RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Insecurity State: The Politics Behind the Drama in Ferguson Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32445"><span class="small">Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Sunday, 31 August 2014 07:37

Lund writes: "Watching the citizen protests in Ferguson, Missouri and the massive police overreaction, I couldn't help but think of the old 1960s revolutionary phrase about "heightening the contradictions," the idea that a little subtle and acceptable instigation could prompt the state to expose its own brutality."

Demonstrators protesting Michael Brown's murder in Ferguson, Missouri. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
Demonstrators protesting Michael Brown's murder in Ferguson, Missouri. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)


Insecurity State: The Politics Behind the Drama in Ferguson

By Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone

31 August 14

 

atching the citizen protests in Ferguson, Missouri and the massive police overreaction, I couldn't help but think of the old 1960s revolutionary phrase about "heightening the contradictions," the idea that a little subtle and acceptable instigation could prompt the state to expose its own brutality.

My stepfather-in-law used to do that. He and fellow divinity school students and young progressive ministers used to go to protests in the sixties—even on the streets of Chicago at the '68 Convention—convinced that cops would think twice about clubbing their way through a phalanx of clerical collars to get at the hippies. And, well, if the cops didn't, at least there'd be hell to pay on the nightly news.

There probably were people like that in Ferguson. But night after night glued to the television was enough to confirm that the majority of people on the streets hadn't studied their Mao or their Abbie Hoffman or Bobby Seale. They were just people, and their grievances and motives were written all over their faces. Yet the police response—a false dawn of spotlights, flares and rows of armored police in infantry vehicles, leveling military-grade rifles at streets where kids had been breakdancing to the beat of handclaps just an hour before—could not have heightened the contradictions more if it had been induced. And it could not have been more stunning without the effectiveness of its predecessors this century.

The drama in Ferguson owed much to the success of security theater over the last fifteen years. We started with the 1990s intensification of the War on Drugs, making enemy combatants of entire neighborhoods and acclimating us to the necessity of shock troops clearing streets of people convicted on sight for the act of standing still. Later, we vastly overreacted to the 1999 Seattle WTO protests and the greater paranoia of the Global War on Terror, in the process becoming too quickly accustomed to a total imposition of police power as a necessary response, even at the expense of containing public protest. We never entirely lose sight of the dangers posed to public safety—assigning the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments to scattered cages—but the effect of the danger is like a lion in a zoo. It's only exotic if has the potential to be deadly, but we wouldn't countenance looking at it except through bars.

The scenes on the streets of Ferguson last week reminded me of the streets of Tampa during the 2012 Republican National Convention—whose outside events almost no one remembers, because almost nothing happened, and almost no one was there, leaving no one to ask how absurd it was. Erect the right kind of cage, and it seems respectable, almost scientific. And God help you if you haven't enough time to build one. The only threat to "reasonable" security theater is the wrong kind of theater, especially if you're telling the 24-hour news about your plan to engage street violence just as Thomas the Tank Engine choo-choos right past and completely outflanks you.

By 2012, the Tampa PD had learned the lessons of the NYPD during the 2004 RNC and in Zuccotti Park in 2011: that the great antidote to galvanic protest is massive inconvenience, followed by everyone's tendency to ignore anything that isn't loud or shiny. This worked on journalists and protesters in equal measure.

For the former, zigzagging security cordons and layers of checkpoints made getting inside the convention a chore. Once in the bubble, opportunity cost discouraged you from exiting. Even if you learned of a protest, reaching it took nearly an hour round-trip. Why leave for a potential dud when Marco Rubio was right there? Ultimately, most journalists restricted themselves to two media spheres connected by a covered, air-conditioned umbilicus lined with TV screens playing CNN, encouraged by the heat, rain and security strata to never exit a controlled environment.

If they had, they'd have found similarly controlled people. Fences lined the streets of a downtown already indifferent to pedestrian traffic. The posts stood like inverted metal hockey sticks, bent inward at the top to prevent people from crawling over into the street, confirming that the number one job of security theater is preventing protesters and police from interacting face to face. A cop can't abuse you if you can't come into contact with him.

Local radicals had already been defused, both by the TPD and the fecklessness of the broader Occupy movement. Occupy was driven from the city center, while confrontational midnight roustings landed "uncooperative" Occupiers in 24-hour detentions that made them miss work and accelerated attrition from the movement. And, like everyone else in the post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan GWOT fire-sale, the all-Democrat Tampa City Council and Mayor's office had up-armored the city in advance of a phantom invasion.

