BaalChatzaf

Civil War in Dallas???

Recommended Posts

 

What happened  yesterday in Dallas was beyond riot and upset.  It was an act of Civil War.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 

What happened  yesterday in Dallas was beyond riot and upset.  It was an act of Civil War.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds....

Government will use this act of violence as an additional excuse to ban guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Reports as of 4:30 p.m.

Shooter was Army Reservist, regular firearms target practice, etc., nutcase.

The authorities now apparently believe he told the truth in saying he acted alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jts said:

Government will use this act of violence as an additional excuse to ban guns.

 

Very likely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will they tell us the race of the attackers? Pretty soon if they were white. Never if they were black.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

When will they tell us the race of the attackers? Pretty soon if they were white. Never if they were black.

--Brant

Look here:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/08/micah-xavier-johnson-dallas-shooting-suspect

I think that answers your quesiton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderate liberals are emotionally pained over racial slights and support Affirmative Action and make it clear that they want society to move towards a seamless racial integration.  At the far end of this very same spectrum of left-wing racial politics there are the more extreme Black Lives Matter and New Black Panther positions of kill white people. 

Isn't that extraordinary? - this extreme divergence in political calls that run along the same vein of left-wing politics?  From racial kumbaya to racial hatred.

Too often we see some form of violence, or a call for violence in the name of race and the progressive talking heads discount it as if it is totally unrelated to their base view of seeing things through a racial lens.  It is reminiscent of the way academic socialists discount the Soviet Union as not being a proper or pure exposition of their principles.  Or of the way that the left says that the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists should not be named as such because they do not represent Islam - the religion of peace. 

These all a form of blanking out the cause-effect of principles.

Regarding race, Martin Luther King and Ayn Rand had it right... judge people on their character.  What happens when you don't?  When progressives took the rhetorical power of class-warfare and transformed it into identity politics, they began to use the horror of racism as a motivational power for gathering votes.  They wove narratives designed to fragment society with political correctness in the racial arena, with concepts like "White Privilege," and they have pushed and pushed this and In doing so, they are becoming the father and mother of a race war.

From the news: "During negotiations with police following the shootout in Dallas, [the suspect] 'said he was upset about Black Lives Matter', Dallas police chief David Brown told the media. 'The suspect said he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.' "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

When will they tell us the race of the attackers? Pretty soon if they were white. Never if they were black.

--Brant

How soon is not the issue. The issue is how much the media will say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

Regarding race, Martin Luther King and Ayn Rand had it right... judge people on their character.

Well said, and this is on a premise of judging people individually.  Instead, this shooter did a composition fallacy and judged "cops" and "white people".  Tragic :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

This, this and more of this.

This is how the recent killings needs to be handled in public.

I used to trash Van Jones because I adopted Glenn Beck's opinion of him. Maybe I still would if he ever got into power because of laws he would sponsor--I would have to see. But the man I see discussing things with Newt in this video is a man I would be honored to know personally. I regret my former attitude.

His standard of crying at the funerals of all people unjustly killed, black, cop or whoever, is spot on.

Every time I've seen Van Jones recently, he's mostly used the "identify then judge" method of thinking (that I constantly champion) and this sets him apart from most other lefties. (I've also heard him get out there a few times, though. :) )

Newt was brilliantly honest, too. It's rare that I agree with everything said in a discussion like this, but I do in this one (unless my attention really failed me when I watched it, and I don't think it did seeing how I was riveted to the screen from the very beginning because I really really really liked what I was hearing). 

Once Trump is elected, Newt will be involved in his administration--as VP or in some other way. I hope he makes use of Van Jones, at least in an advisory capacity--and believe me, I never thought I would see the day where I would say that.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I used to trash Van Jones

 
Michael, respectfully, I'd invite you to start trashing him again.
 
I disagree with standard of crying at the funerals because I strongly suspect that Van Jones is playing an inside game.  He is working to continue the push for nationalizing law enforcement while not harming the meme that young black men are being hunted by white cops.  I see him as treating as morally equal, and culturally relative, the shootings of a black man by a white cop which has not yet been examined to see if it was justified or to see if it was racially motivated with the known racially motivated shooting of cops, not as part of an interaction with an encounter with a given cop, but as a goal by the shooter to kill many cops as long as they are white.
 
