's a private company" disingenuous argument.
I have not found an example where EFF has placed partisanship above principle, but I am willing to be corrected on this if I am given a real example. Generally these partisan attacks come down to "well they did not provide as much support as loudly as I wanted." Sometimes that is accurate. Sometimes we are dealing in a nuanced argument that is more complex than simply shouting your support from the rooftop. Unsupported claims of ideology tell me more about the person making the claim than the target of the accusation.
Unfortunately, political ideology makes people lazy. They often claim a liberal or conservative ideology affected their principles without proof. Sometimes they have an excellent example, but just haven't provided it because they assume people know. I was hoping that was the case with Mr. Whitney's claim that they follow a liberal ideology.
All too often ideologues are simply repeating what someone else told them about a group without proof.
So far all I am seeing are generalities about how the EFF has a liberal ideology the way liberals often assert right wing organizations are hate groups without proof.
I think you might have the comments order out of order. :) I didn't respond to you - and it appears we are coming at this from the same point - and both would like to see examples of EFF being partisan if it is happening.
This is a brand new organization. Chris Rufo who has been fighting back against Critical Race Theory and others in the same vain have organized. No doubt they are fully aware of the Ford Foundation. Check out their website....such a broad range of voices and thinkers.
I guess I'm suffering from some ailment lately because I find myself having a very cynical take on most of the bullshit passing for discourse and public policy.
The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union - have not been supporting civil liberties for years now. It's another grifting organization, like most corporations pitting ethnicities and values against each other trying to capitalize on division.
Governors have become local dictators, and the law is a fucking joke. I truly appreciate the angst of those who are triggered by all the infringements on the First Amendment, but frankly -you assholes have this coming. For decades you've shit on the 2nd Amendment and the DUE PROCESS OF LAW and now it's biting you in the ass. Suck it.
I had assumed the following story was an April Fools joke:
"In the policy, updated April 1, the ACLU says that it may share personal information "with communications platforms, such as Facebook and Mother Jones," and "may also share ACLU supporter information with organizations that display our advertisements or petitions to their subscribers ...
However, after reading this article by Mr. Greenwald, I am not so sure. It would be useful to ask a spokesperson for the Anti-Civil Liberties Union to comment.
These people literally called for the banning of speech while Donald Trump was president and could decide what speech was permissible. The idea that THEIR speech could be wrongthink never once occurred to them, which sort of shows you how much forethought they have.
With rare exception, the ACLU doesn't even defend the 1st amendment or civil rights when the State directly crushes and incarcerates people in clear violation of the Constitution and the 1st amendment: (Julian Assange, Sex workers, Title 9 reform to allow those accused to face and respond to their accuser). Given that they now turn a blind eye to State abuse, ignoring censorship by private organization must be easy.
To the endless frustration of those groups who have their civil rights violated by the State on a routine basis, the ACLU will often send a performative tweet of support that, but will not make a single call, spend a single dime or a single attorney hour to actually defending these people from the State.
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Center for Constitutional Rights, FIRE and the EFF do far more actual work to defend our civil rights and freedom of expression on a fraction of the budget the ACLU collects to provide only performative support since Ira Glasser stepped down as the 5th executive of the ACLU in 2001.
These are the groups we should support financially and otherwise.
I have never had a Facebook account, not a Twitter account, I don’t go on utube, yet I’m surviving and thriving quiet nicely. As for the the trained Marxist Cullors, a money grubbing, dishonest rabble rouser, Marxism goes out the window as soon as money comes in the front door. She tried to justify her real estate purchases as being for the welfare of her family. Didn’t Marx advocate for family elimination? Yep, she’s a well trained hardcore Marxist. Until you can buy real estate in an exclusive white upper class neighborhood then hard core turns to mush. All the foolish, gullible woke are getting fleeced. Not that I mind. But at least the money should be pouring into black neighborhoods where it might do some real good. As for the New York Post, I consider it the paper of record in today’s world. The ACLU had my respect in Skokie when they defended the rights of the Nazis March through the Jewish neighborhood. And I’m a believing and practicing Jew. For the past 10 yrs I have not thought much of them. Just another mouthpieces for the liberal leftist hate mongers.
After being a proud and card carrying ACLU member for 20 years, I cancelled my membership when ACLU failed to stand up to prosecution of Assange.
Their silence has been stunning throughout his persecution
Much like The Sierra Club these organizations and their messages have been co-opted by larger, more powerful groups. It is an identical process to the one where trusted browser extensions are bought up by malware peddlers who then update the code nefariously afterwards using the good name of the newly changed extension.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/-particle-chrome-extension-sold-to-new-dev-who-immediately-turns-it-into-adware/
Similar to what happened to the drudge report.
Absolutely correct
Dont worry, if you need some solidarity...hard core right organizations like the NRA are also worthless dogshit shills and lackeys as well.
Who are they shilling/lackeys for...gun manufacturers? How so? Has it ever caused them to become at odds with defending the 2nd?
On the other hand, the ACLU which also shills and is a lackey for their varied masters has not been devout to the cause of civil liberties, when faced with pressure from its handlers.
Gun-grabbers hate them, and will tell you why for all kinds of reasons (except defending the 2nd), some in this thread, but they have not equivocated...as has ACLU.
Although their interests usually intersect, the NRA does not represent or advocate for the gun manufacturers. They have a separate organization. The NRA advocates for gun owners. But they do a lot more than legislative advocacy and litigation. They have a number of programs involving safety education, competitions, etc. That said, I have let my membership lapse for a reason that is, strangely, related to an issue addressed in Glenn's essay. Without going through the details, the NRA's finances, and spending by Wayne LaPiere, has caused me to withhold my dues.
Great points, I also left during Mr. LaPiere's tenure.
If the gun-grabbing whackjobs would allow it, there would be plenty more people educated about gun safety and responsibility. Those whackjobs simply assure that the general culture doesn't evolve to a mature perspective. But the reality is that those that want to be educated and responsible largely find their way and are safe, responsible owners/users/opt-outers.
Clearly for gun manufacturers and the defense industry. The same people "Senior Administration officials" were shilling for when they had Ollie's boss ship arms to Iran around a congressional ban that they didn't have the votes to overturn legally.
Those people would be Bush/Cheney/Weinberger etc the entire rogues gallery of shitlords who were in Reagan's cabinet and administration.
Reagan Derangement Syndrome.
Now to M. neill_here's excellent points, which you ignore. The NRA has never lost it's singular purpose of protecting the 2nd, despite its internal financial shenanigans and "shilling." How else to explain its continued support? The ACLU is the opposite in essence. It most certainly does NOT protect civil rights; it now ONLY supports the rights of authoritarians.
The NRA did not defend legal cannabis patients from having to give up their firearms whilst "recreational" users of the exact same product and Hunter Biden are allowed to get firearms despite conceptually identical restrictions.
That is just one recent example of them not standing up for gun rights, much in the way Glenn shows examples of the ACLU not standing up for free speech. I linked above cases where the ACLU stood up for civil rights, see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (you know those pesky socialists also known as Nazi's).
No. the NRA does not deny the State legitimate reason to restrict the rights of an individual FOR CAUSE and in individual cases. "Recreational users" are a class, not an individual. Obviously, Biden should have been denied the right, but I didn't notice the NRA affecting/commenting on this individual's case.
The NRA does not advocate universal gov't provided gun ownership. Is that another case of "not standing up for gun rights"?
Reagan derangement syndrome lol....a dimwitted buffoon actor who was a dementia-addled puppet by the end of his second term.
Maybe you forgot that he was governor when they gassed the entire city of Berkeley because of peaceful protesters. Yeah Reagan woo hoo a real man of the people. NOT.
Did you use to call him Ray-gun?
But they'll hammer you with their newly created Super-Patriot 3-Star Life Membership for $999...but discounted today to $99!!
The NRA lost what tiny fraction of respect they had from me the day they put Ollie North as the face of their organization. Here is a man who ILLEGALLY RAN GUNS around a congressional ban (you can argue whatever the fuck you want about orders, etc) and you put him in charge of an organization dedicated to legal gun ownership?
The NRA is a joke. I smiled with too much foul glee when they reported they were bankrupt. They didn't do shit for CA medical cannabis patients and gun ownership.
Gun Owners of America is a much more worthy organization. No compromise, and no bloated staffing expenses.
I also have a problem with their forays into politics. When they had a rating scale for politicians and would decide to support/not support on that basis, it was very reasonable. It seems like they are just a Republican advocacy organization nowadays, which is not very effective in the long term. The funny thing is that there are lots of pro-gun rights Democrats in the House and even a few in the Senate. Couple dozen lawmakers at least. Why would you not court them, or make it hard for them to support your aims?
I have the same criticisms of the majority of leftist organizations as well, at least those that have cross-aisle appeal, which is not unusual.
Everyone is scared of the media being weaponized to brigade against them.
All the more reason to defang the social media mob and restore some semblance of responsible governance. Paris wasn't fun to live in when the Jacobins were doing similar things, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in the early thirties, etc. Yes, I am making the direct comparison.
The current management is the pits. They would have been far better served by a much more staid leadership and ethics.
Yes, we should vote with our pocketbook, just like those individual BLM "investors." Then the books for those organizations, when dug out and made public by outstanding journalism, will reveal the story (follow the money).
