Owned

owned

Matt Wuerker

You can be against police brutality while still supporting police

I’m shocked I have to say this, but obviously: Not all police.

If I say I am against police brutality, it doesn’t mean I am against police any more than saying I am against sexual assault means I am against sex.

I would think that most police would also be against police brutality, right? Just like most of the lawyers I know are against dishonest lawyers.

But whenever I say something like “Gee, those police sure are attacking peaceful protesters” I get “Why are you against police?”  I’m not. Why is that so hard to understand?

Maybe people don’t want to understand. Maybe they just can’t figure out a way to defend these secret cops who confront peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas while dressed as if they’re going into a combat zone.

police brutalityI deal with police every day. I’m a criminal defense attorney. And the vast majority of police are decent, good people that I have no problem working with.

But not all of them.

I see police as falling into two categories, really. There are the “Boy Scouts” who are doing their very best to be good guys and help people. And then there are the “bullies” who became officers because they like the power and like pushing people around. Anyone who denies that the second group exists is not paying attention.

Speaking out against the bullies is something we should all be doing. It’s something the “Boy Scouts” should be doing too, but too often, they remain silent and support their fellow officers when they should be speaking up.

And this is nothing new. History is full of stories of police, guards, and others with authority who abuse their authority — especially in totalitarian regimes of the kind Trump apparently wishes he ran.

So when I post something like the cartoon above, I am not attacking all police — I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a protest movement against police brutality being met with police brutality, thus proving the point. Nowhere in there is the statement that all police do this.

The sad thing is that this police action has led to more violence. The mostly peaceful protests have been met with officers in riot gear tear-gassing mayors and teachers and mothers who are armed with nothing more than leaf blowers, and now some people are saying, “Fine, you want violence? We’ll give you violence.”  This doesn’t help. Meeting violence with violence is exactly what they want, because then Trump can go on TV and say “See? Re-elect me to protect you against these protesters who are protesting me and my policies and who will most likely go away if I do.” (There’s not a lot of logic on the Trump side.)

But back to the main point: Shouldn’t we all be against police brutality? Isn’t that something everyone should say is not the kind of thing we want in a democratic society?

 

The hypocritic oath

110179110_10213548404784474_7395935668961758247_n

Tommy Siegel

America 2020

108014255_10220554492946797_6308150007456019664_n

Tom Tomorrow

Biden & Trump’s Masks

biden trump mask
John Cole

No, Oklahoma is not giving half the state back

The Supreme Court yesterday, in the decision of McGirt v Oklahoma, held that, when trying “[a]ny Indian” in “the Indian country” (as the old treaty stated), Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction and the person would have to be tried in federal court.

justiceThat’s it.

Despite sensationalist headlines, this decision did not return land to the natives; it only upheld a treaty that provided that federal law would apply to certain serious crimes.

Jimcy McGirt, who is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, cannot be tried under Oklahoma law for his offenses (which involve serious sexual offenses).  He has to be tried in a federal court.

The good news is that it affirmed a treaty that had long been ignored, so it is still a very good decision. The treaty “solemnly guarantied” the land to the tribe, “forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation,” “no portion [of which] shall ever be embraced or included within … any Territory or State.”

The dissenters, Republican appointees all, basically said, “Yeah, well, we’ve been ignoring that for so long it doesn’t really matter any more” and things along those lines.

Anyway, the point is that the decision did not just hand all that land back, but it did acknowledge that at least in one respect, the treaty should be followed. Hopefully, it will lead to more power given back to the natives in the future.

For a more detailed analysis, click here.

 

The real symbol

symbol

Clay Jones

Hey third party people

A bit of advice.

Politics starts at the grass roots. Get your people elected at the local level and work your way up, winning state seats and then governorships and senate seats and so on. That’s the only way you’ll be able to actually make a change.

Even if you get a President elected, they’ll have four years fighting against two parties who want to see that President fail, and you’ll accomplish nothing.

“But it’s a protest vote!”  Sure, fine, if it makes you feel better, go ahead, but it does no good. No one pays attention to it and in the long run, all it does it take a vote away from some other candidate who could actually accomplish at least some of what you want done.i-vote-sticker

Of course, this will convince no one. Voting third party is basically a way to feel superior about yourself, because you can’t be corrupted by the political system and you’re voting your morals and blah blah blah.

Those of us who are pragmatic in our lives are more concerned about actually accomplishing things than being able to pat ourselves on the back, and we will continue to try to make a real difference.

Now, if you want to talk about how to change our voting system so that third parties could accomplish things (such as using ranked voting), I’m all in. But until that time, I’m not going to waste my vote.

 

 

American Exceptionalism

106988452_10214412624224184_5640917996528690777_o

Steve Sack

Independence over empathy

America is the home of individuality, but too many people interpret that to mean selfishness. They say “The government can’t tell me to wear a mask!” instead of “I should wear a mask in consideration for other people so as not to spread the virus.”

Valuing independence over empathy is no virtue.

106607860_388673902093422_3819853100713316938_n