If we can't separate out the false claim that white cops are hunting down and killing young black men from the fact that there are blacks who are purposefully choosing to find and kill white cops, then our society is in real trouble.  This is how a race war gets started.
------------
 
I saw Van Jones on video a few years ago saying that he was NOT abandoning his old beliefs, but rather changing how he pursues them.  I believe he has decided to change the structure from the inside.  I think he has abandoned the angry yelling of the radical for the smooth talk of progressivism.
 
Here is text from an interview in 2005 with Van Jones:
 
"Before, we would fight anybody, any time. No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward.... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.... I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs."
 
He stayed a Marxist, but adopted the tactics of Saul Alinsky.
 
On 9/11 he denounced the United States as having brought the disaster on itself, and he expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and those who are "victims of U.S. imperialism around the world."
 
In a speech in 2008, Jones said: "The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities because they don’t have a racial justice framework."
 
In a speech in 2009 where Van Jones called for the 'incremental socialization, by stealth, of the U.S. economy,' he said: "Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether ... until [the green economy] becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."
 
In 2012 at Occupy Wall Street kind of rally, he denounced libertarians specifically.  Damning "their principle of economic liberty," saying: “They’ve taken their despicable ideology and used it a wrecking ball, that they have painted red, white and blue, to smash down every good thing in America.”
 
He portrayed libertarians as racists, saying, "They say they’re Patriots but they hate everybody in America who looks like us. They say they love America but they hate the people, the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings, ya know ya’ll.... You can’t be an anti-immigrant bigot and a Patriot at the same time.”
 
Personally, I think he has learned a great deal from Obama.  They are both black men in politics, both progressives, both came from the Black Liberation theology background, both are graduates of Ivy league schools with degrees in law.  I think Van Jones looked at Obama becoming president and being far more successful in pushing his progressive agendas than Van Jones had been... and he decided to emulate his style, his personableness, his likeability (the old Van Jones wore combat boots, got in people's faces and called people assholes).
------------
 
Newt is correct that it is more dangerous to be black in America, but there are several reasons for that.  Black on black crime is rampant and the number of blacks killed by blacks is huge.  There are blacks who are killed by cops because they are involved in violent crimes which put them on a collision course with cops to a degree that is far out of proportion to their percentage in the population.  And, this ugly and false meme or white cops are hunting young black men to kill them is causing not just angry reactions but outright resistance during an interaction.  If I had bought into the idea that cops would kill me, I'd he hesitant to go along with their orders to put my hands up.  And the increasing number of blacks who are shooting cops is making white cops more jittery.
-------------
 
Van Jones made an excellent point asking what if we could experience what it was like to be in another's shoes.  And he acknowledged that 'we' get points for driving the sides apart, and not for bringing us together.  But I still maintain that he is coming from progressive's identity politics and this is just some kumbaya rhetoric and his pushes for legislation or policy or memes to be adopted will still be about wedge issues, centralized control, people divided into the proper progressive politics identity groups, gin up the base, etc.
-------------
 
Neither Van Jones nor Newt should discuss Black Lives Matters without starting and ending that conversation by condemning their advocacy of cop killing.  All the rest has to be tossed out.  You don't do anything to legitimize, excuse or in the tiniest way sanctions for killing people.
-------------
 
Van Jones is very polished at this point in time, but he has always viewed politics from a Marxist and from a racial view point.  He has always been active in some form against the criminal justice system and again, that has always taken a racial view point.  Even when he was deep into environmental issues, he wanted government contracts for green manufacturing to go to prisons.  Van Jones has always been deep in progressive territory with his work with MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, American Dream Movement, Apollo Alliance, Demos, etc.
-------------
 
I sometimes think the world has totally lost touch with what MLK said... it is about character, and not this tribalism and racism.  All of this focus on race is toxic, has been toxic, will continue to be toxic.  And it doesn't matter whether any given focus is benign and an attempt to be helpful - if it is a distinction based on race it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I agree about Van Jones's politics. I don't like them. But he's open to listening and admitting error on his side and that is a big deal to me, much more than even I used to think.

This isn't the only video I have heard by Van Jones that made me change my opinion of him. I have seen lots of discussions and this change in me has been building. Also, I think I have a pretty good bullshit meter.

