| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty August 19, 2014 Who Turns Over a Portable Toilet in the Name of Their Community? Examining the coverage of last night's continuing violence in Ferguson, Missouri . . . In front of McDonald's, a tactical unit removed a driver from his car at gunpoint. Some protesters tipped over portable toilets and dragged them into the streets. Who tips over a portable toilet as a form of protest? That's not a protest; that's a tantrum. You can't claim that you're expressing your anger on behalf of your community when your actions spill feces into the street of the community. (Anyone else reminded of that Occupy protester?) The coverage states "the conflict escalated shortly before 10 p.m." Put aside the government-imposed curfew in past nights. There have been protests, prayer rallies, demonstrations all day long. Who's still out at that hour? Of course protesters have a right to peaceably assemble. But in light of the events of the past week, who chooses to express their anger over recent events in the middle of the night? This July 1st, a new law (part of HR Bill #2847) went into effect in America. On the surface, it looked like just another tax law – but it actually had huge implications far beyond the tax code. This law actually changed our entire financial system… overnight. Even a liberal media source said it "seems to be turning into a nightmare and disaster." Yet 99% of Americans STILL have no idea what just happened. Make sure you get the facts and protect yourself. Details here...  | | | And if you're one of those peaceful protesters, out in the middle of the night . . . when you see somebody in your midst pick up a bottle and throw it at cops . . . why don't you yell, "Stop!"? At least two people were shot, numerous fires were set and more than 30 people were arrested in Ferguson, Mo., early Tuesday, Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ronald Johnson told reporters early Tuesday. At a news briefing at about 2:20 a.m. Central time, Johnson said Monday evening began peacefully with calm and orderly protests. "This was a freedom of expression we are committed to protecting," he said. About 9:40 p.m. more than 200 people started walking toward police officers. "They were loud but not aggressive," he added, emphasizing that many chanted and turned around after they were heard. Police did not react, he said. "That's when bottles were thrown from the middle and the back of a large crowd that gathered near and within the media staging area," he said. "These criminal acts came form a tiny minority of lawbreakers." Johnson said bottles and molotov cocktails were thrown; shots were fired. "Not a single shot" was fired by officers, he said. "Protesters are peaceful and respectful. Protesters don't clash with police," he said. "It is criminals who throw Molotov cocktails and fire shots that injures lives and property." Johnson also addressed the media, asking journalists to stay clear of the roads so police can safely move through. "Let's not glamorize the acts of criminals," he said. Good luck with that, sir. Alison Lundergan Grimes's Sweet Deal on Her Campaign Bus Politico Pro offers a story that ought to trouble Kentucky voters . . . whether or not it will is another story. Alison Lundergan Grimes has barnstormed Kentucky in her 45-foot-long campaign bus, rolling up to raucous campaign events and posing for photos next to the vehicle bearing an oversize image of the Democratic Senate hopeful. Left unmentioned amid the hubbub is this: Her father's company acquired the bus just as the campaign got under way last year -- and is renting it to his daughter for a fraction of what other companies would typically charge, according to a POLITICO analysis. Federal campaign finance law bars a campaign from receiving goods and services below the fair market value from a corporation, regardless of whether it is owned by a family member. A review of Federal Election Commission records shows Grimes paid less than $11,000 through June to rent the bus for at least 24 days, amounting to about $456 per day. Officials at four bus companies said they typically charge $1,500 to $2,000 a day to rent a similarly sized bus, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign said it spent at least $2,200 per day to rent essentially the same bus during a swing earlier this month. That would amount to a savings of tens of thousands of dollars for the Democrat's campaign. The spending highlights the central role that Jerry Lundergan, a gregarious former Kentucky Democratic Party chairman and state lawmaker, is playing in his daughter's bid to unseat McConnell. Polls show the GOP leader maintaining a very small lead in the race, one of the most closely watched in the country this year. Will this upset people? Or will they look at corporations and other entities making ludicrous overpayments to, say, Hillary Clinton and shrug and think that this is how things work now? The fee for Hillary Clinton's upcoming $225,000 speaking gig at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas isn't the only exorbitant requirement stipulated by the former secretary of state in her agreement to appear at the school. Reporting on recent documents obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal about the Clinton event on Sunday, Good Morning America anchor Ron Claiborne listed Clinton's demands that she be transported in a private jet and put up in a presidential suite at the hotel of her choice, and that the only record of her remarks be made by a personal stenographer, to whom only Clinton will have access. Everything to Clinton is perfectly legal because she's not officially a candidate; whatever you think of Grimes' father covering the costs of her campaign bus, it's against FEC rules. Ferguson and Police Militarization A rare moment of disagreement with the boss, Rich Lowry, when he contends that that militarization of police is irrelevant to the events in Ferguson: It was ridiculous and wrong for police snipers to train their weapons on peaceful protestors in Ferguson. But, when you get right down to it, the militarization of police has had basically nothing to do with events there, even though the Left and parts of the Right have wanted to make that the main issue. When Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown, the officer was presumably wearing a typical police uniform and driving a typical police car. He either acted in entirely justifiable self-defense, made a catastrophic misjudgment after an altercation, or (in the extreme version of the protestors) shot Brown because he wanted to execute a black teenager. None of these possibilities have anything to do with the militarization of police one way or the other.