Sorry Glenn, George Floyd was not murdered by the “Minneapolis Police Department.” He was murdered by Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer. By saying what you did, you 1) impugned all of the men and women of that department, 2) lessen Chauvin’s personal culpability, 3) play into the narrative of institutional/ structural racism. You should edit that.
I take the point, and changed it to "a Minneapolis Police Department officer," but aside from the fact that there were multiple police officers involved in that action, even one police officer in the line of duty acts for the Police Department (which is why they say "the X Police Dept today arrested..." when they mean one officer did that). I used "murdered" not as my own judgment for what happened but because that's what the court concluded took place.
Glenn as an attorney you know police officers lose qualified immunity when they are engaging in criminal behavior, as this court found. Therefore he was NOT representing the MPD in the legal sense and from a legal theory standpoint I suspect a taxpayer in MN has the standing to sue the city to return those funds and demand they seek compensation from Mr. Chauvin and not the taxpayers.
Chauvin was found guilty of 'unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter'. .. to be specific.
How does your judgment differ from that .. . if you don't mind me asking Glenn.
*after all, in some small way you work directly for me now./
I just didn't watch the trial or yet read the transcripts - I will - so the trial lawyer in me makes me hesitant to opine on the verdict without seeing everything the jury saw. My reaction to the video itself was that it was clearly excessive force but trials complete the picture that social media videos can't.
That is the correct answer. None of us saw all of the evidence given. None of us had to worry about our personal safety after the trial. None of us, except the residents, had to worry about mob violence if the verdict went the wrong way.
While I am not a fan of criminals or criminal behavior, I am not a fan of crooked cops, judges, or prosecuting attorneys. If George had been compliant and not drugged up, none of this would have happened. If the officer would have had him face down, cuffed, and his knee on the kidney, this might have been avoided. If the suspect starts to resist, more weight goes on the knee, and that hurts like hell. A hand placed on the back of the head or between the shoulder blades gives the offices more control.
Neither party is blameless in this incident, but the threat of mob justice brings back an ugly chapter of history better left in the history books because you can't get that genie back in the bottle.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
And that's why you shouldn't have referenced him as a killer or murderer.
He was found guilty of murder in a court of law. Therefore referring to him as a murderer is appropriate, whether you agree with that determination or not.
Just because a majority agrees with something doesn't make it correct (as has been proven several times in history). One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the location - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
Really, and to think I contribute to the Innocent Project who are trying to assist those who were wrongly accused of crimes, even murder. So you would call these innocents murderers, because they were convicted, even though they didn't kill anyone. There is no logic in what you are saying.
Sound wisdom. I was unable to follow the trial also. .. but the verdict sounds fair and reasonable.
I would only add, I judge overcoming the obstacle 'qualified immunity' for police officers involved in matters of life and death a victory of sorts.
*you may return to your work duties .. . if you need me, I will call you. :)
I watched the trial. It changed my mind concerning the murderer's guilt. I thank the court for making it public, but how could that jury have NOT been sequestered?
If you followed the trial and don't get emotionally manipulated by the lies, you wouldn't find the verdict reasonable. What we had here is a political lynching by the mob.
*with so many new bosses, he's bound to be heading towards some pretty dreary performance reviews./
Not without good reason, I hope.
I only hope this new arrangement does not diminish or limit Glenn's ability to defend his position in the comments.
*after all, it is only 'through the clash of differing opinion that the spark of truth may be realized.'
"I only hope this new arrangement does not diminish or limit Glenn's ability to defend his position in the comments."
Well, considering their track record, I'm more inclined to think his nitpickers are more in need of sympathy. But you refer to the time and energy, of course. A thousand bosses and word-twisters and forest (or tree!) miss-ers, and no time to correct them, that IS a worry. But this new boss demands GG ignore the ankle-biters, and get to writing forward. You can't please all of the bosses all of the time.
I have read articles that preliminary autopsy by the ME stated that there is no evidence of asphyxiationon in Floyd's autopsy. The cause of death is his enlarged heart and damaged lungs from his chronicle abuse of illegal drugs. Multipe drugs including more than fatal amount of Fentanyl was found in Tox report. According to this investigative journalist's article, the DC ME called this MN ME and blackmailed him if he does not include asphyxiation in his final report, he will do the smear campaign to discredit his reputaion etc. Also, this DC ME was found in MN having some meeting with the prosecutors of Chauvin. He was going around quashing anything that make people have a second thought on the Chauvin's case... threatening disbarment etc etc. and you have seen Maxine Water. The tide of the time was not favorable for Chauvin. There were multiple of credible material witnesses, they were pretty much threatened... their livelihood or life. Half the population in U.S. believe Chauvin was a sacrificial lamb for God of BLM. I would recommend to watch the tiral, and watch the body cam footage of the officers.. and also dig deeper. Juries were threatened, and rolled over by the pressure. We at least know one of the jury was BLM activist... which was ignored. Also, due process went out of window, anyways, you should do your own research. I do believe Chauvin is innocent.
On this issue I truly believe Chauvin did not get a fair trial, and most here no doubt know why I would make that statement, since his guilt was determined by the state, press, and BLM, as guilty before his trial began. They didn't allow for a change of venue, nor was the jury sequestered, and both should have been implemented. I have no doubt the jury was too afraid to find him anything other then guilty in the atmosphere that prevailed prior to his conviction. I find Mr. Greenwald's use of the term murdered, or referencing his death as a killing should have been tempered by these facts. Chauvin did not have his knee on his neck, but his back. It is extremely unfortunate as to what happened to Mr. Floyd, and I am willing to wait to see what happens in regard to the Chauvin case. I am fully aware of cases in the past in which undo force was applied and make no excuses for those behaviors, and I do believe the police need to have greater oversight of their officers, as well as additional personnel , such as social workers or mental heath workers in dealing with certain cases.
Mob justice is mock justice.
Amen to that, and too bad so few see it.
Totally agreed. Not changing the venue and not even sequestering the jury clearly shows this was a show trial to get mob justice.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But that doesn't make this absolute bullshit trial given to Chauvin fair. One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the venue - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
The same old axiom by Democrats and the faction of RINO Republicans. They create a problem with their poor governance and then pretend to have the solution. The solution is always more of the same after you scratch the new paint job.
Thanks, and the last point you made is why I feel very strongly about this issue. The following was written by Alan Dershowitz in referencing the ACLU. "Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees." I thought that's what Greenwald's article referenced as well.
Go watch "Berkeley in the 1960's" and watch what the police did to the hippies in the 60's for protesting in Berkeley. Where citizens got permanently blinded because the police used shotguns.
Everything you are saying is the same thing I am saying but you are getting bogged down in details and diluting the message.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Thats it. Thats the whole issue. Stop worrying about details and stay on message because we agree :)
The video clearly shows Chauvin's left knee placed firmly on Floyd's neck in the space below his right ear along the back jaw line and the top of his shoulders. The video also clearly shows Chauvin readjusting the position of his knee to penetrate even deeper into Floyd's neck. You couldn't possibly not see that unless you're being willfully blind.
No it does not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believe what ever you want, makes no difference to me.
Well apparently 12 folks on a jury, B&W, believed it and it was rather clear to me as well ...
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Not to mention that he had COVID and we all know how deadly that is. (sarcasm)
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
What makes you think anyone gets fair trials? Ask Harry Aleman.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
So you think the guy was innocent?
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
I care because the truth is important to me, and a free society cannot function without it, and it is independent of what you want it to be.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
We'll just have to agree to agree that it makes no difference to you.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
To this date I still get sick remembering OJ Simpson and, his not guilty verdict.
During the trial, they showed other angles which showed the knee was on his shoulder blade and not neck.
A knee on the neck does NOT kill you. I have had it done to me many times.
A grown man maintained most of his body weight resting on a single knee sitting on your neck for 9 minutes straight many times?
It killed George Floyd.
I have way more questions than answers lol. Like, how on earth do you get knees to the neck so often? Do you wrestle?
The video is very damning. No doubts about that. It was unnecessary force, for an unnecessarily long amount of time and it was ‘probably’ influenced by racism and the officer’s personal experiences. But George’s physical condition and violent record does play a role here as well. And I don’t think it was right to have the trial where and how they did. No one gained anything except for the establishment who now gets to militarize the police some more and weapons manufacturers. Oh, and the media off course. Lots of ratings! But you and I didn’t gain shit from all that injustice.
Well, SOME exposure.
The current American criminal justice system is designed to assume guilt for everyone but politicians, the rich and those who work for the paramilitary branch like police, prosecutors and judges. Those are the only three groups that ever get a presumption of innocence under American Law.
I personally believe Derek Chauvin was guilty, but things must have really gotten out of control if he received the type of unfair justice that is routine for the unwashed masses. Prosecutors get 95% of convictions through plea bargains and for those who go to trial prosecutors win 90%. Conversely, of the 15,000 cops who have gone to trial over the past 20 years less than 5 have been convicted.
We have multiple examples of innocent people being sent to life in prison and even death row based on prosecutors and police knowingly hiding evidence that would have proved their innocence (a Brady violation) and they were never punished for hiding it. Not even disbarred for knowingly sending and innocent man to death.
It says so much about the people who think the criminal system treated Derek Chauvin unfairly that they waited until this moment to complain about behavior like not sequestering the jury and false information spread in the media that is standard practice for how police and prosecutors treat everyone else.
