Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
Daylight Robbery, Meet Nighttime Robbery
I keep hearing comparisons between the London riots and riots in other European cities—window smashing in Athens, or car bonfires in Paris. And there are parallels, to be sure: a spark set by police violence, a generation that feels forgotten.
But those events were marked by mass destruction; the looting was minor. There have, however, been other mass lootings in recent years, and perhaps we should talk about them too. There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion—a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.
Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves. But London isn’t Baghdad, and British Prime Minister David Cameron is hardly Saddam, so surely there is nothing to learn there.
How about a democratic example then? Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and thousands of people living in rough neighborhoods (which had been thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford—clothes, electronics, meat. The government called a “state of siege” to restore order; the people didn’t like that and overthrew the government.
Argentina’s mass looting was called El Saqueo—the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country’s elites had done by selling off the country’s national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatization deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package. Argentines understood that the saqueo of the shopping centers would not have happened without the bigger saqueo of the country, and that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.
But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political, or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking advantage of a situation to take what isn’t theirs. And British society, Cameron tells us, abhors that kind of behavior.
This is said in all seriousness. As if the massive bank bailouts never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by the emergency G-8 and G-20 meetings, when the leaders decided, collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from happening again. Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and force sacrifices on the most vulnerable. They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating teachers, closing libraries, upping tuitions, rolling back union contracts, creating rush privatizations of public assets and decreasing pensions – mix the cocktail for where you live. And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these “entitlements”? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of course.
This is the global Saqueo, a time of great taking. Fueled by a pathological sense of entitlement, this looting has all been done with the lights left on, as if there was nothing at all to hide. There are some nagging fears, however. In early July, the Wall Street Journal, citing a new poll, reported that 94 percent of millionaires were afraid of "violence in the streets.” This, it turns out, was a reasonable fear.
Of course London’s riots weren’t a political protest. But the people committing nighttime robbery sure as hell know that their elites have been committing daytime robbery. Saqueos are contagious.
The Tories are right when they say the rioting is not about the cuts. But it has a great deal to do with what those cuts represent: being cut off. Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered—a union job, a good affordable education—being rapidly sealed off. The cuts are a message. They are saying to whole sectors of society: you are stuck where you are, much like the migrants and refugees we turn away at our increasingly fortressed borders.
David Cameron’s response to the riots is to make this locking-out literal: evictions from public housing, threats to cut off communication tools and outrageous jail terms (five months to a woman for receiving a stolen pair of shorts). The message is once again being sent: disappear, and do it quietly.
At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned. It was nothing by London 2011 standards, but it was still shocking to us Canadians. The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security” (yet they still couldn’t seem to put out those fires). At the time, many of us pointed out that the pricey new arsenal that the police had acquired—water cannons, sound cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets—wasn’t just meant for the protesters in the streets. Its long-term use would be to discipline the poor, who in the new era of austerity would have dangerously little to lose.
This is what David Cameron got wrong: you can't cut police budgets at the same time as you cut everything else. Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance—whether organized protests or spontaneous looting.
And that’s not politics. It’s physics.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



58 Comments so far
Show AllNaomi is one smart cookie. She is my ideal woman. If I were only 70 again.
If I were only 50 again....
I was talking with a couple of guys the other day, and we agreed that choices made at a young age had funneled us into our current jobs (read classes.) Once you decide to learn how to repair refrigeration, or teach 8 year olds, or become a surgeon for that matter, there is little you can change 20 or 30 years later. We tend to downplay a lot of our frustration because we have SOMETHING, yet we worry about our kids. Yes, I know, they'll probably have "something" too, but I mean our American kids. If things don't get better for them it'll be the Watts Riots to the third power very soon!
If I were only 20 again... I'd wish I was 40 like I did then.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
If I were only 40 again.
Such a shame Naomi gets the cold shoulder from much of Canadian main stream media Other than an few TVO appearances we see very little of her. Yet they won't hesitate to provide a platform for people like Tom Flanagan, the academic Conservative Party hack to spew his moronic Reform Party views. Tom Flanagan btw was the guy who before the entire country declaired "Julian Assange should be assasinated". Naomi is a truly great Canadian and deserves much better. ok.her looks. can't help but improve ratings.
