We already know what the presumptive GOP-nominee for Vice-President Paul Ryan did on September 6, 2011, because we reported about itin our previous post. On September 6, 2011, Paul Ryan gave a "pay-per-view" speech at the Whitnell Park Rotary Club in Greenfield, Wisconsin.
During the speech, Paul Ryan was heckled by about 20 protesters who bought tickets for this event, and Ryan in return made tasteless jokes for example about a 71-year-old pensioner who was quickly removed from the room after shouting at Paul Ryan - and then brutally wrestled to the ground by policemen and arrested. A video of this incident went viral yesterday, and this clip is a real eye opener for anyone who wants to know more about Paul Ryan. "I hope he is taking his blood pressure medication", Ryan joked after 71-year old Tom Nielsen shouted that he had paid for 50 years into the so called "entitlement programs." Nielsen was removed from the room and then brutally arrested by the police outside.
At the end of the post, I have included a new clip from the protest at Whitnell Park Rotary Club, which I today found on youtube.
However, let's first deal with the following question: What did Paul Ryan do one day earlier, on September 5, 2011? Well, it was Labor Day, so he surely enjoyed the parade at his home town Janesville, a town which is so deeply connected with the Ryan-family that is has been dubbed "Ryanville" by journalists. Correct?
Well, this is almost what happened. Yes, Paul Ryan did walk with the Labor Day parade, and he even brought supporters with him, who were wearing their very own green "Ryan" t-shirts. But the reaction of his fellow-citizens in Janesville was very different than one might expect. They confronted him, booed him, protested against him - during the parade. Ryan's reaction was very similar to the way he reacted one day later at the Rotary Club: Disinterested, bored, even contemptuous. "Do you want a candy?", he asks a young man who is clearly distraught and confronts him in a serious manner. No answers from Paul Ryan. He was not interested and dodged all the questions.
The expression on his face showed it all: These people really do get on his nerves. I guess that it is much more fun to speak at some protected Koch-sucking "America for Prosperity" and lecture the believers than to mingle with the ordinary citizens, who have real questions, and want real answers.
Paul Ryan is supposed to be the next Vice-President of the USA? He is a joke, even at home.
I guess it sucks to be Paul Ryan sometimes. But the US-voters should make sure that Paul Ryan has no chance to console himself with being the Vice-President of the most powerful nation on earth.
The Occupy-movement has moved out of the headlines these days, which they "occupied" several month ago in the wake of their extensive protests, mainly in the USA. At these protests, we witnessed a lot of vicious police actions which predominantly happened in several US-cities, as well as in other countries. We saw clip after clip of shockingly brutal, unnecessary, unwarranted police actionsat OWS-protests(see for example this shocking compilation of incidents here), and it was incredibly depressing to realize that this is apparently what "democracy now looks like" in parts of the Western world. It was simply unbelievable what we saw during these OWS-protests.
If peaceful protests are being violently crushed in such a way on a routine basis, then there is not much which distinguishes the Western world from autocratic regimes. The disregard that members of the police showed for free speech in particular is still hard to believe. It is a sad state of affairs if for example the police actions against demonstraters in Russia are quite hard to distinguish from the police actions against the Occupy movement, with Russia being a country which currently could be called at least "partly-autocratic."
So this is a hot, controversial topic, and while it's not my goal to "lecture" anyone, I also don't want to miss the opportunity to show that it "doesn't necessarily have to be like that." I am very concerned about the state of democracy in the Western world, and in the US in particular, and as far as brutal police actions are concerned, I believe that a general agressive attitude, most likely combined with massive prejudices against protesters and a growing militarization of the police are to blame. In addition it is apparent to me, from what I have seen in countless video clips, that the level of training of the police forces seems to be very poor. "Beat them, crush them, punish them" appears far too often to be the preferred method of "problem solving" by cops when they are being put into difficult situations, like (left-wing) mass protests. This is not the type of behaviour which should be acceptable in modern democracies.
I am not saying that everything is perfect over here in Europe. Over the years, we have had a fair share of violent police actions on numerous occasions, in many countries. Just recently, in September 2010, a disastrous police action took place in Stuttgart, Germany, when foolish conservative politicians ordered the police to forcefully clear a piece of land full of protesters, many of them teenagers, with one pensioner getting permantly blinded after he got hit in the face by a stream from a police water cannon. The protests were directed against the construcation of a new main train station in Stuttgart, as the project is hideously "over-engineered", far too expensive and also very damaging to the environment.