Privileged, meet the system. I'm sorry it's not as fun when it happens to you as it was when you did it to others.
Don't talk down to me. I am well aware of how our judicial system functions and it's many flaws that affect both races, and especially the poor. Let me ask, what have you done to bring about any changes in this very flawed system? Not recognizing the propaganda that preceded this trial, and how it influenced it's outcome is to support a system that is in dire need of change.
I've given my entire life to defending the Constitution and it has cost me everything. Trust me, I'm the one guy you don't want to challenge with the "what have you done" thing.
The system is not just designed to crush the poor, it is also designed to protect the privileged within the government. Derek Chauvin is the extremely rare exception.
My question, which was not race based or intended to be condescending is do you have a history of pointing out the failures in the criminal punishment system, or like many did you only become aware of its failures when Donald Trump was elected or Derek Chauvin went on trial. I ask because many in those two groups have been ignoring the criminality of the legal system until it effected their guy.
I'm glad to have them on board with how corrupt law enforcement, the judicial system and the federal intelligence agencies now that it's their guy, but I fear now that they don't have a president they approve of they will go back to blindly trusting them when the start attacking the people they don't like, which is what happened with the left and their blind faith in the police state once we elected someone they hated.
I started pointing out the failures of the criminal punishment system when I got beat up by police and sent to jail on bullshit charges and I am a nerdy white dude who was just walking down the street.
When the police then lied in court and there was nothing I could do about it, I firsthand saw the problem. It was authority and the inability to hold anyone in power accountable.
I dont have any illusions that the people in power will do the right thing and reform criminal justice. They get too much benefit yelling how broken it is to ever fix it.
You have personal experience so I am least worried about you understanding what I can talking about here.
its not just about race.
Ask Jussie Smollett who made up a fake hate crime and still hasnt gone to trial
You say "privileged" how did that work out for those Duke lacrosse players? Its not just about privilege or race or $. Its about the system being used unfairly based on who is wielding it.
Who is manipulating it is irrelevant if the root problem is that it is being manipulated period.
None of this is new. Look at Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. The American media and voters never chose to hold him accountable and neither did the police.
I didn't mention race, but you did in your response.
I never know who is more obsessed with race, BLM, or the "white people too" crowd.
BLM is obsessed with anti-Capitalism. Race baiting is only a con, a cover, to fool the "white people too" crowd, who fear being called a racist by racist Blacks more than anything short of death itself.
Unless you're shopping for real estate.
Looks like Fran deleted her post I responded to.
At no point did I mention race, but she did in her response, which is a common pattern around here. I say something like "there is a problem with police unions" and the response inevitably includes something like "well it's not a black or white issue." I always think. "That's true, which is why I never mentioned it and why are you raising the topic at all?"
It leaves me to wonder who are the people really focused on race?
O my, back to wrong body parts, again?
Neck, not back.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Business/minneapolis-police-involved-death-03-ht-jc-200526_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg
During the trial, they showed other angles which showed the knee was on his shoulder blade and not neck.
Man, his knee was all over the place, wasn't it - it's amazing it stayed attached to his leg!
A knee could move a considerable distance in the course of 540 seconds, give or take, but all it takes is 2 seconds of any of multiple home videos for all these posters to KNOW EXACTLY where that infamous knee was the WHOLE time.
I have noticed so often that folks seem to have little or no appreciation of sarcasm - sometimes that's all that is appropriate ....
I am simply pointing out that what we see / are told is not always the truth.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
Lets hear it in detail, see it in detail, one shot, how long, and what degree of pressure was applied to that area? Based on that picture I can't tell, can't determine the degree of pressure that was applied to the carotid arteries, or the veins, if any. I'm not saying he's innocent, but what I am saying is he was determined to be guilty before he went to trial, and that is not how any trial is to be conducted. How many black, and white men have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, or are sitting behind bars for decades, and innocent of the crimes they were accused of because we have a very inadequate judicial system, and few get a fair trial, or adequate representation. I wonder how interested you are in that, or what knowledge you have on that subject.
Well he WAS guilty before he went to trial - so the only way to have had a fair trial is if "the degreet of pressure" had been exactly measured ....
The amazing part of this case is that he even WENT to trial ....
I don't disagree that he didn't get a fair trial but that mfer should be happy he wasn't murdered in the street or pulled out his home.
He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If that was your loved one regardless of what their action was you would know as well as anyone that Chauvin was guilty. THE END.
What I do not understand is why the city paid millions to Floyd's family. The city didn't do anything wrong, that police officer did. When police officers commit crimes they lose qualified immunity. Chauvin should have paid, not the voters and taxpayers.
"He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes he did, but the question is did he have a fair trial to determine his guilt or innocence? No, he did not. If it were a loved one I would feel the same way. I grew up in a home where my father was very authoritarian and lied repeatedly to his extended family so that he could be seen as the victim and not the abuser. I saw them buy his lies, because psychologically it was less disturbing then recognize their brother was mentally ill, which would then demand a response. This society also wants to sweep everything under the carpet, but when you do that things only get worse. The money the city gave to the family said Chauvin is guilty, and it spoke to the jury pool who would determine Chauvin's innocence or guilt, and it said, find him guilty.
'
They can also both be true. He can also both be guilty and did not get a fair trial. They are not mutually exclusive.
Don't disagree, but he didn't get a fair trial and that should disturb people.
It does but he can get in a fucking ridiculously long line with a lot more sympathetic victims and wait his turn to be forgiven imo.
That’s what I’ve been saying.
I've seen you passionately arguing for a ton of conservative things on here....yet you want me to believe if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world, you wouldn't be just as passionately claiming that cop was in the wrong?
Riiiiiiiight
This isn't about Chauvin being right or wrong - he's gonna rot in prison regardless of this case as he's got tax problems too.
This is about having a fair trial and until that happens, he's innocent. And if we are really talking about "if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world" and if this loved one was a history of breaking into pregnant women's houses with 5 other dudes and beating her up in front of her kid and then pushing the gun against her pregnant belly, then I wouldn't feel any remorse.
No. Its about accountability for government employees.
The same way conservatives for 10 years have been yelling for it from the Democrat FBI/Pelosi/etc the black community has been yelling about it for a hundred years from the police. And their citizens are being killed unlike conservatives who are just being silenced. The concept that their might be some reason to silence or kill is RIDICULOUS. At no point are those acceptable outcomes for a government employee to impose on any private citizen without full fair trial. The rule of law demands it.
They are identical issues (ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) framed completely differently by the uniparty fucking us and pretending they are enemies.
You're an unusual Conservative Iconoclast.
Most Conservatives I know distrust the government until it's a person with a gun, a blue clown suit and a police union with qualified immunity. Then suddenly that distrust turns into blind unquestioning trust for these vallorious truth telling Nights in White Satin.
I suspect Daddy issues, but the world may never know.
Not always - I am right leaning but as I have said several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
Maybe because unlike most conservatives sitting in the suburbs I've spent weeks in county locked up with real criminals. I've seen what crime and police and bullshit do on every side and every side is being full of shit about reality.
I dont trust the government period. I don't trust the police because I've seen them lie, steal, rob and kill for decades with no accountability. Just like EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT GROUP.
They are just a front facing one so its more in your face every day when they do it.
Not sure where your "daddy issues" comment comes from, but I suspect its because you don't know who yours is.
I take the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard pretty seriously. If Floyd said he couldn't breathe before the cops held him down, and then he died because of too little air, he may have died from what started earlier. That's a reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin killed him.
Anyway, we don't let people's loved ones serve on a jury in trials concerning them.
You say "who was presumed innocent until proven guilty". But then you don't give the same luxury to Chauvin himself despite you acknowledging that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. Until he gets a fair trial, shouldn't he be presumed innocent until proven guilty too?
Floyd did not die because of Chauvin. Floyd died because of his drug dealer friend in the car asking him to swallow the drugs, the crowd being hostile which made the situation worse (EMS didn't feel safe either), Floyd himself swallowing the drugs. I would have all 3 of those put behind bars before Chauvin himself.
Btw this is not Chauvin's defence - he's going to prison regardless of this case - for tax purposes (magically discovered after this incident). Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
Chauvin got a trial by a jury of his peers. You can argue that isnt fair, but he at least got a trial.
George Floyd didnt even get an arraignment hearing. Yet here you are being a shitlord and pretending the cop got a worse outcome than the criminal.
FOH!
You would sing such a fucking different tune if this happened to your loved one. It is IRRELEVANT that George Floyd was a drugged out piece of shit criminal. They have the EXACT same civil rights you and I do thanks to the fucking constitution.
Its kind of shocking to me how quick you are to defend this officer.
I don't deny being a police officer is a hard job but I dont see how any reasonable voter can be think Chauvin's behavior was acceptable or at best legal.
That was a difficult situation but that officer gets an F for how he handled it. Why? Because the person he was sent to detain was dead before he was even truly detained or received a fair trail. That is acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Its odd to me you aren't making this same speech for Floyd. A drug using piece of shit criminal still deserves the same civil rights we all do. It seems a lot of posters forget that.
Again I dont think Chauvin got a fair trial. But he didn't give George Floyd the luxury of one either so its hard to truly feel sorry for him.
But again now the narrative has changed from "accountability for government employees" to "do I think Chauvin got a fair trial and/or did he deserve one". Thats a different argument.