[Tom Flanagan btw was the guy who before the entire country declared "Julian Assange should be assassinated".]
He is an American-born, right-wing, idealogue who dismissed the continent’s First Nations as merely its “first immigrants” which neatly eliminates any indigenous entitlement. He argues that the only sensible native policy is outright assimilation.
To think he was Harper's chief of staff is a scary thought...
"Naomi is one smart cookie.'
Yes, the police killing was simply a trigger for the underlying social unrest. Haven't seen a better or even a good analysis anywhere else.
"At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned...The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security”...At the time, many of us pointed out that the pricey new arsenal that the police had acquired—water cannons, SOUND CANNONS [my caps--metal], tear gas and rubber bullets—wasn’t just meant for the protesters in the streets. IT'S LONG-TERM USE WOULD BE TO DISCIPLINE THE POOR, WHO IN THE NEW ERA OF AUSTERITY WOULD HAVE DANGEROUSLY LITTLE TO LOSE. [my caps--metal]
Neo-liberal ruling elites in the U.S., Canada, the EK and EU sit inside their super-affluent bubbles, family compounds or Tuscan villas snorting only their own propaganda like a drug until they believe too much of it themselves.
For example, "Professor" Condasleeeeza Rice is still running around lose stoned out of her mind on bad hairdos and failed neo-conservatism like a black Blanche DuBois waiting on the kindness of mainstream black leaders in the U.S. with ties to Martin Luther King Jr. who view her as black kryptonite. They'll shun Obsymal the same way in a few years.
But I digress. The ruling neo-libs clearly don't really examine the population downside of their own "austerity" math. They're too busy cutting increasingly massive dirty deals to build crooked campaign finance crony lists; staking out post-electoral office lobbying/lecture/book deals or counting up their ill-gotten lucre (like Dick Cheney preemptively and post-operatively did) too much of the time.
In fact, they are disenfranchising far too many hundreds of millions of people in the First World far too rapidly. Many neo-lib office holders will eventually reap the whirlwind themselves, although the rest of us will face it up front. Only the plutocratic puppet masters themselves who can flee to island compounds or Arab sheikdoms protected by enormous mercenary armies will be safe if we continue down the Pied Piper rat path of globally failed neo-liberalism much longer.
Agree with what you said about the new arsenals they have acquired. And they will be used on us here if we step out of line. My thoughts on these summits, is why can't these bastards justmeet in quiet to do their planning of scewing us? Then Igot it. It ives them an excuse to try out their new toys.
This article reminded me of the "lootets" during Katrina. The Blacks were looting while the Whites were justgetting supplies.
Naomi is brilliant. From her No Logo to the Shock Doctrine.
Anyone read No Logo? Great book.
Speaking of the authorities and troublemakers - look how the former are helping Verizon management deal with the latter:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/veri-a15.shtml
Thank you for your history from an observer, it is refreshing to hear the story from the your viewpoint rather than the victor's slant.
A man I knew caught a wild raccoon, put it in a cage, fed and watered it, and one day took it out to pet it. The raccoon scratched him so he hit it, then the raccoon bit him, so he hit it again and the raccoon went totally wild with biting,scratching and lashing out so much that the man threw the raccoon back in its cage. Then the man got a gun and shot the raccoon because in this man's reasoning the raccoon was wrong and the only solution was to apply the final solution if the raccoon was to give up his freedom to live in this man's world.
Compelling anecdote, Plank.
It's like a condensed version of "To Kill A Mockingbird" as written by William Faulkner.
LOL!
O.S.-
"To Kill A Mockingbird" was written by Harper Lee, not William Faulkner...
Thanks, stubones, but that's why I wrote "as written by", as distinct from "written by".