I used to think the premise underlying your argument (which is essentially the way Glenn Beck used to frame it). Boiled down, it goes like this: It doesn't matter what Van Jones says or does. He is an evil Marxist (progressive, etc.) through and through and deceptive as all hell. When he plays nice, he is playing you. All he wants is power and he is going after it the sneaky way. Then some things Van Jones has said or done in the past are presented as proof.

The man I have seen in discussions does not convey that to me. I think he truly cried for the police who were killed in Dallas. He meant it. I believe that. I think he truly wants the hatred to stop. I resonate with that.

On a side issue, I have gotten the feeling several times that he is burned by Obama dismissing him after the Beck kerfuffle and he blames Obama for it--for buckling to the pressure. (Ah, vanity... where is thy sting? :) ) I have nothing specific to cite to support that, just a general feeling from in-between the lines as he speaks at times. So there's that.

I do think if he gets power within a Marxist-friendly administration, he will go too far and support oppressive crap--essentially make a mess.

But I also think he truly wishes well for all people, including "capitalist pigs." :) And, like I said, he uses the identify then judge form of thinking. At least I have seen him do this a hell of a lot of times starting in the last three of years or so. That's when I started paying attention to him (and, believe me, when I zoned in on him because I saw he was getting a lot of air time, I had a different intention. I wanted to find the elements to uncover his true rotten self and write about them. Hell, I even did that a few times. :) )

I have never seen anyone use the "identify correctly to judge correctly" form of thinking for a long time when discussing things with people who think radically differently than he does and be a phony-baloney through and through. Maybe Van Jones is the first, I can't say right now. God knows, I have been wrong about people in the past.

All I can do is be true to my own perceptions, thinking and experience. And I can't do that and keep up the image Beck painted of Van Jones. The best I can do is be attentive just in case I'm wrong, which is where I'm at. It will probably be a long time before I relax that attentiveness, if I ever do, but I am no longer hostile to Van Jones. I'm glad to listen to him, even as I often disagree, and I don't want his voice stifled. Contrary to deceptive, I think he is an honest man.

It took me a long time to conclude that, but that is what I now believe.

I have to extend to his case the same essential me that I use in all cases, i.e., my judgment is mine. I look and consider all the different points of view as advisement, especially when they come from people I admire like Beck* (and you for that matter :) ), but essentially, I have to go with my own best thinking. If I'm not honest to me, especially when I make my best efforts, how can I be honest to anyone else?

In fact, that's how I came to support Donald Trump as much as I did--against a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE tide of resistance, too.

:)

Michael

 

* I used to admire Beck a lot more. I'm still holding out hope he will go back to the way he was. But ever since he became a righteous prophet of the Lord trying to lead America to fall on its knees in shame and weep before God for all its sins so He will have mercy and not destroy America, and especially elect God's anointed Ted Cruz over Satan's emissary, Donald Trump, (the one true Satan--not a metaphor to Beck), I have have lost interest in him. I admire what he was, not what he has become. (Here are some of my thoughts on how what happened to him has happened to him.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I used to admire Beck a lot more

Me too. 

He was a great political analyst and provided clear expositions, but I'd watch his show and the minute he'd start getting religious, it was time to shut the tube down.  I knew that his political vision was going to be limited by his religiosity - you can only partion off a section of the mind so much.  And after a while, his religious view were so much a part of what he was doing that it wasn't worth watching.

The only other thing I'd say about Van Jones is that we find nothing in the record anywhere in the last 6 or 7 years that shows either a sudden transformation in his thinking, or a gradual ideological evolution.  What we see is a striking change in style.

What might have happened is that he got past some personal issues - angers, rages - and that he matured some on the emotional level.  And he may have had a very likeable self inside all the time and now it serves him well, and he probably enjoys being liked.  That would be natural.  And none of that would not mean that in a hard interview session he'd find himself having to say things that would change your mind instantly, or he might say things that would make your BS meter hit high numbers.

I have to retain my belief in who he is, but if that weren't the case, I'd prefer to think well of him - he come across as a likeable person.  In that sense, I hope you're right.  In either case, it isn't important in the scheme of things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:
 
 
I sometimes think the world has totally lost touch with what MLK said... it is about character, and not this tribalism and racism.  All of this focus on race is toxic, has been toxic, will continue to be toxic.  And it doesn't matter whether any given focus is benign and an attempt to be helpful - if it is a distinction based on race it is wrong.

Fine. Now apply the Character Test to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Fine. Now apply the Character Test to Trump.