The issue here is accountability for ALL government employees for the rest of us fucking peons who dont have elite connects.
I agree with the first part of your comment though. It’sa good thing they’re so loaded with weapons. Otherwise there may indeed be some street justice. Once or twice the People are allowed to fish out some consequences and I guarantee you this brutality shit would halt.
Well, you know, street justice is working so well in the inner cities, right? /sarcasm
I mean the media does such a great job discussing the rampant violence in the cities when it doesn't spill over into the suburbs, right?
Vigilantism is never the answer. No one should be acting as judge, jury and executioner, and certainly not someone who is emotionally charged on any subject.
I don’t believe you should go after the employees if they struggle to keep up with company demands/work requirements. Police officers are employees. And one must admit their job requirements and work stress levels are demanding. The officer can and should be prosecuted. Lose his job, benefits, etc like any other fired employee. And be prosecuted by law like any other citizen. But when it comes to paying compensation it is the company victims should go after. It’s the company who is responsible for vetting, hiring, training and arming a dangerous individual to then patrol our streets. And as we all know the companies aka police departments don’t put a whole lot of effort into any of those criteria. And I for one believe police departments may not be directly responsible for the officer’s actions. But they sure are responsible for putting the officer, cocked and loaded, in our communities. And they’re responsible for the lack of training and environment the officers work in as well.
Perhaps you should educate yourself about "qualified immunity".
We have become the millions lawsuit society.
Man - apparently Floyd had no neck, eh? - his head was directly attached to his back ...
Whether you choose to realize it or not, your choice, but your neck is not your back. The difference is significant in that the neck has significant arteries and veins which supply the brain with oxygenated blood as well as the organs of the head such as the eyes, and returning deoxygenated blood, through veins, back to the heart. Putting a knee to someone's back is not the same as placing a knee on someone's neck.
Good grief!
Actually it was not "murder". It was at most manslaughter. "Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed." https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
Chauvin did not seek out Floyd to kill him. He and the other police officers were called because a crime had been committed. There is no record of Chauvin having contacted Floyd previously.
The entire conservative movement needs to stop defending this situation. Chauvin is a piece of shit who doesn't deserve even a moment's worth of defending. Stop letting the talk go away from anything other than accountability for government employees which is what that case is 100% about! The cops had never been charged for this same behavior under multiple DA's! Why would they think they would start now? Listen to Bill Burr talk about Arnold and its the exact same situation!
https://youtu.be/h3g64swMf1M?t=321
Police and ALL government employees need MORE accountability! But again, this isn't a conservative city. That is not a conservative state. That is an elite-echelon area of the DNC and its no surprise this all went down in a city they control. Just like with Baltimore and Freddie Gray.
For those of you out there who vote Democrat, please tell me what cities are doing a good job that have been run by Democrats since the 1960's. 60+ years of complete control and they are still blaming conservatives, getting 0 results, and spending money like there is no tomorrow. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SUPPORT THAT PARTY, OR ANY PARTY FOR THAT MATTER?
I never defend Chauvin only the law.
When the prosecutor has three different theories for cause of death, that is reasonable doubt.
When the prosecutor doesn't ever mention racism as a motivation, it's hard to swallow that Floyd is dead because he's black and the police are white supremists.
We have PLENTY of prime examples of police killings that are 100%, no doubt the fault of the police. Look at Atatiana Jefferson, for example. Yet the riots only seem to come out for the shady cases. Sure is strange.
Can the profess-ors of institutional racism (not to mention a "war" on Blacks) come up with 1 (one) instance of a white officer of the law shooting/tasing/yelling-at/over-reacting-to-uppityness-of a Black co-operator?
Sandra Bland.
Chica was dragged out of her vehicle and thrown to the ground because she didn’t think an officer had the right to tell her to put out her cigarette in her own vehicle. She was subsequently arrested for bullshit.
I could imagine myself mouthing off to the cop in a similar manner because when they have annoyed me on the wrong day, I frankly have, probably not difficult to imagine after reading my posts.
Also I agree with her. Smoking a cigarette in one’s own vehicle is not “patrollable” behavior.
The cop was an ass. Sandra Bland is dead.
I will research that case, but am willing to concede its validity (although not putting out a cigarette when asked to can hardly qualify as co-operating. If she had survived, and she should have, would she have so "co-operated" in court? "Judge, you're going to have to pry this cigarette from my cold, dead fingers.")
Now to ask two unfair questions. 1) name another. 2) make a list of BLM's martyrs and their rap sheets (can't they find ANY deserving of a riotous response?)
Look, police reform is a constant necessity (they are part of the State, after all) and there are too many power-hungry cops.
But there is no war on Blacks, by police or Capitalism. They are free to co-operate, and they are free to build capital, just like their white countrymen.
My response wasn't to you but SS isn't the easiest in terms of following comment threading.
The AG in Minnesota is former head of the DNC who had to step down from the position he hand picked Ilhan Omar to transfer to. Who the fuck are we kidding that entire situation was as rigged as it gets from the cops getting away with it for decades to it suddenly being a media shitshow at Election time.
No dude. We can criticize the cops but we also shouldn't be okay with such soviet type show trial and unfair justice.
Well said.
But, as you know counselor, "malice aforethought" is a mountain to show. What if Chauvin had an additional charge of murder, for which he was found not guilty (in addition to the manslaughter convictions we have obtained)? The public knows this. The public knows it WAS murder. The practical ramifications of such a high-profile and important case (in the changing of police procedures, if not personnel) means that it IS accurate, if not strictly "legalistical," for journalists and their public to refer to THIS manslaughterer as a murderer.
At some point in the 9 minutes, Chauvin became a murderer.
We can debate the specifics but it is indisputable he forfeited his right to be a cop and a free man.
What do you think of the defence and other witnesses during the trial admitting that it is often the case that people high on drugs often act more violently even after fainting for a bit? Not saying I am for this defence but I am curious what's your take as Floyd was resisting arrest even prior to and had claimed he can't breathe even before Chauvin had his knee on him - so Chauvin could have just thought Floyd was lying.
Thank you for the question. What you post here are completely reasonable points that could end up winning an appeal, imo. Yes, these high-profile, and highly politicized, court cases are rife for all manner of manipulative chicanery, but I still trust the courts. I trust that the judge did the best he could under the circumstances (he certainly erred in not sequestering), I trust that the jury DID take into account all the evidence presented, including facts such as the well-known erratic behavior of those under the influence (although that is abused as an ex post facto excuse for just the type of behavior displayed by the defendent)
Yes, Mr. Floyd WAS resisting, even as he WAS over-dosing. (Can we go after his dealer/counterfeiter/taker-of-the-5th/"friend" who told him to swallow his shit? Didn't THAT guy murder his friend?)
But, the trial did change my mind. Chauvin could have let up after a couple of minutes. Handcuffed, overdosing: Floyd wasn't getting up again, imo, and if he did they could have methodically subdued him again. That would have been the action of the policeman we all want, not the animal I saw holding a man down until he died.
M. News, I so admire your posts. Your arguments are excellent and well-supported, and you are obviously very well-informed (not to mention I judge you a fellow classical liberal), so I have a question you probably can answer: Why did it take so long for police back-up to arrive?
"The public" doesn't know Jack Shit about much of anything. "The public" THINKS and it's thinking is often very far from reality.
May I substitute "public opinion" for "public"?
Actually, since the case will most likely be appealed and the verdict overturned, it may eventually turn out that Floyd wasn't "murdered" by anybody. After all, his O2 count was 98%.
I completely agree with you.
Mr. Greenwald is typically careful on such points so I suspect it was not a mistake.
Without starting a debate, here's a different take than the 3 points you propose.
For some, what happened to George Floyd was less about race and more about a fundamental problem with policing in America. For this group, yes Derek Chauvin was the individual who killed Floyd, but he was emblematic of a larger structural problem with policing in America. For this group, things like Police Unions, the thin blue life of silence, qualified immunity, asset forfeiture along with prosecutors and judges willing to look the other way and excuse illegal and corrupt police behavior resulted in George Floyd's death as much as Derek Chauvin did.
Under this model, you can exclude racism as a singular factor without thinking every cop is a racist or bad, but that the death of Derek Chauvin was part of a larger systemic problem that needs to be reformed.
The alternative and historically more common belief was that Derek Chauvin was a singular bad apple plucked from a barrel of goodness. A view that people are increasingly beginning to challenge even if we remove racism from the equation.
As I said, my goal is not to persuade anyone on this. Just to lay out a popular alternative view to the one you described. A view that was becoming increasingly popular even before the rise of BLM and George Floyd.
Did it ever occur to you that Chauvin was actually trying to SAVE Floyd's life? The videos show the man had practically gone berserk. He was being restrained until medical personnel could arrive.
"Did it ever occur to you that Chauvin was actually trying to SAVE Floyd's life?"
Sure, about as much as I believe the riot that occurred at the Capitol January 6 was actually Antifa.
I just wish good hearted people like Derek Chavin didn't try so hard to save people. Perhaps we would have a lot fewer people die in custody.
The events of 1/06 were in my experience incited by Ms. Pelosi, the Capitol Police and Antifa. It was beyond foolish of people to enter the building. The "insurrection" served it's purpose: using that excuse, they certified the election results and denied us the audits we were demanding.