Back to Occupy: My point is that, right now, there are profound differences of how the Occupy-movement is being treated in Germany by the authorities, compared to what we have seen for example in the USA. This, I believe, is noteworthy. Granted, the Occupy-movement in Germany is rather small, which is not surprising as the economic pressures in Germany are not very significant right now. Unemployment is on a 20-year low, and in contrast to some of the Southern European countries, Germany's economic growth is going strong.
However, that doesn't mean that German Occupy-movement has been invisible. After protests in October 2011, a large permanent OWS-camp developed right in front of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the center of Frankfurt, the city which is the German "banking capital", with the headquarters of many of the largest German banks in walking distance from the ECB.
There the camp still remains, and right from the start the behaviour of the occupants of this camp has been described as "examplary" by the local authorities, who in turn quickly legalized the camp, with no final "end date" determined yet. So far, it has been a very peaceful "co-existence" between the protesters and the surrounding banks and businesses.
But Occupy-Frankfurt came into the headlines today: A larger coalition of mainly far left-wing groups had the idea to stage a "four-day event" in the center of Frankfurt, where the headquarters of Germany's biggest banks as well as the ECB are located, effectively trying to shut down business in the city center from today till Saturday, May 19 - called "Blockupy", the "European days of action". Interestingly, Occupy Frankfurt, the camp itself, does not seem to play a significant part in all this, despite the "Occupy" label, as established far left-wing groups seem to be the main organizers.
The local authorities did not agree with a chaotic shutdown of the city which was supposed to last for several days, and therefore partially banned the planned proceedings, in a very controversial decision which nevertheless has now mainly been confirmed by the courts. It also did not help the organizers that just several weeks ago, on March 31 this year, an anti-capitalist demonstration which included a larger militant "black block" group in Frankfurt got violent and gave the authorities reason to believe that there could be even more violence during the "Blockupy" events (see also the slideshow on this page). In order to learn more about the mindset of the militants, watch this video in which the "black block" people explain how they view themselves and how they justify their actions. They basically regard their militant actions as "theatre" in order to get larger exposure for their cause - but completely ignore that fact that mindless violence only helps to discredit any legitimate cause, as it gives the "other side" the chance to lump the peaceful protesters together with the idiotic actions of the militants (see here for a particularly nasty example of the actions of the "black block" during the OWS-protest in Oakland).
Some pictures from March 31, 2012 in Frankfurt:
From news reports, we know that the occupant of the Frankfurt camp were deeply unhappy with the violence during the protests on March 31, and strongly condemned it. This is interesting, as the people in the camp were apparently irritated that their peaceful cause was somehow "co-opted" by militant protesters. They stressed afterwards that peacefulness is the main element of their political philosophy.
Part of this (partial) ban concerning the "Blockupy" protests from May 16 to May 19 is the provision that the occupants of the Frankfurt camp are obliged to leave the camp for the next days and can only return after "Blockupy", due to security reasons. So the police went into action today and removed the occupants - temporarily. The occupants of the camp were not happy, of course, but I still found it interesting to see that even such a hostile police action did not result in ugly scenes, as both sides showed a large amount of respect, civility and tolerance towards each other - virtues which sadly have been missing in so many OWS-police actions we have seen in the past. Today, the police in Frankfurt could have used a heavy-handed approach, but they chose a different path and promised the occupants right from the start that there will be no charges if they let themselves get carried away by the police peacefully. As it turns out, there were only relatively minor disturbances, for example when quite a lot of paint was used by the protesters, but the policemen and policewomen were rather unfazed and consequently started to wear protective "white overalls."
Below is an excellent clip from an Italian website which shows precisely what went on today during this police action in Frankfurt:
Here are some of my own pictures I took today (I wasn't there when the occupants were removed, but I was there before and afterwards) - click to enlarge:
Some shopowners as well as some banks are boarding up their windows, as violence is expected to take place during the next days:
Some of the streets surrounding the ECB have already been closed by the police:
During the next days, about 30.000 people are expected to turn up for the protests in Frankfurt, and the police expect about 2.000 militant protesters to take part. Let's hope that ugly scenes can be avoided. In any case, it's refreshing to see that the occupants of the Frankfurt OWS-camp as well as the police today displayed civility and reason. Bloody battles help nobody - and intelligent police forces and intelligent politicians will try to avoid them, whenever possible. Let's hope that wisdom will prevail.
