Keep in mind that the number of people satisfied with the status quo is diminishing. We have 50,000 SWAT raids a year. We have the most incarcerated population per capita in the world. We also have up to an 88% conviction rate thanks to police lying and judges who will automatically take their testimony. (Unless you actually believe that law enforcement is careful to only bring in suspects they're sure are guilty.)
On the job force, 77% of the workforce is dissatisfied with the position that they're in. This is partially due to the reduced pay-scale, where even upper-middle managers are only getting a teacher's salary (what was regarded a pittance in the 70s). The ratio between executive salaries and the wages at the front end are unheard of, and according to the current administration, our economy is getting better. Maybe if you look at Wall Street.
To be fair, I don't know a proper solution, and we are fools to imagine we know what the right way to affect change is. Those that thrive in the status quo are terrified of a violent uprising, which is why they respond to even single incidents with overwhelming numbers, but they also are becoming less tolerant and less receptive of peaceful expressions of general discontent. The OWS purge was telling, that we expect protests to burn out on their own and go away without the need for negotiation. When they overstayed their welcome they were met with water cannons, riot squads and rubber bullets. Oh, and a press blackout.
So yeah. Peaceful protest was tried and rebuffed a while ago.
But my job isn't to get creative. I, too, was raised under the myth that human beings listen to reason and act in their best interests.
No, my role is to tell you that violence, however you might feel about it, is the path of least resistance. It is possible to get creative, and I hope to the Pillars of Creation that someone is considering novel ways to unite the discontented population in a common effort. (A good example of a positive tactics change is the shift in anti-war efforts from standing protests to anti-recruitment in schools where they debunk some of the lies and myths perpetuated by recruiting offices). But expecting that everyone will just sit tight while the ACLU and the EFF wind their way through the legal system (as much as I admire the work they do) is pure folly.
Violent or not, we dissenters are branded as terrorists anyway. We just need to demonstrate that there are more kinds of terrorists than Muslim suicide bombers.
It'll end in tears anyway. It ends in tears every day.
That's rather presumptive to say they'll all be killed or even identified. Right now, acting singletons, maybe, because its possible to redirect hundreds of officers into a manhunt for a single person. But firstly, plenty of people are being gunned down anyway because an officer fears for his safety, and secondly, law enforcement can only respond with that kind of power while violent attacks are rare and isolated. Once directed attacks against law enforcement becomes a daily occurrence (hint: it is not yet) the divertable manpower simply will not be there.
The outrage is there, and yes, it will continue to manifest in single people deciding to sacrifice their lives now for a small amount of reprisal. Talk all you want, and such people won't change course, often because they already feel they have nothing left to lose. But that's why I imagine an organized and targeted sabotage campaign would be a way to redirect that outrage.
In the meantime, I don't think that lockdown, by which I assume you mean martial law or the shelter in place order given to Boston citizens after the marathon bombing in April 2013, is feasible as a response in perpetuity. Firstly, such efforts require a mobilization of a huge number of responders that are only meant to be active for short periods, and they will fatigue quickly, and secondly the inconvenience on your average citizens is immense, and it will drive home that we are an occupied nation.
Once again, while editing my title text, my browser spontaneously submitted upon habitually tapping the ENTER key. Maybe that shouldn't be the default result for ENTER while in the title field.
I think you are depending to much on the notion that the human populace are rational, thinking creatures, rather than instinct-driven emotional apes. It takes one person's choice of violence to make an event a violent one. It takes everyone's choice to not be violent. Mind you, in Ferguson, those who chose to invoke violence were not the protestors but the alleged keepers of peace. The same thing happened to OWS. It takes a lot for one person to not panic while under fire of tear gas and rubber bullets. So with a crowd of protesters, it's near impossible.
You cannot rely on the population to be well behaved. Nor can you rely on them to patiently wait for your legal action to have an effect. You can't rely on them to be rational. Or pacifistic Or informed at the polls. Or tolerant of people with strange features or beliefs.
Consider that when you are planning your peaceful effort for change.
Wait, wait...the peaceful solutions you're looking to implement are in the form of endless FOIA requests, public education campaigns, and court verdict appeals? You're trying to continue to use a system that is demonstrably broken and corrupt?
I take it back. That road inevitably ends in violence.
You want a non-violent campaign, you get five million people to plant themselves in Times Square and not move for any reason. Not tear gas. Not live bullets. Not crowd-control squads with shields and truncheons.
You want a non-violent campaign, you get your entire community to refuse to call the police for any reason. And yes, that means some crimes will go without response. That'll mean you'll have to develop alternative response teams for some problems.
You want a non-violent campaign, you get fifty people to plant themselves at an important, relevant landmark and go on a hunger strike, committing to starve themselves to death. Better yet, light yourselves on fire. That kind of publicity is what turns the heads of the international community. In the Western world, it's unthinkable.
You want a non-violent campaign, you get every merchant in your town to refuse service to police officers, to the DoJ from SCOTUS down to the last janitor and clerk, to every worker for
Ridiculous is what I would call your legal charades. That won't accomplish anything. If you want to change the system, it must be changed without, or it won't change at all.
Remember that the status quo, is, to a considerable lot of people, entirely intolerable. Every single day is misery. And you are expecting them to wait how long for results? Years? Decades? Another century or two?
History tells us that violence is often the recourse used, often because non-violent protest is either ineffective or unavailable.
We do like to point out Ghandi's protest as exemplary of making non-violent revolution work, and as has been noted, even the Palestinians could probably pull something together if they could just get a few million people to cooperate and lie down at the checkpoints, and don't move even when the police start shooting people on the ground (and they will).
Not an easy thing.
It takes far fewer people to implement a sabotage campaign. Leaving the rest of the people to work, eat, live and come to terms in time with the notion that the people with their best interests are not the ones cutting their paycheck.