What you wrote was quite clear, a little odd, but quite clear. You shouldn't have to explain where an understanding should been had from the first reading. By the by, I think Faulkner was the greatest writer the US has ever produced.
an understanding "should been had" from the first reading- "Quite clear" eh.....
He went through the trouble of explaining it because he is obviously A Gentleman....I made an honest mistake and was NOT trying to dilute his message or steal his thunder-
That was up to him and NOT you...
O.K., I see O.S. ...I must admit that I was A bit surprised that you would make that mistake as you are one of the top posters here in my book...
I am actually related to Faulkner according to my families book of Geneology. Coincidentally, "The Sound and the Fury" is on T.V. now...
"...and the only solution was to apply the final solution...."
_______
Your analogy is not only disturbing, but likely prescient, Plank. I've been thinking about this for some time and believe that as people demonstrate increased resistance to "austerity", tyranny and barbarism inflicted upon them in the so-called "developed" democracies, the ruling elites will lose no time culling the herd, which is probably already understood--if now only on a subconscious level-- as part of the final plan.
In this vein, Arthur Silber posted a powerful essay today titled Caught Up in Nightmare: Killing Jack Rabbits. It can be read at:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/08/caught-up-in-nightmare-killing-jack.html
They've already decided to cull the elderly by cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security. Younger people are next in line ...
As usual, well said Naomi. The day of reckoning is long overdue for those at the apex of the decision pyramid wherin most of us struggle at the base. Wake up and smell the cordite before it overwhelms us all.
Naomi. Why didn't you cite the food riots led by armed women in the Confederate States of America during the civil war? Sure, that was long, long ago but it is, at least to me, one of the most clear-cut examples of a socially and politically motivated loot. These women stated openly, fearlessly, and unabashedly: "you (the government of the CSA) have not only taken our menfolk away from us and left us to fend for ourselves and our children but you also had promised to protect us from abuse by the (terrible) Yankees". Yes there were men at some of these happenings but they were not the leaders. The woman were the leaders and spokespersons. In a number of cases they went first peacefully to city hall to demand that the city government force the grocers to sell at government-set prices. Only when that failed did they go to stores to confiscate food sometimes at gun point. I am sure you know what happened next. The CSA did not turn the screws on these women who were mostly wives of poor yeoman farmers but did exactly the opposite, it established what apparently was the first "entitlement" ever in the Americas, in this case regular payments to "soldiers wives" only. After the CSA was dissolved the "entitlement" was taken away (stopped) by the U.S.A. Would there have been these food riots if the CSA had issued "food stamps" in good time and had ordered the rich planters to grow corn instead of cotton?
Well done, Naomi!
Her pithy and trenchant analysis is like a commercial-grade power washer that blasts away all of the tendentious, recriminatory slop and scum spewed upon the London riot story by lesser minds.
recriminatory slop and scum
You do have a way with words, thanks
Excellent article. David Cameron speaks and acts like the chief henchman of a cruel medieval king.
Yes. We live in a Sheriff of Nottingham society.
'when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves.."
Always look toward Naomi Klein for wisdom and sterling insight. When is enough enough? Why should we have so much suffering in the world because of poverty? Can't we take a hiatus from gathering all this material wealth and share it all with each other, even for just a few years to see where that takes us? I know it's a dream but can't everyone have enough to eat and drink and shelter first and then go from there?
I like your dream, Rico, and I don't see any good reason why it's impossible.
"The big controversy then was that the government had spent $675 million on summit “security..”
Wow. $675 mil? And to think, Canada used to be such a different country.
Great comments, distinguished colleagues. Naomi is a global resource.
"But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political, or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking advantage of a situation to take which isn't theirs. And British society, [prime minister David] Cameron tells us, abhors such behavior." -Naomi Klein
Oh, the myopia of the Brits.
Ms. Naomi does a masterful job as usual of drawing together the big, cross cultural currents of class warfare erupting in the streets of London, other European capitols, in Toronto, post-US invasion Iraq, Argentina, and elsewhere. What struck me most about David Cameron's pathetic response to questions in Parliament about the rioting and in the great law and order crackdown campaign now underway in jolly ole England was the Tory Party and New Labour's bipartisan, bizarre ability to avoid any and all public mention of the reasons most often directly, repeatedly verbalized by the rioter/looters themselves as explanation for the chaotic street violence that was taking place.