"They bought a tank for [the RNC]," a pig-masked Occupier named Cade Kelly told me months earlier. "They made sure to drive it by us, so that we knew what we were going to be seeing at RNC. I've been woken up multiple times with jokes about tear gas and pepper spray." His peers who didn't quit got the message, refusing to use their names or even to be dropped off near protests, for fear license plates were being logged for later harassment. Two days before the RNC, I watched the TPD try to roust a permitted protest area, only to melt away when the bus I was on stopped and unloaded a half dozen photojournalists. "They'll be back as soon as you leave," a college-aged white girl told me.

In the end, nothing happened, and we never got the spectacle of rifle-bearing SWAT team members scattering through the city like a bucket of black beetles upended on a scale model of Tampa. People could protest, and a free press could notice, and both were heavily disincentivized from doing either. If a system works best by inhibiting any elements that question its own perpetuation, the system worked.

Obviously, the system hasn't worked in Ferguson. It's a quintessentially American tableau with historical antecedents that go far beyond the last decade and a half of security theater.

The one hiccup in this narrative is, of course, Occupy Wall Street, and the midnight, airspace-cleared scouring of Zuccotti Park that Hizzoner Michael Bloomberg tried to sell as a reasonable restoration of order. There was a real moment there, where a plutocrat lived up to every cliché of law enforcement as the legalized nightstick of plutocracy, just as beefsteaks were idly pepper-spraying kids in the face on college campuses.

But Occupy bungled it, as my friend Eric Augenbraun put it, by never answering "what defines the movement aside from the tactic of occupying public spaces." The optics didn't help, either—people fucking in tents and getting high and generally looking like what would happen if you radicalized the String Cheese Incident. It takes a certain kind of courage and a certain kind of heartbreak to challenge a broken system just as your life is starting, but the lack of cohesion and the frequent adventure vibe muddled a condemnation of the status quo that, when it comes from the streets of Ferguson, is unmistakable.

The thing about Ferguson is it doesn't need messaging or intermediaries. You can understand everything that's happening even by staring at a muted TV—sometimes especially so, if Don Lemon's busy giving a lecture to black kids about saying "ma'am" with their pants on tighter, or whatever his job is. All you need is a functional long-term cultural memory. An unarmed black teenager is dead, shot multiple times by a white cop from a disproportionately white PD in an overwhelmingly black community. You know everything that that means.

All the usual dismissals fall impotently away. You can't dismiss these people as bored, privileged interlopers when you see an economically depressed local community responding to its own structure. The message is a centuries-long refrain about legal force used as an instrument of terror by an economic and racial overclass, and the moment you might dismiss that as the airy evocation of some college revolutionary, it is instantly reinforced by rubber bullets, by snipers on rooftops, by the brutal color binaries of white faces and long black guns firing clouds of white gas at black men and women who stand palms upraised. Journalists will exit the craft table area for that.

Democracy is a messy business; its public expression is reactive and confrontational, a constant real-life version of some John Stuart Mill thought experiment about the needs of a community to address itself, and the rights to it that we truncate to preserve public order. And Ferguson is, in part, an authentically indecorous confirmation of the American experiment contravening the relatively new and terribly rational imposed security narrative.

The citizens of Ferguson are speaking to the instrument they democratically and economically empower, and in the process have been maligned by every element indebted to modern security theater—the conservative crowd that pushes law-and-order both as a governing plank and a handgun sales pitch. (Not to mention networks that just love gee-whiz military stuff on the teevee.) Beyond the bestializing of blacks as part of a centuries-long narrative of dehumanization, the ease—almost necessity—with which the right addresses Ferguson citizens' publicly impeaching the legitimacy of the state as "animals" speaks to the desire to see them caged. Someone can be paid to build that cage, so long as the right people are elected to fund it. The most seductive aspects of modern U.S. prison culture are temporary walls you can move to wherever they're necessary.

