Hey, what are you talking about? It is right there. You could just hop in your sloop, sail up the Willamette, Columbia, into the big wet spot and right on over to Shanghai. Only take a week or two, if you have a good wind.
He’s convinced me. I, for one, will no longer vote for the CCP in the upcoming election.
I agree that the situation is complex. What the anonymous federal agents are doing in Portland is absolutely ill-advised in tactics, definitely politically concerning, probably illegal, and not inherently fascist. However…
The person who gassed on about this, and who made use of the f-word not only reasonable but inevitable, was Trump himself. 
He’s the one who’s linked this use of federal agents expressly to cities with Democratic mayors and councils, and then in the next breath condemned those city governments as extremist merely because they’re Democratic. As someone who’s lived in the Chicago area my whole life, I state with some confidence that the Chicago city government generally and Mayor Lightfoot particularly are liberal in many ways but not even close to “radical left” as the Orange One so inaptly put it. He’s also the one who’s repeatedly made no distinction between the many peaceful protesters and the few violent troublemakers, calling everyone marching or protesting against his maladministration anarchists.
When the man at the top* expressly states that he’s cracking down, and will continue cracking down, in places governed by the opposition party precisely because they’re governed by the opposition party, and when he treats anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy of the nation (L’etat c’est moi, anyone?) and its people worthy only of violent suppression, it’s not a knee-jerk reaction to call that fascist.
He’s done exactly the same thing here that he did with his Muslim ban: he took something that otherwise would be of questionable morality and debatable legality and by his high-handed and hateful remarks dispelled any doubt that the smoke was indeed coming from a fire. Lots of people would’ve thought his decision smelled, but he felt obliged to drag the stinking dead skunk in front of the news cameras.
*I can’t say the man in charge, because being in charge implies not only the bare act of giving orders but also taking responsibility for the results of those orders, which Trump is fundamentally incapable of doing.
Is this accurate? I looked into this chain of command in general (not in Portland) and the best I found was that most (all?) mayors could hire or fire the police chief but did not have the authority to direct how the police do their job, other than to have the threat of firing to influence it.
He is literally the police commissioner. I don’t know exactly how the power structure works, but he has power to set policy to some extent. The mayor and city commission normally split up the various bureaus, and he could “give” the police bureau to another commissioner to oversee, but he currently has it in his portfolio. That has been the subject of some discussion of late, naturally, as many people are not happy with his handling of the police bureau.
What definition of fascism are you using, that requires death camps as an underlying element before it can be properly considered fascism? FWIW, I have found the definition put forth by Umberto Eco to be the most compelling and comprehensive, being independent of any specific supporting ideology (that is, it seeks to define what fascism is in and of itself, without having to rely on strict comparisons to any one historical example, such as National Socialism under Hitler). Death camps not required:
You can find the essay itself here (pdf warning):
“If not for her sexy clothes the rapist would have had no reason to attack the woman.”
We may not have “death camps” but we sure as hell have “neglect camps” full of refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants on indefinite detection without ability to communicate with the outside world, seek legal representation, or even tell anyone where they are. Some of us were sounding alarms about that a couple years ago, but it was more of the “not my monkeys, not my circus” denial.
I’m in no position to judge anything. I don’t know anything beyond what I’ve read in the New York Times or Washington Post. Canadian coverage of this issue is limited, and my views in general tend to be moderate.
But I was curious how the intelligent right-wing was reporting this. I’m putting this out there and people may comment if they wish. I do not agree or disagree with this. I just don’t know.
You prompted me to look what the less intelligent Breitbart is reporting – seems they can’t make up their minds. Sometimes they’re pretty neutral, sometimes they’re probably as anti-Trump as they can get, and sometimes they’re echoing Trump with a “burning of cities” crack.
Do that and they’ll end up in southern Oregon.
This quote is from the link, not from Dr Paprika:
Keep looking, you haven’t found them yet. Good luck, pack a lunch.
Nice post, blindboyard. Most of it is consistent with what I’ve read about Rome. However, I’ve read that there was in fact a brief period of “prosperity” (however we want to define it) during the Roman imperial era until about the 3rd century. Of course “prosperity” needs a definition, and in the absence of the kind of data we have today, whatever definition we come up with is probably debatable.