Yes, I beleive many people truly believe that and it concerns me.
I'm not sure how a pluralistic democracy continues to function when you have groups of people within it that have such different partisan views of how, why and what happened.
FOR SOME....EMBLEMATIC....We are talking about a case. With facts. The rest of your feel good crystal talk is irrelevant to the actual individual case.
Exactly. The non-legal aspects of high-profile cases are more important, more enlightening, than the procedural and legalese ones. Of course justice is not served or arrived at through procedural/definitional error, but once the people accept that legal procedure has been proper, then definition of terms revert to colloquial, public, and social definitions, as they should for people to then make a collective decision on societal change.
Oh look, another authoritarian bootlicker. The "not all cops" narrative is belied by all those cops who stand around and watch their fellow goose-steppers brutalize and murder citizens. Police forces attract authoritarian right wing law and order fetishists who are often extremely racist and are willing to do the bidding of society's elite. Have to control the riff-raff, after all! All big city police departments have long histories of murderous brutality. I have witnessed immense and grotesque brutality in person just over 50 years ago. Seattle cops beat a black classmate of mine unconscious and dragged him face-down over concrete steps. There were 8-10 of them. Only 2 of them ground up his face, while the rest DID NOTHING to stop them. No cop turns in another cop, as a hard and fast rule. And if they do, they are in for a world of pain and hurt and possibly "friendly fire" as well.
50 years ago. Thank goodness they can't get away with that anymore. Perhaps you should lose your hyperbole and apprehend today's reality. Policing has improved, and will continue to improve, imo.
Moronic statement in light of ubiquitous videos showing cops brutalizing and murdering people... the same as it ever was. They kill about 1,000 people a year in death cult America. The sharp tip of the iceberg for their brutality. There are also other endemic abuses as we saw in the well documented Chicago cop torture dungeon that tortured false confessions out of black men for years. Of course, it is your privilege to believe otherwise, the facts notwithstanding.
You start with ad hominem, and end with grace.
Fuck you and thank you.
You would seem to have expert insight into moronic statements, so I'm inclined to give greater weight to your opinion on this topic ...
I am right leaning but as I have commented several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system. Because if not, then the situation will get worse.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
Sure, most police officers are law abiding, but still Chauvin was a representative of the MPD. And just like all the other police depts. around the nation, it was the MPD's responsibility to weed out hate speech and murderers. Our federal, state and local governments have condoned this for way too long.
Excellent point. I’m sure a simple oversight, but it should be corrected. Good catch.
But he was enabled by the MPD. Plus, institutional/structural racism is prevalent.
Good points, James. Whether intended or not, generalizing criminal killing to entire departments, or cops in general, is also dangerous. With the exception of the nut job fringe, everyone knows we need cops to maintain a civil society keeping the criminal element in check.
Dangerous, but sometimes (most of the time?) necessary for reform.
Oh who was DA then? Oh right Amy Klobuchar, the good little Clintonian bootlicker she is. Ask her about Jeremiah Sullivan.
"...who do self-coup to obtain more power."
What a wonderful phrase! Jan. 6 comes to mind. Whenever I hear the word "coup" used in current discussion, my first thought is how lucky can a lowly dictator get?
You misunderstand my sentiment, or I mis-communicate, if you think I am claiming either Trump was a dictator, or Jan. 6 was a real coup. The attempt at irony in my last sentence was NOT meant to be a reference to DJT, but to the power mad neo-liberal Statists and would-be dictators of the Democrat Party who attempted to use Jan.6 as their "self-coup."
As usual, M. Amy, your post is better-written than mine!
No apology necessary.
I somewhat disagree with your last para. If DJT gave the American people any gift, it was to goad the Left into over-reaction, and over-playing of their hand (not that he realized that himself!). I suppose the mid-terms will determine whether my optimism or your pessimism is better placed.
But those Dems are right: the GodXi's gift of pandemic allowed the control-freaks to freak out the people enough to accept just this side of martial law, destroying an amazing economy that DJT would have rode to landslide. And despite your extreme dislike of the 45th POTUS, don't you agree that would have been better?
I also do not think the Democrats will attempt a SCOTUS expansion in the end for political calculation. They aren't nearly as popular as the media would have you believe. Well, I hope I'm right and you are wrong! (No offense intended.)
Per Tulsi Gabbard....check out the Megyn Kelly podcast interview with Tulsi. It's pretty illuminating. Asked if she would ever accept a split ticket, she said yes. I don't think she'll become Republican but I have a strong sense she'll become an Independent.
I can respect Tulsi but she's a gun grabber and therefore a BIG NO.
Hmm, she might be redeemable on that. We'll see.
I like to call it the blue state/city blues. They elect the same political party over and over expecting a different result.
Yeah, like the good-hearted Socialists always end up having to say, "Maybe next time we can get the right people to run our lives for us."
Agreed, and by then its too late, the damage is done.
Tim Scott is a RINO, don't fall for it. Watch Richard Baris's expose on him. Despite all that Trump did for Tim Scott, including sponsoring his police reform bill, Tim back stabbed Trump and used to speak ill of him behind his back. Don't trust him.
Can't find anything specific in a quick search. Can you post a link? I'm interested in reading more about this. Tim Scott needs to stop listening to Lindsay Graham.
literally every politician you named should break from their party, its too bad most of our elected officials live in fear of the two party system
one of my favorite things about AOC is how she has refused to toe the party line at times
fuck the two parties
Good lord. AOC is a grifter. Jimmy Dore has been exposing her almost everyday and because of this AOC claimed Jimmy was inciting violence against her. She called the cops on a lefty who was criticizing her on twitter. Stop being fooled by her and Bernie. Otherwise people deserve all the pain they get for supporting these people.
Who said she isn't. I never said I liked her politics, but then, I don't have to. She doesnt represent my district or state.
I said I liked how she told her party to fuck itself. That particular part of her behavior can be ok without me being the leader of her fanclub.
Not everything is binary DEM/REP politics. You can like an aspect or issue of another party's reps.
Uh, not really?
Fantastic article but I will disagree on one point
"affirmatively defending the stifling of political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group"
This lack of interest in the central free speech issues of the day is bad enough, but the ACLU has sued a woman in Washington state to block a FOIA request.
https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/sports-north-america-correctional-systems-prisons-social-affairs-9b0213b0096cf3a906bd80e9490087a7
The ACLU has spent decades pushing for these types of public disclosure laws, used them extensively to try and hold various governments to account, published information to educate private citizens on how to use those laws to good effect. This woman went on the ACLU's website, followed their directions on how to file a FOIA request and then was sued by the ACLU of Washington state to try and prevent the disclosure of information on state run prisons. The ACLU has actively started fighting its traditional role. They're not just sitting on their hands and offering empty platitudes; they have crossed the line into helping the state keep private citizens in the dark about how their government functions because this deals with trans rights in a way that does not line up with their position.
Great comment. In my experience the Washington State ACLU has become one of the worst chapters in the country, content to take political donations from the very prosecutors in the State who make their living violate the civil rights of citizens on a daily basis.
They have simply become a wine club for overly privileged house wives with little interest in defending the civil rights of the marginalized.
"overly privileged house wives"? - who should just be content with baking cookies ...
I would prefer a sammich, but cookies would be good
How is Jack Phillips a bigot?
Ah yes - house wives are soooo out of touch ....
As a house wife I can tell you some of us are.
Since you joined this thread I keep hoping for something more than snide, adolescent and off topic comments. Do you have an opinion on the Washington ACLU we are discussing. or are you just here to troll?
Sorry, but can't help commenting on some of the "stuff" I see posted here - if you can't handle sarcasm .....
Amazing! The founders of the ACLU must be rolling over in their graves. Think about this. Citizen makes a FOIA request. Instead of a response from the appropriate government agency, she gets sued by the ACLU, which also Sue's a newspaper. How in the world does the ACLU even have standing to bring this lawsuit?
its clear whoever is actually in charge of the ACLU has made trans priorities more important than anything else for the group, as Glenn has shown in his article.
its a shame, because, as he mentions, there are plenty of other well-funded groups doing this.
Its also a shame no one is naming the person or persons in charge of the ACLU currently.
I dont feel like researching it right now but maybe will revisit.
"[Cullors] denounced the Post reporting as "frankly racist, and sexist.”"
Mostly off topic, but I'm so sick of this reflexive response whenever a woman and/or non-white on the political left is subjected to scrutiny. It's one more way of saying off limits - shut up!
It's also indicative of a change in tactics by liberals to tear down the system. For years, liberals have been trying to put a wedge between people based on economic status. Economic class warfare was their tool of choice for trying to split the country and have two or more very divided and hostile parties. That really hasn't worked for the most part. But with Floyd and the BLM movement, they've latched onto race as the wedge issue that will inevitably tear the country apart and allow them to rebuild it in their image.
Anyone who disagrees is racist. The Supreme court is racist because it has nine justices, so we need to add another four. The filibuster is a racist tool. If you believe there is a big problem at our southern border it must be because you are a racist. White people were natural born racists and need to be re-educated. All police shootings of black people are unjustified and obviously racist. And it goes on and on and on.
Sadly, it's gotten to the point where BLM, Antifa and progressives have organized so well that the minute you are labeled a racist, you are a target. We're at a tipping point where I'd imagine many people are sick of the extreme identity politics of the left (real racism under it's long forgotten definition), but are too scared to speak up or do anything. It's getting to a perfect tipping point where something is going to give and it's not going to be pretty.