You could hear that when the cops decided reporters Wesley Lowery and Ryan J. Reilly were being too indolent when it became time to move the barricades to a McDonald's. You could hear that when cops told Argus Radio's Mustafa Hussein, "Get the fuck out of here and keep that light off or you're getting shelled with this." You could see it in the no-fly zone over police activities. Or in cops trying to sequester the media in approved media zones while trying to corral citizens in approved protest zones. Or cops trying to co-opt the media with ride-alongs. Or in official curfews for protests, which were sold repeatedly as measures for civil safety and the safety of police, but which tried to shift the theater to a daylight in which it's harder for journalists to slip into crowds and easier for cops to identify protesters, for God knows what purpose later.

There is no reasonable comparison to the history of blacks' terrorization at the hands of the criminal justice system—unless you write for National Review. But at the risk of being crass about this current situation, the distance between Ferguson and something like the 2012 RNC, or the 2008 RNC, etc., may be this: a calendar. Ferguson presents us with an aberrancy because it is staggering to us after 15 years of living in a security state to see people demonstrate a just anger and an unambiguous message outside a captive environment. Give the Ferguson PD a months-long countdown to Mike Brown's shooting, however, and we likely wouldn't have seen any of this.

In the light of that, it's easy to read the terrifying police response to Ferguson, as so many have, as not a local government responding to the voices of the community but rather an occupying force addressing an insurgency of the ineluctable other that needs to be subdued. It's an attitude made more immediate and more horrible by the spontaneity of Ferguson citizens' outrage at Mike Brown's shooting and by the legacy of racial repression in America. But it's an attitude we have accepted elsewhere because it's been expressed more telegenically about less sympathetic groups amid better planned repressive theater.

It's very easy for a wing of the American political population to say that the residents of Ferguson belong in a cage and that events in that town over the last few weeks have confirmed that. It's easy, because they're falling back on the same screaming leitmotif running through 400 years of African-American history. But it's only gotten easier in the last 15 years, because they've been egalitarian enough to throw the rest of us in with it, and for the most part, we've gone quietly.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Comcast Is the Worst Company in America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=22800"><span class="small">Lynn Stuart Parramore, AlterNet</span></a>   
Sunday, 31 August 2014 07:31

Parramore writes: "There are a lot of really strong contenders for the title of worst company in America. Walmart, Bank of America, Ticketmaster and Carnival Cruise Lines have all consistently delivered exquisitely horrible experiences to the American consumer, and their contributions to the national anxiety level must not be underestimated."

 Comcast truck. (photo: unknown)
Comcast truck. (photo: unknown)


Why Comcast Is the Worst Company in America

By Lynn Stuart Parramore, AlterNet

31 August 14

 

The world's largest broadcasting and cable company motto should be: If you do a thing, do it as badly as possible

here are a lot of really strong contenders for the title of worst company in America. Walmart, Bank of America, Ticketmaster and Carnival Cruise Lines have all consistently delivered exquisitely horrible experiences to the American consumer, and their contributions to the national anxiety level must not be underestimated. But there is one firm that truly stands out — a company so horrendous the very mention of its name causes body tremors and facial constrictions. I refer, ladies and gentlemen, to Comcast, which seems to take as its motto, If you do a thing, do it as badly as possible.

According to Comsumerist’s annual reader poll to nominate the Worst Companies In America, Comcast is the best at being the worst. The cable company has won the Golden Poo award for the second time, excelling in awfulness in an industry dominated by companies that treat their customers to a never-ending pile of crap.

In a recent article, “Three Possible Reasons That Everyone Hates Comast,” Gene Marks cites the monopolistic hugeness of the company, the helplessness of customers caught in the jaws of the behemoth, and customer service representatives whose typical profile is “a podunk from God-knows-where humiliatingly walk[s] you through a condescending set of instructions from 2006 starting with ‘please disconnect your router, wait 3 minutes, then reconnect.’”

Just listen to the now-famous recording of customer Ryan Block attempting to disconnect his service, only to encounter a refugee from a Kafka novel on the other end of the line whose marching orders apparently include attempting to slowly drive Block out of his mind by the tried-and-true methods of badgering, obstinacy and circular argument.

The horror of Comcast has produced a whole genre of corporate backlash, from the aptly named comcastmustdie.com, a website dedicated to exposing “a vast, greedy, blundering, tone-deaf corporate colossus,” to the I Hate Comcast Facebook page. From the mountains to the prairies, Americans have been documenting the wonder of their hellish experiences and the depth of their hate.