But Gandhi also had culture on his side. The United States is disinclined to take crap lying down. We invaded Iraq because we're angry. We stooped to the low of torturing and endorsing torture not because it works, not because it served a state purpose, but because some powerful people were angry, and making some Muslims suffer made them feel better.
Violence is not ridiculous. Violence doesn't have to solve anything. Violence is inevitable. People with nothing left to lose already engage in killing rampages. Eventually there will be so many with too little to live for as to overwhelm the responders. And it may not do any good. But it won't matter -- blood will soak the streets but especially the newsprint.
If we're going to solve things non-violently, we're going to have to act soon instigate real change. So those of you dismissing violence need to recognize this is a descriptive prediction. A cautionary one. And if history serves, it is the end to all paths of low-resistance. Feel free to do everything possible to change this destiny, or (to paraphrase Bertrand Russel) it won't have anything to do about what's right, but what is left.
All the posts I've had held for moderation, for whatever reason (too many links, no body text, mentioning Google by name) were posted including countless premature sends and a hasty miss-pasting of a segment from a lonely hearts ad.
TechDirt has been really lenient regarding my postings, especially for ones I've regretted later.
The technology is a codex which is constructed from a bound stack of pages, rather than a single sheet coiled into a scroll. The new design allows access to any part of the work quickly rather than having to roll through the entire work in sequence until you get to the desired part. Codices are also easier to maintain.
A book or bōc is a journal or sketchbook to assist children in learning to read and write.
One of the problems of the codex technology is that it is really rather biodegradable, to the point our libraries once had to be staffed with transcribers to continuously restore old works onto new media. This process was improved by the use of movable type and the printing press.
These days, the codex is still used as a device for distribution, but originals are kept in digital form to be accessed by computer-controlled printing presses that can rapidly produce a run of cheap-but-efficient plastic-coated soft-bound codices for rapid dissemination. But this technology is currently being challenged due to the e-book which allows one to carry the contents of many many codices without the pesky burden.
New technologies always present new problems, but usually ones smaller than the problems they solve, otherwise, yes. People will fall back to older technologies. Ergo, drug dealers and old-fashioned not-so-smartphones that don't track them.
I don't much anymore indulge in fantasies about what should happen. Maybe more things that would be nice that I'd enjoy in the moment, but if a conspiratorial genie were to affect them, I certainly wouldn't vouch for a happy ending for us all.
When it comes to the human species learning why we don't do certain things (e.g. give absolute despotic dictatorial powers to a charismatic psychopath), I have little faith in the human animal to take such lessons to heart without a magnificent human disaster to remind us.
But in this era, I have to say that even that kind of sacrifice may be pointless, given that the US already has its own privileged caste of freikorps above the law. It also has defined its own untermenschen among the impoverished, minorities, and any other non-mainstream subsect. And the elite and their indoctrinated are certainly asking a Jewish Question, namely which of the undesirables are most objectionable, and how to get rid of them.
And Israel has shown not one bit of compassion or empathy for other peoples oppressed by another with access to a powerful military. They seem to understand that anyone who is not them can be determined to be unpersons and cluster-bombed into a neolithic existence.
Sure, old school (circa '70s women's libber) feminists did object to porn on the grounds that it might cause guys to objectify women, but that was a moral panic. Currently the issue is that porn stars and porn sex is too homogenous, which is being changed in some markets. More reasonable feminists may object to specific issues about porn, but are okay with the concept of depicting sexuality on media and are often consumers of porn, themselves.
And granted, some extremists versions of feminism (mind you there's a wide gamut) may hate porn just because. But the conservative religious sector has been raging against porn (and all things prurient or regarding human sexuality) for far longer with greater numbers behind them.
I certainly hope the outrage in response to case isn't limited to TechDirt.
Of course, when Dotcom's home was invaded, everyone was distracted by the success of the SOPA blackout. I was the guy that informed all my friends why the raid on a New Zealand internet mogul was such a big deal and no, this one doesn't make me a crackpot either.
The Cyberlocker market never recovered, and this screams of government conspiracy to destroy a man. And Jurist O'Grady is either in on it or just plain stupid.
But stupid or corrupt, this whole case seems to be a clear marker that the DoJ is broken. Every child-rapist or bank-robber or rampage killer or terrorist in prison is now a political prisoner of the US, given the DoJ is clearly incapable of delineating right from wrong.
The notion of giving our police military hardware came from a program to make something useful of surplus and function creep.
As you know, putting police in camouflage is about as useful as dressing your ninjas like kabuki. You want law officers to be clearly visible and distinguishable, not able to blend into the background.
There were few to no guns involved on the protestors' side in Ferguson, and yet they were regarded by the containment force as if one toke of pot was all that was necessary for a black man to Hulk out and bend tanks in half. Those police officers were terrified of the Ferguson civilians despite that they were pathetically armed.
So no justification is needed. I'm still waiting for the NYPD commissioner to explain why he thinks he needs emplaced machine guns to police his crowds from demonstrators. There aren't many guns in New York City.
It's a hard and humbling lesson for those who were raised to believe that the United State was a nation who could do no wrong, who looked upon Germany and the USSR and believed it cannot happen here.
But it can happen anywhere. And even the UK who has taken more of a own-our-errors attitude with their bloody and brutal history have still sunken into a frightful surveillance and censorship state. And they have Orwell saying I told you so! from the grave.
The best thing we can do is to fix it and get past it. Fixing it is going to be hard. But remembering it is going to be even harder. Many parts of the US have an attitude that ideology is more important than accuracy when teaching history to our children.
Maybe a thorough and brutal watering of the Tree of Liberty will be enough to change their minds.