I think you got all the symptoms right, but the diagnosis of illness wrong - all of this is exactly to preserve the system not to tear it down. After 30+ year of neoliberalism, it finally started to dawn on the public that they are economically doomed, their kids won't have social mobility and that their communities are disintegrating. There was real danger that - with right leadership - populism may direct the anger at the owner class which captured all the wealth of globalism, while leaving all the downsides to the working class ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:119;series:Assets;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7;units:shares;range:2005.2,2020.2 ) .
Nothing better to deflect from that danger than to inject any number of wedge / red-button issues to break up / atomize the population into a state of perennial strife. Even better if the party in power becomes the arbiter of which group deserves higher or lower ranking in the hierarchy of grievances and hand out occasional candy to one versus the other pitting further one against the other.
Edgar J. Hoover famously said that the biggest internal threat to America was when Black Panthers started to offer free breakfast to poor white kids too. He was 100% right. To prevent anything like that happening, injecting racial strife is crucial, so that poor blacks and whites - and anybody else - has so much animosity towards each other that they never realize that their key interests are essentially the same. At today's "BLM breakfast table" white kids would never be invited, or if yes, only to be lectured how inherently "privileged" they are - even as they are just as hungry like all the others.
Yeah, like the misogynistic attacks on Phyllis Schlafly from the women-hating EPA movement?
I don't recall misogynistic attacks on Phyllis Schlafly, though she was definitely a flash point for vitriol - for and against. Not saying there were no misogynistic attacks, just don't recall them.
I was making a joke in solidarity with your observation.
Okay, sorry. I guess I was a little slow on the uptake!
Why do you think Biden put people from WOKE group part of his administration?
You want your $2000 you were promised? You want the $15 minimum wage or medicare for all you were promised? You want to stop forever wars or want to hold Wall Street accountable? You want businesses to open up and stop covid fear mongering? You want a better infrastructure bill or stop oil pipelines?
You are a sexist for speaking against the first female treasury secretary, racist for speaking against the black DOD secretary, transphobic for speaking against the trans health minister, inciting violence against AOC for "force the vote", poor uneducated deplorable for wanting $15 minimum wage, racist for speaking against the first Native American interior secretary. Oh and Russia!!!
Put all the minority pawns and then exploit them for any criticism that comes your way while you do evil things.
The marxist take over is basically being exploited by the deep state to divide and conquer. The "leaders" of the useful idiot "progressives" need as many oppressor-oppressed relationships to divide and conquer the people. So originally it was based on ruling class oppressing the people. But the "leaders" figured out they could take it a step further by creating artificial oppressor-oppressed groups based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation and what not. Divide and conquer has been used for centuries to retain power because as long as the people keep fighting each other over things like race, sex etc, they ignore the real enemy - the establishment politicians and elites.
I would recommend reading this:
https://americanmind.org/features/the-racial-marxism-of-blm/the-plot-to-change-america/
> How Marxist ideologues took over our culture. The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics Is Dividing The Land of The Free: cultural marxism: Before Gramsci, Marcuse, Millett, and the rest, there were, of course, Marx and Engels. But seeing everything through the lens of economics and property produced blind spots for Marx and Engels and their followers, notably the role that race and ethnicity could play (and would go on to play) in the revolution to overthrow the ruling class.
Pretty sure your comment is either racist or sexist.
It may be misogynistic as well, I sometimes get confused
I mean, the whole Facebook thing - I deleted my account in early 2017 after the 2016 shitshow there, and it was obvious where it was going. Isn't that the correct response here? Vis a vis the ACLU, isn't that also a lost cause? The organization is not coming back from where it has gone.
One of my friends puts it like this:
Formerly respectable organization gets taken over by the left, which then guts the organization and wears it like a mask, all the while demanding respect for what they used to be.
It's a modern confidence game.
..."Formerly respectable organization gets taken over by the LEFT, which then guts the organization and wears it like a mask, all the while demanding respect for what they used to be...."
A nice thought but why it contains word "left" -- the ones taken over by the "right" are OK?
And -- since when are DNC oligarchs "left"? The use of "left" and "right" epithets diminishes discussion, including when the right masquerades as "left".
Anything "left" has left long ago any of the Clintons, Obama, Biden and their sycophants...
Yes, yes, Boris, we know that you spend all day here "correcting" people that the left isn't really the left. Consider this a disclaimer for all future posts I make so that you can save your time commenting.
Well, I'm guilty of similar offense on the right. Every time someone from the left/Left/"left"/anti-wealth/anti-wealth-disparity/equality-of-outcome/"fairness" crowd (sorry M. Boris, I hope I cover it all for most people) equates crony-Capitalism with real Capitalism, I blow a gasket and spew here.
OK - but why are you happy with these persistent but meaningless epithets? What is wrong with you?
I'm not interested in having the same conversation with you again. Normal people mean what normal people mean when they use phrases.
If you think that the democrats aren't really left, that says more about you than it does the rest of us. At this point I don't care.
"I'm not interested in having the same conversation with you again."
A-ha! So you have elsewhere divulged what is wrong with you, you right-leaning scoundrel! (Sorry, I should have expanded "right" with my own 5-page definition.)
I agree with you that we should probably stop addressing people as left and right as the definition of "liberal" is no longer true for these people. But I am curious about this. We know that trust in media is at an all time high amongst the democrats (75%) while lowest in republicans (10%). Glenn also pointed out that vast majority of ACLU funding is coming from democrats. So now either you agree that these are overtaken by Democrats and democrats consist of the left. Or you would claim that democrats are somehow made up of right wingers and right wingers are funding BLM? This weird logic doesn't make sense imo.
I think a better way to address this would be to call them all establishment cronies which exploit both the left and right. Similar to how we call people like Bush, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney etc "RINOs", you should start calling these democrats "DINOs".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
I haven't used social media in a decade because I refused to support such things. However, there are other dilemmas to consider:
If all people who disagreed with such censorship left the platform, would that create the illusion of consent to those remaining on the platform?
Are social media platforms a place for various ideas to be represented, or just the illusion of such?
Would those that disagree with censorship appear to be even more "other" if they aren't present on those platforms with everyone else?
Social media is a walled garden with no dissent permitted. It wasn't the original intent, but it is what it has become. If you have a differing opinion, you will be squelched there.
My conclusion is that it would be best to leave and withhold my consent to some propagandistic narrative being pushed by the censors.
So to simplify, my answer to 1 is no, because that illusion is already present and there's not a thing to be done about it _on_ the owned platform.
The answer to 2 is obviously "an illusion of such".
The answer to 3 is "who cares, you aren't going to be able to do anything about the foisted narrative anyway". You already are othered, so do you sit there and take it or move on? I say move on. No pun intended. ;-)
Indeed, that has been my perspective for a long time now as well.
I suppose I just can't help wondering if departing to maintain my own individuality of opinion and sanity perhaps was the wrong move. Hindsight can plague with questions like "what if I had spoken up or been more active against censorship" from earlier on.
It likely isn't worth ruminating over now. Yet, it still stings to see how far we've fallen with technology that had such promise to elevate us. Thank you for your insight.
I never got into social media and I am millennial. I am also not surprised what the social media has become. Even as early as 2010 I despised everything that it represented (fake drama, fake friendship and happiness). Everything was "fake" to me so I decided not to partake. Everyone who participates in social media, doing it with very heavy emotional toll, so leaving is the only option. Social media can be useful on small scale, but majority of humanity has no capacity for moderation and responsible behavior, so it will always turn into "high school". Everyone who participates in all that deserve all the misery. You can't save the world by being on social media, so My advise be happy that you removed yourself from it
I am a boomer. I believe you represent the "silent majority" of millenials (and foretell of those of all generations after). Thus my optimism in "the kids these days."
Thank you.
Oddly, I share that optimism. As a GenX/Boomer (cusp year), the young people (late 20s, early 30s) I engage with (neighbors and professional colleagues) don't spout radical ideas or engage in performative sneering. They are hopeful, hardworking, polite and respectful. Given the way millennials are portrayed in the media, I was surprised by this.
Agreed, and why I did not join fakebook. Holden Caulfield also agrees.
Yes, but if millions get censored and banned, it creates an "elephant in the room" that is harder and harder to ignore by the ignorant.
The ignorant will continue to ignore. That's why they're ignorant!
No, I disagree. Yes, there will always be apathy and ignorance, but individuals change, and the level of ignorance can be reduced. Permit me to replace "the" with "today's" before "ignorant"?
i think those are terrific questions, and that a journalist like glenn (or matt, or bari) is perfectly poised to tackle.
when functioning "correctly" the social media platforms could be as useful and egalitarian as the "speakers' corner." however, the speakers' corner hasn't been monetized, is highly localized, and caters to those who have no or limited fear of public speaking as the format isn't quite anonymous. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner)
as to your last point, it seems clear that those who reject censorship will soon not be able to have a presence on the platforms, voluntarily or not.
you touch on an important issue that often -- always?? -- goes unremarked: the role that FBs "customers" play in tacitly supporting FBs behavior by remaining on the platform. unless and until a large bloc of users mass-cancels their accounts, nothing will change.