Bob,

Good character is precisely why Trump has so many supporters and they are growing.

People see Trump's good character as they define and live good character. It reflects their own, starting with the fact that he builds things in reality. He gets them done with a lot of competence. He produces just like they do.

And that is why the anti-Trumpers are so passionate about trying to trash Trump's character. They know they have nothing to compete with it. They have betrayed middle America long ago and run an intellectual con. They redefined character in sundry ways that undermine common sense morality and got the media to propagate these models. (The progressives have been most active in this, but there are others.) 

These redefinitions have more to do with sundry dogmas and less to do with actually living a productive peaceful life of goodwill toward all. These redefinitions are things like the following: a person of good character loves the planet more than the individual, loves the oppressed more than his or her family, secretly despises white people even if the person is white, automatically presupposes the government is the solution to any problem, feels guilty for being healthy and well off, and so on.

It could have worked over time, too. Just by drip drip drip... But as with all power, those who wield it are not content with what they have and they always seek more. Thus these dogmas have turned into the ridiculous blame games of PC language, safe zones against speech and ideas on campuses, attacks against sponsors of companies whose owners don't sing a party line, the government blindly letting terrorists and really bad people immigrate into the country illegally while hiding in the middle of a bunch of desperate poor people, race riots against the police when the perpetrators were proven wrong, etc.

And middle America finally said enough. Condoning that crap is not a mark of good character. Not to middle America.

A man of good character to them solves problems, does not let anyone push him around, seeks fairness in all things, produces and works hard at it, is proud of his success, has a good family with good kids, and so on. That, to them is good character.

But here.

You want to be one who trashes Trump's character all the time and ignores his good character? Here's a donut for you to dunk in your coffee of bile:

The White Trash Theory of Donald Trump

Soak it up and bask in it...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the Dallas attack, I have a question I haven't seen discussed in the news in the last couple of days. 

What about the other shooters? Weren't there more than one? Weren't there four, two on high and two on the ground?

I ask this because something is making me very uncomfortable about mass communication. It seems like once the large masses of people have a cause to pin a disaster on and that cause has been dispatched, for as incomplete as that may be, they are satisfied that the problem has been dealt with.

This is like a trance or something. A blank-out for real.

The specific danger is still out there.

Aren't people worried about finding the other shooters? Don't they think these guys will shoot again? I realize the investigation is ongoing, but shouldn't someone be talking about this? Giving information on it? Something? Anything?

Dayaamm!

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Good character is precisely why Trump has so many supporters and they are growing.

 

Trump is perceived as having good character. But some people think he is crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly. Check out this other thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What about the other shooters?

At this point they are saying that he was the only shooter.  Initially, they thought there were several, and then they said that he must have, at least, had someone who brought him downtown - a driver.  How he got downtown from his apartment is still unanswered (as far as I know).  They had some suspects in for questioning on being in a car leaving the area, but they have been cleared and released.

Some people are saying that he is a lone-wolf who is crazy.  I heard another fellow, a former DOJ lawyer say that the shooter is (or was) in the Houston chapter of the New Black Panthers and that his name is on their membership roles.  That info may have come from a local black community activist.  The shooter appears to have "Liked" the Facebook pages of a number of radical black activist organizations - including one (the African American Defense League) whose leader openly advocates shooting police.

They are reporting that he fired an SKS carbine.  They are a older soviet designed long gun that was replaced by the their AK-47 in the 1950s.  Variants were manufactured in the Soviet Union, Eastern-bloc countries, China, N. Korea, etc.  It is semi-automatic, looks a bit more like a hunting rifle than a military weapon.  It has a 10 shot, fixed magazine (needs to be manually reloaded after the 10th shot - that makes me wonder about how he shot 12 people unless there was a short period of time for him to reload (it can be reloaded rapidly).  He had a pistol, but I haven't heard anything about what kind.  The SKS takes the 7.62 cartridge which is a significant increase in power over the AR-15.  The SKS is very cheap and popular in the civilian market - used for both hunting and target shooting.

It sure is hard to sort of the nonsense from the facts, and it is hard to get good facts when you have no idea what is NOT being reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What about the other shooters?

At this point they are saying  [...]