Police brutality is almost always the spark that ignites the sudden, unexpected inflagration. Years of petty insult, excessive force, and even flagrant deadly force - almost invariably by white males wearing the uniform of the law victimizing people of color - reaches some sort of tipping point. That is what Mr. Cameron blithely ignores, much preferring instead to blame the outburst of rage on common criminality, bad parenting, and disrespect for authority. That is what the Tory prime minister said, over and over, in the framing of the government's response. Recurrent acts of police brutality mixed with distinctly racial overtones remain the Great Unmentionable, as far as I can tell.
For sure, that myopia is largely a product of British hubris (as well as partisan expediency). The iconic image of the kindly non-gun-toting English bobbie coupled with the scrupulously renown decorum of her Majesty's courts - even for wogs and other low lifes brought up on charges by the Crown's criminal justice system - is a matter of rightful national pride. It is also a cultural blind spot. Police brutality, particularly towards non-whites, seems such an American phenomenon. Only those coarse redneck Yanks have race riots, in places like Detroit, Watts, and Newark. Such just does not happen in London or Brixton.
So there's no point even talking about that, or those thirty three civilian corpses, and the complete abscence of legal or institutional accountability.
No matter what the rioters say.
Bill from Saginaw
Police brutality with racial overtones was the spark, but the majority of the rioters appear to be white. That doesn't fit easily into any racial theories, whether from the right, or from the left. That is why the initial attempts, both by the right (it is all the fault of those blacks), and the left (your argument), to view the riots through a racial prism, stayed as initial attempts, and did not go further. (There are some deranged right wingers who want to try to blame the riots on "black" culture, saying that those white people who rioted were "behaving black". No, I am not making this up. There are those on the right who actually argue this)
Race might have been one of the reasons, it was not the only reason, or even the major reason.
"No matter what the rioters say. "
What in your opinion did the rioters say?
rfloh -
The basis for my post on Cameron's comments and issue framing came from NPR coverage of the Parliamentary question session and a couple of articles from the Times and Guardian I checked out on the internet. My basis for what the rioters were saying was a lengthy TV interview (BBC I think) posted on UTube (and I'm quite certain linked to Common Dreams) with an elderly Jamacian man who had lived most of his life in a neighborhood that had just been decimated. He was admant about how some specific, local police brutality issues had triggered popular backlash. Peaceful protest demonstrations generated yet more blatant strong arm response by the police, and everything escalated from there.
My point is that that dynamic is not unusual. The uprising in Tunisia, for instance, started with a martyr who had been abused and humiliated by Tunisian police. The great Detroit riot of 1976 grew out of a raid on a blind pig by the police, against the backdrop of years of excessive force policies targeting black residents. Detroit had a unit called STRESS which (believe it or not) used sting operation tactics to get an undercover cop assaulted by wannabe muggers, who would then be shot on the spot by a lurking undercover surveillance team. The body count from STRESS tactics was similar to the 33 police custody deaths mentioned in the UTube interview involving the London riots. Anyway, the '67 Detroit uprising proved to be an absolute catastrophe, resulting in military occupation of the downtown to finally quell the violence, followed by massive white flight to the suburbs.
That many of the rioters are white is not all that unusual (think post-Katrina New Orleans). I can understand why the British politicos don't want to highlight talk about racial tensions. I cannot, however, excuse the government's refusal to acknowledge that blowback against police brutality was, in fact, a major reason for the recent civil unrest.
Bill from Saginaw
"My basis for what the rioters were saying was a lengthy TV interview (BBC I think) posted on UTube (and I'm quite certain linked to Common Dreams) with an elderly Jamacian man who had lived most of his life in a neighborhood that had just been decimated. He was admant about how some specific, local police brutality issues had triggered popular backlash. Peaceful protest demonstrations generated yet more blatant strong arm response by the police, and everything escalated from there."