Social media is a natural monopoly. You can't just create a site and expect users to show up. This is what Google found out with plus. That said, Facebook relies on ubiquity. Each person refusing to have an account there is a grain of sand in the avalanche when users abandon the site. They probably won't delete their accounts, but they'll stop using it.
I can't predict the time frame but I can predict the result.
facespace :-)
The poisoning of the final frontier. We, the high school of the galaxy.
What you are seeing is why lifelong conservatives have never, and will never trust the liberal media.
A lot of people would call me a fucking hippie. I worked in the environmental industry in the early 90's, well before it was cool to be green. Everything they say in the media, on the left, is almost 100% BULLSHIT.
The right has its own myriad problems, but the left does not know how to do anything but lie in the media and frame narratives 24/7.
Just google Walter Duranty. Google Jayson Blair. Google Brian Williams. The list goes on and on and on. Liars and PR shills, ever since 1996.
This was my experience working at a highly respected affordable housing non-profit. The board was packed full of private housing developers, who were the biggest donors. And all the research/policy/advocacy (lobbying) we did, somehow always seemed to fundamentally be about putting more money in their pockets. Sometimes they and we were on the right side of issues. Sometimes not.
But you would have a research and data staff who were brilliant and amazing at picking apart all the special pleading, red herrings, non sequiturs, false dichotomies and other argumentative and data manipulation in conservative research and statistics. But then if you pointed out we were doing the exact same things in our research they would be like "no no no no this is for a good cause". As though our opponents also didn't think their cause was good...
It was a good cause, but the people seemed absolutely as self deluded as any "privatize the roads" Norquist wonk, and perhaps more dangerous because they 100% believe they are the righteous.
Well, perhaps when we, as a society, realize that there are some issues that cannot and will never be solved (in a just manner), then we can have open and honest discussions about mitigating the problems we face together.
'Til then, there are voters to be conned and money to be made.
Yes, the '96 POTUS campaign is a good place to locate the "inflection point" of the authoritarian Left's media co-opt, when the corruption of the Democratic Party, which had always been present (slavery, anti-Capitalism), really entered the steep part of the curve. The impetus was the '94 capture of the House, after 40 years of Democrat Statism. The Left could not let that keep happening. More drastic (subversive) measures were required.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
Changed media ownership laws from thousands to about 6 major national networks.
Ah. I thought you might be refering to that, also, but I am in the minority that disagree with the import of that decision (I don't want to argue that point), so I plead guilty to hijacking your post to make my own point.
Mind educating me on this?
It may shock you but the people who write these laws make it incredibly hard for the average voter to read them.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf
It is just like when the church didnt want people to read and interpret bibles on their own. Its removes the control aspect.
Not the best and by no means complete but here is a pretty good writeup.
http://neconomides.stern.nyu.edu/networks/telco96.html
Are you just watching fox news? Also they are not liberal press, they are press of establishment and for capitalism, so right wingers/conservatives should be proud. The money that you have been worshiping for centuries won, so why are you complaining now. All American media is corporate media, which only cares for corporate interests and I wonder who gave them those powers (Citizen's VS United, trickle down politics and etc). Don't pull that cap like "The right has its own myriad problems", but accept that even so called democratic party has mostly "right wing polices". Try and defend polices Mr conservative, don't just name call "liberal". The majority of USA issues are brought to by conservative shit heads, so enjoy your shit show.
how much meth did do before making that post?
I never laughed so hard after reading a post.
I can see you are defending your polices as a proper conservative with name calling and just overall BS. People like you deserve all the misery because they never accept their fuck ups. I got news for you Mr Conservative, the shit is just starting. New anti terror laws are being targeted on fellow Americans and I wonder whose polices normalized that.
When you say absolutely moronic things like "The majority of USA issues are brought to by conservative shit heads" and then say I am name calling, you simply expose that you are a massive inbred shitlord and aren't worth any more of a response to on this forum.
Which part of the statement is wrong? For decades conservatives supported war on terror, trickle down economics, Citizens VS united and various other polices that are destroying the republic now. Right now so called democrats do the same thing, but the ideas are conservative. Now all the tools that corrupt government was allowed to use against people of the world, are being turned against citizenry and I see people like you somehow thinking that liberals did it. The best part about the situation is that people like you can't hide behind "America first" BS, as in all evil that USA does is justified because people lives are better. This is the third attempt that I bring up in regards polices and twice already you avoided arguing polices and that is the truth of people like you. When you are cornered, you sleather like a snake.
you aren't even American so gtfo
As a long time-admirer of the ACLU, it has been very sad to see them devolve into an identity-politics advocacy group. Their rapid and drastic metamorphosis has left a void in the fabric of US society (despite the existence of FIRE and other, smaller, similarly-minded groups). I foolishly held out hope that the departure of Trump to Mar-a-lago and authoritarian, identity-obsessed "liberals" to brunch would see the ACLU pivot back to its core mission, but unfortunately the opposite has occurred. Their ongoing, bizarre obsession with transgender "issues" during a period of time when free speech itself is under concerted attack by virtually ever power structure in the country is sickening and astounding. Just as bad as ACLU's silence on these critical issues, has been their proactive, such as their defense of privileged, bigoted asshole Oumou Kanoute, who falsely defamed several low-wage workers at Smith college as racists. Very simply, the ACLU bears absolutely no resemblance to the organization it once was, despite the lingering presence of some older lawyers who may still (silently) support their founding principles. When I get their solicitation for funds these days, it goes right into the trash.
With courage in such short supply among left-leaning organizations, this sort of tawdry behavior isn't too surprising. Like the NYTimes and WaPo, ACLU has determined that they make more money by giving a slice of their audience what they want instead of sticking to their foundational principles. Given the epic grift of the #BLM organization and its leaders, I wonder which of these groups will be the first to break the wall of silence and shout that the emperor has no clothes.
I question whether it's the greed of internal staff or coercion by increasingly raging currents of outside money with specific goals. I don't think the staff at NYT and WP made strategic decisions to be scriveners for power because that sells papers; indeed, Greenwald has credibly argued this watered down journalism doesn't sell.
I think we have a handful of people with more planetary financial power than anyone in history, and the interconnected planet that makes that power more universal than at any prior point in history. They are buying out the store. They are going to write the ONLY narrative. They will create reality day in and day out, however it suits them.
I'm not so sure I buy the argument about NYTimes and WaPo. They surely know that they're turning off a large majority of their readers, but they did gangbuster business during the Trump years by leading the 'resistance'. Much of their reporting these days is embarrassingly bad, yet, again, they do it anyway. Whatever the reason, it ain't a good thing! :-) I agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph, BTW.
Remember - Bezos (and CIA) purchased WaPo -- Zuckerberg (and CIA) is reportedly trying to acquire NYTimes
The Sulzbergers won't ever sell. Without the masthead, the family is a net zero.
The ACLU lost its integrity years ago, and yes, it was over BLM/Antifa. It has refused to counter Antifa's suppression of free speech for years. Now it's an apologist for BLM. Liberals have chosen power politics over constitutional law, from the White House to the grassroots, they are corrupting the system.
I'm wondering, Glenn, if you have any thoughts on alternative organizations that are, or can, take up the mantle of the ACLU's prior uncompromising defense of free speech. The group Defending Rights and Dissent seems as if it is in the right ballpark, and yet I don't see combatting internet censorship getting much emphasis from it. There's the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, but last time I checked, it also seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy. I pose the question because I'm wondering whether a new organization needs to be created. As a constitutional lawyer myself, I would be willing to support such an endeavor if there does not appear to be a better alternative.
Duck-Duck-Go-ing "conservative ACLU" reveals recently-launched America First Legal (which founder Stephen Miller describes as "conservative response to the ACLU") as well as the American Center for Law and Justice. I'm not familiar with either group and am also curious to hear Glenn's thoughts.
Hmm...So the search engines know the ACLU is biased now. Well, that is SOME progress.
Your question is directed to Mr. Greewald, so I will leave it to him to answer, but I do have a question:
"There's the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, but last time I checked, it also seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy."
I follow and am a small donor to the EFF. Can you provide an example of this? If it's true I would like to know.
Take a look at their halfhearted (if any) response to recent censorship. The EFF is still at least claiming they want to support the mission of free speech, but their actions are being deterred by wokeism. If they wanted my support, they'd have to be as vigorous as they were 15 years ago, say in fighting National Security Letters or keeping us informed on the SCO case (if you weren't already following it on Groklaw).
See Incarnadine's reply below, which strikes me as accurate. I do support the work of the EFF, but I can't very well furnish an example of something it is NOT doing; that's like trying to prove a negative. The point is that it seems to be leaving the issue of actual internet/social media censorship off of its agenda, or at least it's principal agenda.
I will respond to Incarnadine below, but your response (and Incarnadine's response below) do not support your claim about "liberal orthodoxy" at the EFF.
My request for an example was made in good faith since no one can know everything a group does. I'm not a part of the EFF, just one small donor, but I don't give money to organizations that place politics and orthodoxy above principle. If you are going to assert the EFF follow a liberal orthodoxy, you can't defend that assertion with a statement that you can't disprove it's not true. You need to support it with some evidence they are following a liberal orthodoxy.
With the ACLU for instance, I can point to real examples (failure to defend sex workers rights, the 1st amendment, fighting civil rights reforms to Title 9) as proof they have chosen personal ideology over principle.