Never a firm to rest on its laurels, Comcast has sought to amplify its atrociousness by announcing a proposed merger in February 2014 with Time Warner Cable, a rival in the corporate-sadist category. The companies are hoping to combine their strengths in bad service, shady business practices and customer predation to create a television and Internet monstrosity such as the world has never seen. If the deal goes through, Comcast will capture a third of the cable and satellite market and half of the bundled video/Internet market in its tentacles, allowing it to take its loathsomeness to new and unimagined heights.

Dear Comcast,

Please disconnect your company, wait 3 minutes, and go to hell.

Sincerely,

America


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The US Government Can Brand You a Terrorist Based on a Facebook Post Print
Sunday, 31 August 2014 07:25

Sethi writes: "The US government's web of surveillance is vast and interconnected. Now we know just how opaque, inefficient and discriminatory it can be."

 (photo: thatsnonsense.com)
(photo: thatsnonsense.com)


The US Government Can Brand You a Terrorist Based on a Facebook Post

By Arjun Sethi, Guardian UK

31 August 14

 

he US government’s web of surveillance is vast and interconnected. Now we know just how opaque, inefficient and discriminatory it can be.

As we were reminded again just this week, you can be pulled into the National Security Agency’s database quietly and quickly, and the consequences can be long and enduring. Through ICREACH, a Google-style search engine created for the intelligence community, the NSA provides data on private communications to 23 government agencies. More than 1,000 analysts had access to that information.

This kind of data sharing, however, isn’t limited to the latest from Edward Snowden’s NSA files. It was confirmed earlier this month that the FBI shares its master watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database, with at least 22 foreign governments, countless federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, plus private contractors.

The watchlist tracks “known” and “suspected” terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans. It’s also based on loose standards and secret evidence, which ensnares innocent people. Indeed, the standards are so low that the US government’s guidelines specifically allow for a single, uncorroborated source of information – including a Facebook or Twitter post – to serve as the basis for placing you on its master watchlist.

Of the 680,000 individuals on that FBI master list, roughly 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation”, according to the Intercept. These individuals don’t even have a connection – as the government loosely defines it – to a designated terrorist group, but they are still branded as suspected terrorists.

The absurdities don’t end there. Take Dearborn, Michigan, a city with a population under 100,000 that is known for its large Arab American community – and has more watchlisted residents than any other city in America except New York.

These eye-popping numbers are largely the result of the US government’s use of a loose standard – so-called “reasonable suspicion” – in determining who, exactly, can be watchlisted.

Reasonable suspicion is such a low standard because it requires neither “concrete evidence” nor “irrefutable evidence”. Instead, an official is permitted to consider “reasonable inferences” and “to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience”.

Consider a real world context – actual criminal justice – where an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a person in the street and ask him or her a few questions. Courts have controversially held that avoiding eye contact with an officer, traveling alone, and traveling late at night, for example, all amount to reasonable suspicion.

This vague criteria is now being used to label innocent people as terrorism suspects.

Moreover, because the watchlist isn’t limited to known, actual terrorists, an official can watchlist a person if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is a suspected terrorist. It’s a circular logic – individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being suspected terrorists – that is ultimately backwards, and must be changed.

The government’s self-mandated surveillance guidance also includes loopholes that permit watchlisting without even showing reasonable suspicion. For example, non-citizens can be watchlisted for being associated with a watchlisted person – even if their relationship with that person is entirely innocuous. Another catch-all exception allows non-citizens to be watchlisted, so long as a source or tipster describes the person as an “extremist”, a “militant”, or in similar terms, and the “context suggests a nexus to terrorism”. The FBI’s definition of “nexus”, in turn, is far more nebulous than they’re letting on.

Because the watchlist designation process is secret, there’s no way of knowing just how many innocent people are added to the list due to these absurdities and loopholes. And yet, history shows that innocent people are inevitably added to the list and suffer life-altering consequences. Life on the master watchlist can trigger enhanced screening at borders and airports; being on the No Fly List, which is a subset of the larger terrorist watchlist, can prevent airline travel altogether. The watchlist can separate family members for months or years, isolate individuals from friends and associates, and ruin employment prospects.

Being branded a terrorism suspect also has far-reaching privacy implications. The watchlist is widely accessible, and government officials routinely collect the biometric data of watchlisted individuals, including their fingerprints and DNA strands. Law enforcement has likewise been directed to gather any and all available evidence when encountering watchlisted individuals, including receipts, business cards, health information and bank statements.