+++
UPDATE:
I would like to point out that the Occupy-movement in the USA and the militant anarchist were also at odds with each other - as shown in the following clips during the Occupy Oakland protests, and there were certainly many more examples:
"Isn't it amazing that when people are in a uniform they completely lose their minds." Danny Shine
Ladies and gentlemen, The true thing is I know we are creating a scene but creating a scene is not illegal. You are born free, you will live free and you will die free. You are allowed to make a scene, you are allowed to scream for joy. You are allowed to complain. You are allowed to cry.You're allowed to love people. You're allowed to hug people. and we are starting to live in a world where we are staring to feel scared, starting to forget how divine and special we are as human beings. Every single one of you is the only example of you that will ever exist and there's not a single authority in this world- especially private security men- who can tell you how to behave at any time, at any place and anywhere. You are free. You will live free. You will die free. The only chains that exist are in your mind. You can do anything you want if you put your mind to it.
There seems to be a trend I've noticed these days that law enforcement officers seem to make up rules as they go along. I was watching the NYPD earlier telling demonstrators they were not allowed to be in the park making noise, despite the fact that judges had given them that right (between certain hours). The gang of police came en masse and confiscated all the drums and music instruments and refused to return them. When it was pointed out to them they had no legal right to do this, they suddenly switched to another made up law that they weren't allowed to bang their drums on Thanksgiving. Lawyers were on hand to communicate with the police but it didn't really seem to matter at all. And this is happening all over the country on a daily basis.
Unlike the British police in the video above, the American versions seem positively eager to use pepper-spray or batons to any resistance. Not as a last resort. Not when all else has failed. It appears to have suddenly become the first option.
It is really astonishing and disturbing to watch brute force in action, law enforcement acting lawlessly. Here's an example. I don't know the full details about why the police are arresting this girl - and that's part of the problem too- but, just looking at what the video shows us we need to ask: is this really the proper conduct for a public servant? Is this really what we expect from the people we have chosen to uphold the law?
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."- William O. Douglas
Hats off to Mr. Danny Shine for his courage in speaking up. However I am not sure if that type of sarcastic intelligence and those kinds of pleas for the respect for the law would really work in the USA anymore.
"What you need is sustained outrage..there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." Molly Ivins
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."- Edward R. Murrow
But there's one point these policemen have failed to consider, for every act of brutality and excess they commit (especially in front of the thousand virtual eyes of cameras) they are giving birth to countless new radicals.
Open disregard for justice and human dignity generally has that effect. The court justices, who should be there to prevent this sort of thing from happening, are either strangely silent or siding inexplicably with authorities. For example, in May of 2011, Indiana's Supreme Court declared in a 3-2 decision that citizens have "no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers." Say what? That's right. look at this news report:
..Justice Steven David, writing for the court, said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
So, in effect, when being violated by authority, citizens must simply lay back and enjoy it. It's a problem only if you resist. There's really no legal justification for the decision. The Constitution is absolutely clear about this issue. It require no judicial interpretation at all. Wikipedia states:
The dissenting judges in the Indiana court wrote this scathing rebuke :
In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.
It's really nothing short of an overthrow of the American Republic and all it has stood for. Every American should be outraged by these assaults on the foundations of liberty.
As our eyes move slowly away from Egypt our gaze becomes fixed on Iran. Undeterred by a ban on demonstrations by the Iranian government, Iranian protesters, encouraged by the infant success of similar demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia, are engaged in brutal skirmishes with the Iran state police. The essence of the protesters demands is the same -- the people of Iran want more say in who governs them. The New York Times reports that in an effort to disperse the protesters, the Iranian police used vicious methods such as firing tear gas into the crowds and beating them. The government news agency Fars claims that three people are reported to have been seriously injured, one person killed and countless people arrested over the day.
The following short amateur video uncovers some of the confusion that the demonstrations caused yesterday. Reports vary regarding the numbers of people taking part in the protests. Some say tens of thousands, some thousands and some say hundreds.
A few weeks ago Sarah Palin clumsily inserted herself into the then delicate political discourse regarding Egypt's future when she complained that Obama was not competent in his handling of the situation there. The implication of her assertion was that the Egyptian protestors were being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and that as such the revolution there should not be supported. She questioned:
"Is it going to be the Muslim Brotherhood? We should not stand for that, or with that, or by that. Any radical Islamists. No, that is not who we should be supporting and standing by ... we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support."