That said, one thing that’s clear is that imperial Rome was less free and less equitable. Rome became more class-based and hierarchical, and the wealth went to the highest classes first. There was probably enough “prosperity” to prevent the kinds of widespread unrest that later divided Rome and made it susceptible to foreign invasion. IIRC, that period ended sometime in the 2nd or 3rd Centuries, owing to climate change, crop failures, pandemics, and political incompetence. Again, reading that last line, the end of Pax Romana is looking frighteningly similar to Pax Americana.
Fascism refers to the concentration of power, the etymology coming from the Italian word fascismo or “bundle” (of sticks). Nobody’s saying that ‘everything’ is a trial balloon, but taking into consideration the sheer lawlessness of the administration and the president’s own stated desire to violently suppress protests, it seems clear what his intent is. I’m not going to catalogue everything the president has said: it’s already out there, and there’s more than enough of it to give context to the federal action - action that local leaders have repeatedly objected to.
Right, and why do you think he’s doing that? It’s clearly not a mistake, which is why you object to it, right? If you know that federal law enforcement officers and the weight of the law is being used to attack political opposition, as you seem to acknowledge, then what exactly is it if it’s not fascist in its intent? If you don’t like the word ‘fascist’, fine, we’ll call it authoritarian or something. It’s clearly not consistent with a democratic government.
I’m willing to concede I am a Canadian moderate (may not be the same as an American one). And my idea of intelligent conservatism is David Frum, a Bush speechwriter and NeverTrump Atlantic editor. Intelligent political discourse may be an oxymoron.
One lunch be enough?
This is a view from the CBC, which is left-wing by American standards.
You would reach Oregon City and turn around because you would prefer not to go through the locks.
So here’s my view as a resident who has attended some of the protests. Long post coming…
Pretty much every night for the last 50-something days starts out with a peaceful protest. Not mostly peaceful, but fully peaceful. Sometimes people march from one park to another, sometimes to our unofficial town square, sometimes to one of the police precincts, sometimes to the Justice Center. By 10:00 or 11:00 at night, most people have started to disperse, and a few people remain who are more interested in an antagonistic approach. This might be graffiti, pulling down the fence that was put up around the Center, lighting a dumpster on fire, and throwing water bottles and other stuff at the police. The police respond with impact munitions and tear gas, and these are the photographs you see in right-wing media. By the time this happens, it’s usually close to midnight and the former crowds of thousands are now less than 100 people, and recently even smaller. The area in which this occurs is very localized, typically a few blocks around the current target of ire.
Many protesters have said the police sometimes launch tear gas before anything is thrown, and people throw stuff in reaction. There is no proof one way or the other, so who you believe is probably based on your overall view of the protesters and police.
The mayor and police noticed that the larger the police presence, the more rapidly things devolved. So they took the approach of staying in the background and letting people stand around and make/listen to speeches. A large presence of armored police seemed to encourage more violence, not less. So they let things go until most people were gone and the remaining people were there to start shit, police presence or not. Then they’d move in and clear out the remainder. Declaring the gathering a “riot” is a necessary legal move to justify their dispersal of the protesters.
With this approach, the protests were dying out after 40+ days. The starting crowds recently were less than 100, and the shit-disturbers were even fewer. Yes, those few people were still starting shit. I don’t like the riot declaration every night and think the police could be slower to do that, but I won’t argue that these people should be given free reign to do what they want.
But now the feds have entered the picture, and they are not showing the relative restraint that the local police did. They are using impact munitions before anything is thrown and before there is significant property damage (I don’t count a temporary fence being knocked down as significant). They are dispersing tear gas because people are gathered, not because there is a threat. This is happening much earlier when large groups of peaceful protesters are still out.
This response has re-galvanized the protesters, so we’re back up to thousands on the street every night, and people are pissed. There are people who didn’t participate in the original BLM protests who are now angry enough to join in. If the intention was truly to stop any damage and violence, this approach has had the opposite effect. More tear gas and black-bagging arrests will not reduce the violence, it will bring out more and more people, and anger will be greater and greater. This isn’t theoretical; we are seeing this exact result now.
So my response to the National Review article is: bullshit and idiocy. I get that they want the property damage to stop. I understand the frustration that it takes time for that to stop. But the response from the city is about as good as we can hope for (barring some radical “defund the police” approach). The city’s approach was working. The fed approach absolutely will not work. They are replacing a policy that was showing slow benefits with one that is making things worse.
Locks are shut down, you have to portage around now. It’s a bummer, too. There’s talk of reopening them but so far it’s just talk.
I think the feds bit off a bit more than they can chew–if they thought being terrorists around here would make us stay home they drastically misread the situation. That’s from today at the “Justice” Center.