Watchlisting is an awesome power, and if used, must be exercised prudently and transparently.

The standards for inclusion should be appropriately narrow, the evidence relied upon credible and genuine, and the redress and review procedures consistent with basic constitutional requirements of fairness and due process. Instead, watchlisting is being used arbitrarily under a cloud of secrecy.

A watchlist saturated with innocent people diverts attention from real, genuine threats. A watchlist that disproportionately targets Arab and Muslim Americans or other minorities stigmatizes innocent people and alienates them from law enforcement. A watchlist based on poor standards and secret processes raises major constitutional concerns, including the right to travel freely and not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Indeed, you can’t help but wonder: are you already on the watchlist?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Century of Extinction Print
Sunday, 31 August 2014 07:18

Kolbert writes: "It's unusual to be able to date the vanishing of a species. The last time a dodo was seen, on the island of Mauritius, was probably in 1662, but no one knows how long the bird survived, unseen and in low numbers."

 (photo: Susannah Sayler/New Yorker)
(photo: Susannah Sayler/New Yorker)


A Century of Extinction

By Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker

31 August 14

 

t’s unusual to be able to date the vanishing of a species. The last time a dodo was seen, on the island of Mauritius, was probably in 1662, but no one knows how long the bird survived, unseen and in low numbers. The last confirmed sighting off a great auk took place on an island off Iceland, in 1844, but it’s likely that stray birds lived on for years, even decades. There have been no confirmed sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker since 1969, but there are still those who maintain there are ivory-bills out there somewhere.

The extinction of the passenger pigeon is one of those unusual cases, and it happened a hundred years ago this Labor Day weekend. On September 1, 1914, Martha, a passenger pigeon who lived in an aviary at the Cincinnati Zoo, was found dead in her cage. At the time, Martha was believed to be the sole passenger pigeon left on Earth, and, in the intervening century, no evidence has emerged to contradict this. The passenger pigeon was once the most numerous bird in North America, perhaps in the world; it’s estimated that when the first European settlers arrived, at least one of every four birds on the continent was a passenger pigeon. The early colonists were awed by the vastness of the flocks, which contained hundreds of millions—perhaps billions—of birds. As late as the eighteen-seventies, passenger pigeons still could be seen passing overhead in astonishing, sky-darkening numbers; then, over the course of just four decades, the species, Ectopistes migratorius, dwindled down to Martha and her companion, a male named George. Then it was just Martha. And then there were none.

The passenger pigeon’s demise is usually represented as the result of remorseless slaughter, which it certainly was. But the bird’s story also contains an element of mystery, which in some ways is just as alarming.

Passenger pigeons roosted the way they migrated, in enormous flocks. This made them easy pickings for hunters, and the early English colonists wrote of killing hundreds at a go. Once the railroads were laid, the pigeons could be shipped to big-city markets, and the butchery reached a new level. In his book “A Feathered River Across the Sky” (reviewed in this magazine and in The New York Review of Books in January), the author Joel Greenberg describes one of the last great nesting colonies, which was sighted in northern Michigan, in 1878. Telegraph operators relayed the location of the flock to hunters and trappers hundreds of miles away, and soon so many descended on the area that “hotels and boardinghouses ran out of space.” Within a few days, more than a million birds were dispatched.

By the eighteen-nineties, the only passenger pigeon sightings were of small, ragged flocks. And this is what makes the bird’s extinction difficult to entirely explain. Once the passenger pigeon was no longer abundant, it also was no longer worth hunting, or at least no more worth hunting than any other medium-sized bird. So why didn’t it persist at low densities? In his recent book “Lost Animals: Extinction and the Photographic Record,” Errol Fuller, a British author, argues that an “additional factor” must have been at work in the species’ extinction, because “in a land as vast as the United States there can be no mopping-up hunting for a species as small as a pigeon.” (Fuller’s book contains a grainy and not particularly flattering photo of Martha standing in her cage in Cincinnati.)

Some have argued that the “additional factor” was deforestation; by this account, it’s no coincidence that the passenger pigeon went extinct right about the same time that land clearing in the eastern U.S. reached its maximum extent. Others speculate that the passenger pigeon was one of those animals that require great densities to survive. One version of this theory holds that the birds mated only in great swarms; another, that the sheer scale of the flocks had protected the birds from predation.