We've seen some witless heavy-handedness on the part of the cops, for instance the arrests of a couple of reporters at the McDonald's last week. But some perspective: Cops were perfectly capable of being heavy-handed long before anyone gave them surplus military equipment. The scenario in that McDonald's would probably have been exactly the same whether or not there were armored vehicles outside on the street or not. Let's stipulate that the militarization of police didn't have much to do with the shooting of Michael Brown, unless the trend in law enforcement in recent years contributed to the officer's mentality that he is "at war" or "in a war zone," and thus more likely to use deadly force than he otherwise would be . . . But the militarization of the police sure as heck seemed to play a part in the exacerbation of the circumstances afterwards. If a community is angry about a fatal shooting, convinced that the local police authorities are an alien, outside entity, determined to throw their weight around and impose their will upon the community with the perpetual threat of deadly force . . . then showing up and setting up your rifle and scope upon the community seems like just about the most incendiary approach the police could take. 
Everybody feeling calmer now?
I think I would ask – because I genuinely don't know – whether driving around in an armored vehicle, wearing bulky body armor, having one's face obscured by a mask, and carrying a rifle instead of the standard sidearm -- changes the mentality of a police officer and how they see the people around them. Also note that declaring "the Ferguson Police use their military-grade equipment in a manner that exacerbates tensions with the community, instead of mitigating them" is not the same as saying "all police forces use their military-grade equipment in a manner that exacerbates tensions with the community, instead of mitigating them." We may be watching a particularly troubled police force deal with this situation. Rich begins, "It was ridiculous and wrong for police snipers to train their weapons on peaceful protestors in Ferguson" . . . Doesn't that partially negate his following sentence, "the militarization of police has had basically nothing to do with events there"? Doesn't it have at least a little to do with the events down there? Liz Sheld focuses upon a fair question: How often should the cops point firearms at civilians? Minimally, right? The central issue here is: if or under what circumstances should the capacity for force and intimidation be deployed against the public by the state. And this becomes controversial when one wants to answer that the capacity should be preventative rather than responsive. Responsive force entails responding to a situation where public safety is being threatened. On the other hand, preventative force and intimidation is far more problematic from a civil liberties perspective because it is the police force themselves introducing the element of disruption into the civil equation. When a massive force rolls into Ferguson during a peaceful rally in the middle of the day, can we really say this doesn't result in intimidation, at the least, and antagonism, at the worst? Does the presence of intimidating MRAPs, military-esque rifles, costumed-up police force have no effect on the public to which it is directed? And for those inclined to say "yes" there is no effect, I respond: standard gun safety rules dictate that you DO NOT point your gun at something you are not prepared to shoot. Do you really think you have the right to free-speech or free assembly when you are, literally, in the state's crosshairs? ADDENDA: I'm scheduled to appear on Greta Van Susteren's panel tonight… Every once in a while I get a report from the dimly lit executive boardroom at Random House . . .
 "Sales of 'The Weed Agency' are down four percent from last week." "Four times in the last five days, Geraghty failed to nag his Morning Jolt readers to buy the book." "Perhaps we can find new ways to motivate him." "Release the hounds." For some reason, every time I run through the litany . . . The Weed Agency is . . . $9.97 on Amazon, $7.99 on Kindle, $9.97 at Barnes and Noble, $9.99 on Nook, and IndieBound can steer you to an independent bookseller near you. One reader asked if I had anything against Books-a-Million, and I don't, I just forgot to look it up there: $11.41 over on that site, $9.99 for the e-book. . . . the sales bump up a bit. I don't know if it's the same people buying copies for their friends, or regular readers who decide, 'okay, I'll buy, just to get Jim to stop nagging me' . . . but either way, thank you. Perhaps the neat federal-agency-spending data over at openthebooks.com will spur some new good stories of wasteful government spending . . . From Our Sponsor:
Get the latest news at www.nationalreview.com | 
Comments
Post a Comment