In doing so Palin unremittingly set herself aside from the legitimacy of the Egyptian people's claim to democracy and who it is that they wish to represent them.
On the 11th February with the full knowledge that the Iranian opposition party, led by Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, had already called for a day of protests in favour of the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Palin twittered from her Blackberry:
Media:ask "Will Obama Admin exert as much 'constructive'
pressure on Iranian govt to change and allow freedom ~ as
they just did for Egypt?"
It appears that Palin apologists consider this twitter as proof that she is an excellent policy advisor who has the full attention of President Obama. According to Devonia Smith, President Obama was responding to Palin's twitter when he announced that Iran should allow its people to demonstrate. Smith seems to imply that President Obama had not known of the warnings given by the Iranian government to the Iranian opposition party that they should abandon their planned protest. That he was responding to Palin's taunting and not Ahmadinejad's government.
Whatever we may think about the wisdom of such claims it is evident that Palin supports the right of the Iranian people to protest against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because she does not believe that he is a legitimate ruler. Palin would like to see a form of democracy in Iran that supports a United States world view. She is no more interested in the will of the people of Iran than she was interested in the will of the people of Egypt. Just one more reason why she MUST never be President of the United States.
I had hoped by now that the civil unrest that is taking place in Egypt might have calmed down. It hasn't. Since Tuesday it has been estimated that approximately 100 people have been killed and the unrest continues to escalate.
On Friday the government shut down internet and telephone services. The services were blocked from receiving signals in a bid to suppress images and posts from revealing the full extent of the anti-government protests. You can see from the following graphic how the internet in Egypt suddenly "died" on January 27, 2010:
(h/t to our reader "nomadicjoe, who runs the blog "A Nomadic View" and published a post about this subject)
Despite the protests Hosni Mubarak refuses to step aside leading to tens of thousands of protesters congregating in the streets calling for his resignation and burning images of him. Earlier they ignored night curfew limits and attacked police vehicles, setting them on fire. The military were brought in to control the crowds and patrol the streets and the numbers killed rose dramatically. Despite the rising death toll the demonstrators are determined to stay until Mubarak steps aside.
Many western leaders have called for reform including President Barack Obama who called upon the Egyptian authorities to "refrain from attacking the protesters" and further added "those protesting in the streets have a responsibility to express themselves peacefully". He also stated that:
"Now, going forward, this moment of volatility has to be turned into moment of promise. The United States has a close partnership with Egypt and we've cooperated on many issues, including working together to adbance a more peaceful region. But we've also been clear that there must be reform -- political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people."
President Obama also told the Egyptian government to "reverse the actions that they have taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone services and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century".
Coincidently, according to news reports, a bill was in the process of being floated by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which would grant the President similar internet killing powers.
According to wired.com, an aide to the Homeland Security committee described the bill as one that does not mandate the shuttering of the whole internet. Instead, it would authorize the president to demand turning off access to so-called "critical infrastructure" where necessary.
It seems clear to me that "critical infrastructure" can be interpreted to mean just about anything that the Government may want it to mean. If this legislation is passed Americans may wake up one morning to find their internet is no longer available to them and that their phone has stopped ringing.
"The U.S. telecommunication industry is much more complex and far more decentralized. To do something similar in the U.S. would require a lot more than four phone calls. There are simply too many connections inside the nation already for them to be silenced. Also, since our economy is more dependent on the Internet obstructing the free flow of information would be disastrous. Still, the push for a U.S. Internet Kill Switch is here, but no one understands the consequences.
The fact is, no one in the U.S. should ever have the right or the ability to take the Internet offline. As an editor of a purely online publication (we made the switch from print a few years ago), it's very clear to me that freedom of the press relies more than ever on the Internet. No one in the U.S.—or anywhere—should have the right to shut it down."
CBS reported about the internet shut down in Egypt in the protests:
It is clear that Egypt is in turmoil and that the problems there may only be settled by the people via free and democratic elections. How likely is this to take place? Mubarak shows no signs of leaving Egypt despite being advised to do so by the powerful Arab Cleric Yusuf al-Quaradawi cleric of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems that until Mubarak leaves there will be no peace. And whilst Mubarak stays the violence will continue and more people will be killed or seriously injured.
"The Daily Dish" provides excellent "live" reporting about the situation in Egypt.