Whether any of these “additional factors” actually contributed to the bird’s extinction is probably impossible to settle at this point. But whatever happened, the mystery should give us pause. Species that seem today to be doing fine may be sensitive to change in ways that are difficult to foresee. And we are are now changing the planet at a speed that’s probably unprecedented in at least sixty million years.

In honor of the anniversary of Martha’s death, the Smithsonian has put her taxidermied body on exhibit. (It’s usually kept in a vault.) The Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, in North Adams, Massachusetts, is showing a video installation that mimics the flight of hundreds of thousands pigeons passing overhead, and next month, the Yale Orchestra will perform “The Columbiad,” a hundred-and-fifty-year-old symphony inspired by the sight of a flock.  (A century and a half ago, passenger pigeons were grouped together with rock pigeons in the genus Columba; they have since been reclassified.) All these efforts to mark the anniversary are double-edged: commemorations composed by the culpable. As the naturalist Aldo Leopold wrote in “On a Monument to the Pigeon,” composed in 1947, “For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. … To love what was is a new thing under the sun, unknown to most people and to all pigeons.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Rapper T.I. on Ferguson Aftermath: America Has Created a Monster Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32437"><span class="small">Ryan Reed, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Saturday, 30 August 2014 14:40

Reed writes: "T.I. says the Ferguson tragedy and the country's current racial tensions are 'the result of ignoring and mishandling an already fragile-spirited, recently enslaved, presently oppressed race/generation of people.'"

T.I. at the Power 99 Performance Theater in Pennsylvania in 2014. (photo: Bill McCay/Getty Images)
T.I. at the Power 99 Performance Theater in Pennsylvania in 2014. (photo: Bill McCay/Getty Images)


Rapper T.I. on Ferguson Aftermath: America Has Created a Monster

By Ryan Reed, Rolling Stone

30 August 14

 

Dev Hynes also reflects on the Michael Brown shooting: "You don't want it to be real, but it is"

s protests rage on in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by a local police officer, debates about racial profiling and law enforcement ethics continue to dominate national headlines. On Tuesday, rapper T.I. added his thoughts to the conversation with a pair of powerful Instagram posts, writing that "America has created a monster."

In the first post, T.I. says the Ferguson tragedy and the country's current racial tensions are "the result of ignoring and mishandling an already fragile-spirited, recently enslaved, presently oppressed race/generation of people." He adds that African-Americans "created their own" culture, religion and traditions after being "brought to this place," saying, "our people have had an increasing lack of opportunities for generations.

"How long can you expect a nation/race/generation of people to be blatantly disrespected?" the rapper writes. "Spoken to and treated with arrogant tones of insignificance. Our fathers, uncles, brothers and role models were killed and imprisoned more often than educated. Now look at us. Our friends and relatives murdered and cast aside without thought, as though your human life is more valuable than ours. How long can that go on without consequence?"

The second post is similarly worded but even more moving, as T.I. calls for an end to the "insanity" still raging in the Missouri town. "Look at us," he writes. "Rebels without a cause. Soldiers without a general. A lost generation. Ready for War. No strategy, no training. Armed only with our grief, aggravation, and passionate disdain for our treatment in America. Sick and tired of everything...especially ourselves."

Later, he expresses his disgust at going into "Fuck-it" mode ("'Fuck the world, 'fuck the police, and even 'fuck' the wishes and requests of a grieving mother, father, family who lost a son...whose memory they would NOT like to see tarnished by OUR negative ACTIONS/DECISIONS").

"Nah, G, that ain't the code," he writes. "This ain't da way. . . One question to MY PEOPLE: What are we changing...Really? Look at us. Destroying our own community, but continuing to spend money in theirs. Refusing education...revolving in the same cycle of ignorance instead of evolving out of it. . . I do have a fun fact for you. Insanity is...going about things the same way, expecting a different result."

Meanwhile, Devonté Hynes, the eclectic indie-funk artist who records under the moniker Blood Orange, expressed his shock and horror in an interview with OkayPlayer.

"You don't want it to be real, but it is," Hynes said. "And I don't know what's happening or what's going to happen. To me, it feels like I've been getting poked all my life. . . and people are just getting tired. It feels like you associate time with learning. I think in our culture, it's a real shock that that doesn't add up in everything. Just because the Civil Rights Act was 50 years ago doesn't mean that we're 50 times past it."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 Next > End >>

Page 2738 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN