What additional conditions would make it “blatantly” illegal? I am not being snarky here: just how far to we have to go down this rathole before we can stop it?
AIUI the people in CHOP, or at least the ones who originally set it up, live there. I think that does make a significant difference.
Can’t the same argument be used for a Federal Government property? IOW, the people who work there and for the Federal Government, have a duty and responsibility to protect it and those who work there. So they set up the fencing perimeter.
I’m sure some did, I’m sure some were outsiders, but I disagree that it’s ok for a group to make that decision for the larger community (within that area and in the extended area) without them having a chance agree or disagree.
The community based low-income housing group that owns a number of the buildings came out against it towards the end due to the residents including many families and children (something like 78 children or 138 children) living inside the zone feeling negatively impacted by the whole thing.
If the people in question live there, sure it could. The people in question in this case appear to have been shipped in from other parts of the country entirely. And I doubt anybody is living in the building, even those who may have been working there for some time and presumably live elsewhere in the city.
Plus which, the fencing perimeter appears to be useless for protecting the building, and its presence if anything seems to be backfiring.
I agree that all those within that community should have had a voice. I’m not sure to what extent they did.
Was the housing group opposed all the way along, or did they change their minds “towards the end” because the influx of outsiders, or possibly the later behavior of insiders, was turning it into something other than what they originally expected?
They were not publicly against it initially, but even from the start I read what I believe to be reliable interviews (from the Stranger, a local liberal publication) with people living in those buildings (a large percentage are non-white), some agreed with what was going on and some did not. Some moved out of the building temporarily and lived with friends and relatives in other areas.
In addition, I think there were a few other complexities:
1 - Influx of homeless
2 - The nature of the crowd morphed each day: peaceful during the day, party at night, and it seems like most violence was even later
3 - Many different groups with many different agendas
Even if everyone local person had a chance to vote, I don’t think that is adequate. A decision about where to live is a pretty significant decision, and to have the area around your home suddenly adopt substantially different rules than society in general compared to when you made the decision to live does not seem fair to those that disagree with the new rules.
What “substantially different” rules were those?
The ideal of checks and balances is really an outdated mechanism for a democracy. To be completely fair, when Madison and others were laying the blueprint for a democracy, they didn’t have a lot to go on. Democratic energy was already bubbling up in Europe at the time, but “democracy” in England was really more about finding the right balance of power between the monarch and the aristocracy, and this was probably the case throughout much of Europe. The last time that there was anything resembling a democratic arm that purported to speak on behalf of working class people was the ancient Roman assembly. It’s possible we might have found some exceptions in places like the Isle of Man or elsewhere, but for all practical purposes, the Framers didn’t have much to go on. One model they weren’t going to emulate was that of Athens, which in their estimation gave too much power to ordinary folk, a sentiment which was further vindicated in the wake of Shays Rebellion. The point of my rambling is that our reliance on “checks and balances” is our reliance an understanding of democracy that’s nearly 250 years old, and one that relies on a very limited body of evidence over a 2000 year period prior to that.
The “checks and balances” hypothesis assumes that people are hopelessly ambitious and compete relentlessly for power, which is something that I won’t disagree with. However, that understanding ignores the fact that ordinary voters can be a stabilizing force for democracy themselves, provided that there is some degree of economic parity, and more importantly, the perception that there is opportunity for upward mobility. If you look at Western democracies, and even some democracies in the East, their political institutions operate with this newer understanding of egalitarianism and its role in promoting democracy and democratic stability, while ours does not. The “conservatives” embrace separation of powers because it’s a constitutional loophole that they can exploit, but in so doing, they’re undermining the entire social contract itself - and they know it. Mitch McConnell loves separation of powers for the same reason the Nazis did. They can use loopholes and procedures to ensure that nothing is accomplished for the majority, which in turn engenders cynicism toward governance in general.
And by the above, what I suppose I’m really trying to say is that, American democracy is not long for this world. It is unsustainable in its present form.
And this puts the lie to the notion that there are checks and balances built in to the system. Trump has proved that we are no better than any other country, because when it comes right down to it, everything hinges on the willingness of individuals to do the right thing.
@asahi has actually framed it quite well in the post just above.
I was reading something once that studied societies etc. and they found that the best indicator of the health of a society is the size of the middle class. A decreasing middle class tended to indicate the society was trending towards it’s end. I don’t really know history, but I think they provided the Roman’s as one example.
“I was just following orders,” didn’t work in Nuremberg and it shouldn’t work in Portland. When I was in the navy, it was drummed into me that I had not only the right, I had the duty to disobey an unlawful order. Blatent was not ever mentioned. And I am curious to know: At what point, in your mind, does the order become blatant?
The blackbaggers are thugs and should be treated as such, along with those who ordered them.
Rome has some parallels to modern times. Ancient Rome expanded with the understanding that the riches would be sent back home to the people of Rome. Over time, Roman conquests brought back something else: cheap labor in the form of slaves, who essentially displaced the working class of the day. Sounds familiar, eh?
This led to conflicts between the plebeians (working class) and the patricians (the wealthy merchants and land owners). There were increasing calls for land reforms and social welfare, not unlike now. Those calls were channeled through the assembly, which caused the patricians (in the senate and in the military high class) to grow increasingly suspicious. One high profile event in the late republic was the murder of Tiberius Gracchus (the Bernie Sanders of his day, lol).
Ironically, Roman prosperity returned after the collapse of the Republic, but as with all authoritarian regimes, the success and stability of the regime depends in large part on the competence and skill of those who govern. This is what needs to be remembered. If we think that China can’t remain a powerful country because it’s corrupt and authoritarian, think again. China could rule the planet and lay down the blueprint for other countries’ governance for the next 500 years or longer - if they play their cards right.
Two of the least controversial:
1 - Loud partying and music most nights late into the night.
2 - Restricted or lack of access to homes, driveways, parking lots.
Mayors of blue cities essentially tell Trump “fuck off” and the Dems on Capitol Hill are tired of this shit.
But what are they going to do to stop it, exactly?
That’s the problem we have here: we’ve created this powerful executive with its incredibly powerful institutional authority. We’ve been fortunate that we’ve had presidents who’ve understood and valued the importance of following our institutional norms. Well, now we’re stuck with a sonofabitch who hasn’t the time for any of that ‘honor’ shit, and considering all the potential legal jeopardy he’s in now, he has every reason to remain in power for life.
What now?
Only thing we can do: vote out His Orangeness and all those in the Senate who were too chickenshit to convict.
Personally, I was not happy about the CHOP, or the CHAZ, or whatever it sound up as, and I was quite happy that Portland cleared out the area pretty quickly when it was attempted here. Neither side should be doing it. I’m OK with the city doing it under very limited circumstances, which can include protecting occupied essential buildings from people who have been trying to light fires in them.
But approaching or even destroying a fence is NOT “violence.” It is interference with, or destruction of property. That is not violence, and it should not be met with violence. Police can try to make arrests, but it seems unwise to do that in the moment vs. collecting evidence for serious destructive acts. Deciding to take on a large crowd because a few of them have moved your fence panels seems . . . stupid and testosterone driven.
It’s not stupid if your goal is to incite violence.