Was he a rioter himself? How does a blowback against racially based police brutality in London (in Haringey), trigger riots among white youth in Manchester, or Birmingham?
"he basis for my post on Cameron's comments and issue framing came from NPR coverage of the Parliamentary question session and a couple of articles from the Times and Guardian I checked out on the internet."
In that case, you should be aware that it was a black (Labour) MP, Chuka Umunna, who was the most insistent in insisting that the riots were not racially based (and that black people should not be blamed). He was the MP who pushed Cameron to state that there was no racial aspect to the riots.
"My point is that that dynamic is not unusual. The uprising in Tunisia, for instance, started with a martyr who had been abused and humiliated by Tunisian police. "
What has the uprising in Tunisia to do with race?
"hat many of the rioters are white is not all that unusual (think post-Katrina New Orleans)"
It is not unusual, but it destroys simplistic attempts to view them through a racial prism.
". I can understand why the British politicos don't want to highlight talk about racial tensions.
They don't want to talk about, because there are no easy (racial) conclusions. There certainly are those on the right, which is most mainstream UK pols, who were raring to view the riots through a racial prism, ie it is all the fault of the blacks. The material reality, that majority of the rioters were white put paid to that. The police certainly do behave brutally, even based on race, targetting black people, and Muslims, but 2011 is not 1985.
". I cannot, however, excuse the government's refusal to acknowledge that blowback against police brutality was, in fact, a major reason for the recent civil unrest."
The government has refused to acknowledge any reason; whether blowback against police brutality (which isn't so much racial, but rather class based; the police are not liked by a lot of the poor, the working class, regardless of race), or economic reasons, or class, or as copying the bankers, the politicians themselves.
The possible racial reasons for the riots are overblown.
The corrupt system which the prime minister is so much a part of with all its provding special favors to the rich and treating those who actually create wealth like nothing is the cause of the dissent which occurred, mostly non violent and simply pro democracy. They want their country back from the fangs of the City and other assorted criminal elements.
"Daylight Robbery, Meet Nighttime Robbery"
The riots everywhere are about the difference between rich and poor, locally and globally. That's the basic reality. All else are local variations on that theme.
There's most likely a fairly fixed mathematical proportion determining how many times richer the richest can be than the poorest before social upheaval happens. That is, when the difference is apparent and is otherwise possible to compare. Basic envy and feeling of injustice then sets in.
We're far past that limit, globally as well as in most western countries now. Scandinavia stands out as egalitarian and calm, so the proportional limit is in the range of a GINI-coefficient below 0.30 (a value of 0 expressing total equality and 1 for maximal inequality). Sweden is GINI-value .23. UK rose above .30 in 1988, and is now approaching .40.
USA's GINI index is fast approaching .50 - but it's a big, wide country.
The GINI-value limit is of course moderated by many factors, like strength of police, barriers between rich & poor, distance between low & high income areas, education and info on real conditions, etc.
But, as Naomi Klein says, it's physics: there's a set limit to when people just "won't take it anymore".
The global GINI-coefficient has fallen from .68 in 1975 to .61 today. - That's a small improvement, but the value is far above the limit for social stability when modern communications technologies simultanously make the members of the human tribe instantly comparable across the globe. Yes, we're only just passing 2 bn internet-users now, but rising fast - about 500 % since year 2000 !
We humans are getting mentally closer so fast that social instability is bound to follow, particularly as the gap between rich and poor still increases. (The GINI index is just one indicative measure, the gap also increases in the sense that both the richest and poorest increase in numbers, as humanity increases with 240,000 people every day while numbers of global USD-millionaires also increase).
The rich want to feel different by getting richer. The riots erupting everywhere ensure they feel the difference. To quote GWBush: "Bring it on!".
Excellent points, 2 B. The rich have oppressed the rest of us for thousands of years. With the advent of the internet, really smart young people all over the world will not stand for this oppression (except of course those smart young people who opt to join the oppressors, as some will). Cameron threatened to shut down smart phones. The subway system I think in San Francisco did this in the last week. That doesn't seem like a viable strategy.