Good question and good idea to sort out information -- It tamps down my emotion to do a fact sort in the wake of mass shootings. I  feel empathy for you Americans here at the shocking ambush of vulnerable peace officers -- I can appreciate a sense of dread  that this may be a ratcheting up of events, that the scope of pain has opened wider, that your future holds more hateful violence, not less.

When four Mounties were slaughtered up here in a rural ambush ten years back, the shock was profound. The details were unsettled for a time, as there was no media at hand. The coherent account of events could be augmented by solid outside reporting (the narrative of the shooter), but the central details had to come from the RCMP. If you will trust the source, you can trust the greater narrative to the degree its elements conform to reality -- after diligent investigation.

The profusion of eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses in Dallas might fog events and the immediate aftermath -- as in any shocking public event where media eyes and ears roam. Eyewitness reports can conflict, speculation will abound -- the unsifted flow can be confusing and alarming. Reliable and unreliable information swim in multiple streams. And at the wings of rational investigation are pedlars of confusion and conspiracy. Beware the third-hand analysts who fit unreliable information into a favoured plot.

An outfit in New York came out with a Consumer's Guide to Breaking News over the last few years, with various updates for different sorts of events.  This is their graphic, from this page. A bit sardonic.

 

BNCHoriginal_usethis.png

I am lazy-minded enough to go check the assembled edits at Wikipedia, too.  Having a central place like that can show how the elements of truth emerge from the churn.   And the footnotes give further direction to individual investigation. 

Dallas seems like a smart and well-integrated city, with a trusted police force not dogged by the nasty associations some wingnuts assume in all police forces.  It is not  notable for brutality or shitty record of racial bias in policing.  My optimistic nature says that this city will be better, stronger, more united, more resolute.  A portion of the nation may or may not use the event to further this political or social football on this or that field. It seems there is always a racial discussion to be had in America. There is always some misunderstanding or conflict to put in service of ideological goals.  In this case, I am struck by the calm leadership of the public figures in Dallas, not least the chief.  If one can be proud of the performance of another person, one can feel proud of him. Not that he is the key to the future, just that he did his job as well as it could be done in the face of shock, grief, and horror.

-- to the note about 'other shooters,' I would wonder if these could-be-mirages stopped shooting once the main shooter was cornered? I would wonder what traces they left, if any. I would  wonder if their bullets could reasonably be discriminated from those of the main shooter. 

On the internets, of course, the lunatic wings have elaborated every  "Let's Suppose" scenario you can imagine. With guilt apportioned to other actors in such large helpings that the lone shooter assumed by the Dallas police is but a pawn, a plant, a hiree or drone, more-or-less unworthy of further inquiry.  I figure that way lies madness..

America is a tough and principled nation.  No 'civil war' in Dallas, I bet you my life. For those who fan flames of interracial hate and mistrust, I harbour bad thoughts.

Edited by william.scherk
Punctuation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

It seems there is always a racial discussion to be had in America. There is always some misunderstanding or conflict to put in service of ideological goals.

In the past there have been good reasons for having racial discussions - there were real race problems.  From slavery to Jim Crow and segregation to removing the last vestiges of racism from public institutions.  But now, where there once was a conflict built on real ideologies of race, we have gone to made-up racism as a political issue.  The use of race in identity politics.  The left's talking points, and stirring up the base, have been amplified into war drums by far-left racist black organizations.  Race baiters and politicians ride the hate like parasites.  And with liberal-biased media giving sanction, we have significant portions of the people who are black and/or who live in the predominately black communities actually believe the worst of the rhetoric.  I assume it is a kind of self-delusion that lets progressives push this racist view of the police in order to seek nationalization of law enforcement.  And one progressive was saying that the two separate incidents that happened days ago where a white cop shot a black man was proof that we need tighter gun control.  Disarm the cops?  He should at least put his brain in gear a moment or so before opening his mouth.

I don't see race relations getting better any time soon.

I liked that guide to interpreting media in the aftermath of big events. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 5:14 AM, jts said:

Government will use this act of violence as an additional excuse to ban guns.

 

Yes.

It's liberal lunacy to always blame inanimate objects... but never people who do evil.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moralist said:

Yes.

It's liberal lunacy to always blame inanimate objects... but never people who do evil.

 

Greg

cause  can be attributed to any act or process.  Nothing in the cosmos changes without a cause. 

on the other hand blame or responsibility can only be attribute to acts of sentient beings  made to happen by "acts of will".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...