As for a recent review of the EFF, they have stood up to Google, Facebook and Twitter by defending section 230 of the of the Communications Decency Act. They fought against FOSTA/SESTA, the Earn IT Act and criticized the take down of Parlor.
This was the EFF's reaction to the take down of Parler:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-private-censorship-parler-and-stack
"Infrastructure Takedowns Are Equally If Not More Likely to Silence Marginalized Voices"
"Whatever you think of Parler, these decisions should give you pause. Private companies have strong legal rights under U.S. law to refuse to host or support speech they don’t like. But that refusal carries different risks when a group of companies comes together to ensure that forums for speech or speakers are effectively taken offline altogether."
Given all this, it seems clear that internet/social media censorship is a focus of their agenda.
Thank you for providing additional information about the EFF. Perhaps it is doing more on this front than I had realized from my previous exploration of its website. I will have another look and reassess. I appreciate the constructive feedback.
Exactly what I was just going to post in your defense, M. Richard Whitney!
The issue is the LACK of examples of protesting neo-liberal censorship. Perhaps your naysayers, who make good points about the "sphere" or focus of the EFF, could speak to your larger point that a new, properly-focused organization need form.
A nitpick, since most posters seem to get your meaning, but shouldn't your sentence read, "...from confronting censorship that ORIGINATES IN NEO-liberal orthodoxy." or, "from confronting censorship that targets CLASSICAL liberal orthodoxy."? I think the distinction needs to be made for logical clarity.
I would agree with your more precise description. Sure.
Do you have any examples of where the Electronic Freedom Foundation “seemed to shy away from confronting censorship that targets liberal orthodoxy.”
This type of issue (from Glenn’s article) really isn’t where EFF generally focuses their efforts. And it’s not where we need them focusing their attention - we need civil rights advocacy groups for that. Let EFF focus on why you might not be able to post a picture of your dog on FB because you don’t really own the image.
Their halfhearted response to the Twitter/Facebook/Google/Amazon targeting of particular organizations for censorship. This is bread and butter for them in the past. They'd be screaming from the rooftops if this were conservatives doing it in the 2000s, and you can look back at the EFF's history to see that they did so. Hell, it was every day or two on Slashdot there would be an article referencing the EFF in this context. Mostly dupes, but still...
Can you provide an example of where this would be part of their bread and butter in the past? I did a few recent searches on their site before my initial post but didn't find anything that seemed to be going against their organizational mission or be partisan. It's not so easy to just go find stuff on the internet if you don't have the cases or search terms to use. So if you have some examples, I'd like to see them. I don't follow everything on EFF.
I do agree on the Parler response being halfhearted (and incorrect) if this is what you are referencing by, "response to the Twitter/Facebook/Google/Amazon targeting of particular organizations for censorship." However, this is not what I see as in their main mission. That is an old-school Carnegie/Rockefeller, Steel/Railroads collusion and antitrust issue. The fact that they are tech companies doesn't take that out of that broader law and put it into the EFF arena. I have never seen EFF go after Disney on antitrust issues - I have seen them go after "Disney laws" and other tech companies utilizing those laws or similar IP laws. If you jump over to the EFF podcast launched in November 2020 - right in the thick of a lot of these censorship issues - you see that this isn't really their thrust - hell they even have someone on from the Cato Institute, not exactly a "liberal think tank." (But showing the American libertarian aspects of the tech world).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/introducing-how-fix-internet-new-podcast-eff
I questioned Richard Whitney for an example of his claim that the EFF follows a "liberal orthodoxy." You are responding to my question about this by pointing out that Glenn's article here is not the focus of the EFF's attention. That is not an answer to my question asking for examples of a liberal orthodoxy at the EFF.
The EFF is a civil liberties organization that has worked for 29 years to protect consumer interests, innovation, and free expression in the digital world.
As far as I am aware, the EFF has been consistently against all Internet censorship right and left and have used their attorney's to fight against internet censorship in court. You can see their opposition to the take down of Parler I posted above for Richard Whitney. This hardly sounds like the voice of a group with a liberal ideology. Those with a liberal ideology I know of supported the take down of Parler at the time under the "well it's a private company" disingenuous argument.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-private-censorship-parler-and-stack
I have not found an example where EFF has placed partisanship above principle, but I am willing to be corrected on this if I am given a real example. Generally these partisan attacks come down to "well they did not provide as much support as loudly as I wanted." Sometimes that is accurate. Sometimes we are dealing in a nuanced argument that is more complex than simply shouting your support from the rooftop. Unsupported claims of ideology tell me more about the person making the claim than the target of the accusation.
Unfortunately, political ideology makes people lazy. They often claim a liberal or conservative ideology affected their principles without proof. Sometimes they have an excellent example, but just haven't provided it because they assume people know. I was hoping that was the case with Mr. Whitney's claim that they follow a liberal ideology.
All too often ideologues are simply repeating what someone else told them about a group without proof.
So far all I am seeing are generalities about how the EFF has a liberal ideology the way liberals often assert right wing organizations are hate groups without proof.
I don't find the "but wings" argument persuasive.
I think you might have the comments order out of order. :) I didn't respond to you - and it appears we are coming at this from the same point - and both would like to see examples of EFF being partisan if it is happening.
You're right and my apology. Sometimes is hard for me to follow the threads here. :)
I just went to their web site and joined. Their Board of Advisors has members from a wide range of expertise and positions.
That's what I find most interesting and promising.
Thank you, will check it out.
I hope they are not funded by Ford foundation - that one always gives the game away. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/11/pers-o11.html
This is a brand new organization. Chris Rufo who has been fighting back against Critical Race Theory and others in the same vain have organized. No doubt they are fully aware of the Ford Foundation. Check out their website....such a broad range of voices and thinkers.
Yup, great newly formed organization. Found out about them via Chris Rufo and Bari Weiss.
I guess I'm suffering from some ailment lately because I find myself having a very cynical take on most of the bullshit passing for discourse and public policy.
The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union - have not been supporting civil liberties for years now. It's another grifting organization, like most corporations pitting ethnicities and values against each other trying to capitalize on division.
Governors have become local dictators, and the law is a fucking joke. I truly appreciate the angst of those who are triggered by all the infringements on the First Amendment, but frankly -you assholes have this coming. For decades you've shit on the 2nd Amendment and the DUE PROCESS OF LAW and now it's biting you in the ass. Suck it.
I support the right to arm bears!
Hmm..."arm bears"? Are they the ones with which one can accessorize?
Absolutely! Fur coats, slippers, hats, assault rifles ....
I had assumed the following story was an April Fools joke:
"In the policy, updated April 1, the ACLU says that it may share personal information "with communications platforms, such as Facebook and Mother Jones," and "may also share ACLU supporter information with organizations that display our advertisements or petitions to their subscribers ...
https://news.yahoo.com/aclu-says-shares-user-data-134345916.html
However, after reading this article by Mr. Greenwald, I am not so sure. It would be useful to ask a spokesperson for the Anti-Civil Liberties Union to comment.
The A-CLU, eh? Have they always been for liberties that are anti-civil? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
These people literally called for the banning of speech while Donald Trump was president and could decide what speech was permissible. The idea that THEIR speech could be wrongthink never once occurred to them, which sort of shows you how much forethought they have.
Great article Mr. Greewald.
With rare exception, the ACLU doesn't even defend the 1st amendment or civil rights when the State directly crushes and incarcerates people in clear violation of the Constitution and the 1st amendment: (Julian Assange, Sex workers, Title 9 reform to allow those accused to face and respond to their accuser). Given that they now turn a blind eye to State abuse, ignoring censorship by private organization must be easy.
To the endless frustration of those groups who have their civil rights violated by the State on a routine basis, the ACLU will often send a performative tweet of support that, but will not make a single call, spend a single dime or a single attorney hour to actually defending these people from the State.
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Center for Constitutional Rights, FIRE and the EFF do far more actual work to defend our civil rights and freedom of expression on a fraction of the budget the ACLU collects to provide only performative support since Ira Glasser stepped down as the 5th executive of the ACLU in 2001.
These are the groups we should support financially and otherwise.
Another great commentary on the failure of the ACLU from a sex worker activists a few years ago:
https://maggiemcneill.com/2017/10/02/the-silence/
It's really sad what has happened to the ACLU.
Sad and pathetic. I quite agree.
"Pathetic" in the contemptuous sense, not the compassionate one.
I have never had a Facebook account, not a Twitter account, I don’t go on utube, yet I’m surviving and thriving quiet nicely. As for the the trained Marxist Cullors, a money grubbing, dishonest rabble rouser, Marxism goes out the window as soon as money comes in the front door. She tried to justify her real estate purchases as being for the welfare of her family. Didn’t Marx advocate for family elimination? Yep, she’s a well trained hardcore Marxist. Until you can buy real estate in an exclusive white upper class neighborhood then hard core turns to mush. All the foolish, gullible woke are getting fleeced. Not that I mind. But at least the money should be pouring into black neighborhoods where it might do some real good. As for the New York Post, I consider it the paper of record in today’s world. The ACLU had my respect in Skokie when they defended the rights of the Nazis March through the Jewish neighborhood. And I’m a believing and practicing Jew. For the past 10 yrs I have not thought much of them. Just another mouthpieces for the liberal leftist hate mongers.
Well said.