Along that line of thought, Israel, with a GINI of .39 and high internet usage, has had massive protests for the last few weeks.
"The rich want to feel different by getting richer." I believe it's a bit more than that.
These people are psychopaths. (lots of "tests" out there for defining psychopathic behavior. Here's one: http://bob.bofh.org/~robm/misc/psycho.html ).
The global economic system rewards this behavior. Just shut down all temptations toward empathy and compassion (if you had it at all to begin with) and jump into the game that is as old as humanity itself: pecking orders and power.
Where am I on the list? Today I am the 400th richest bastard in the world. I can do better.
Of course, there's more. Variations on the theme. Some of these bastards actually realize the end is near and are grabbing and hoarding what is left.
He who dies with the most toys wins.
From the article: "At last year’s G-20 “austerity summit” in Toronto, the protests turned into riots and multiple cop cars burned."
Unedited video footage later revealed it was the Toronto Police themselves who had set the police cruisers on fire using a delayed ignition device, and a common photography trick of forced perspective made the approaching crowd look closer to the car than they actually were. This was all done to grant even more draconian powers to the Police. They even admitted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo&feature=related
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/06/toronto-burning-or-it
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928
http://www.pixiq.com/article/toronto-cops-accused-of-rape-and-torching-police-cars-during-g20-summit
"it was the Toronto Police themselves who had set the police cruisers on fire using a delayed ignition device"
Hard to believe as it is, that's actually true.
indeed
there were instigators dressed in black who were filmed conferring with the police
these instigators were then labelled anarchists by the media and there action sused as evidence that the riot was violent.
There was no riot. There was kettling and violence and police abuse of peaceful protesters.
Naomi is just repeating the liberal meme from the msm.
When citizens take to the streets to protest and violence and/or looting breaks out, the leaders of nations, who themselves are often criminals, deplore the protests, condemn the protesters and deny the political reality behind the protest. Mobs take to the street when there is injustice in that society; the weak, poor, and disaffected have no other political voice. In reality, if the leaders of nations were just, if they put their faith in human rights, economic rights and environmental rights, and if they did everything in their power to avoid unnecessary war and force as a solution to complex global and national problems, they would find there would be reduced need for citizens to take to the streets and fewer protests to worry about. How does humanity come to terms with the deeply-rooted self-interest of power when the species itself is yearning and struggling to evolve to a better concept of justice?
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
Thank god for President Obama, under his policies there will be no rioting here...that's not countered with brutal police oppression.
I wish this woman was an American citizen because I would work like hell to get her a cabinet spot. She's brilliant and spot on as always.
"I would work like hell to get her a cabinet spot."
I thought you liked Naomi. A cabinet post wold be her death.
Naomi holds dual citizenship, being the daughter of American citizens who fled to Canada during the VietNam War. She is an American citizen. Given what Elizabeth Warren is going through, why would Naomi want a cabinet position? She has more influence now.
The Arab Spring, the uprisings in Libya and Syria and the London riots all have the same economic background.Rage over a small group of super rich who confiscate all of the nation's wealth and withdraw support from the rest. True, there were different "triggers" for each ranging from police brutality to self-immolation, but the rage was already there. In response, Mubarak ends up in the dock, we bomb Quadaffi, and we sanction Assad, and we speak fondly of Cameron. What will be the reaction to the upcoming US riots?
jklfairwin-
The short term reaction to the upcoming US riots (depending upon when they come up) likely will be nationwide police repression, openly sanctioned by the Obama White House. No matter how ham handed the law-and-order tactics, the right wing will accuse Obama of coddling those scraggly criminals running rampant in the streets.
The long term reaction to the crackdown will be a lose-lose situation for everybody except the goons.
Bill from Saginaw
Obomber might just send the military in to quell the violence. I can't see why he wouldn't.
Naomi Klein - Elizabeth Warren. There IS hope.