I don’t understand the user name. What’s the reference or joke?
I assumed it was a reference to The Simpsons and ant overlords.
But anyway, I just like ants.
I’ve been to some pretty bleak places-- taken public busses around Zimbabwe, wandered into the unpopular Maoist controlled regions of Nepal, and taken a boat run by slaves up the Niger.
I’ve never seen anything as bleak as a small city just a short hop north of me. Last time I went to Baltimore, I just remember city block after city block of boarded up row houses for what seemed like miles-- it looked like a movie set, except there were enough people to make it clear these non-neighborhoods were someone’s home. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. It was unreal, the poverty inhuman. I can’t believe that exists in my country.
I don’t know what causes people to riot, but I do know that something is deeply broken with Baltimore (and DC, for that matter.) You can’t have a place that poor and that segregated and expect it to work.
Of course. That is why this news web site that cannot be accused of being conservative, after the mayor’s comments, posted the article with such statements as
But overall, the most of the damage was cosmetic, and it might not cost the city or property owners a fortune to fix. Either that, or it might have been worth the calculation from city officials to sacrifice a little public property for the sake of allowing protesters to vent their anger, hopefully quelling unrest in the long run.
and
Considering how volatile the situation looked going into last weekend, if it all pans out, there could be a case for other leaders to handle widespread protests like this differently.
Because sometimes, punching the punching bag really does take your anger away. And on the flip side, telling you not to punch the punching bag can only make you angrier.
And here is something from the “clarification” that the mayor’s office issued later (not sure what time today - before the riots or after):
“The police sought to balance the rights of the peaceful demonstrators against the need to step in against those who were seeking to create violence.”
Huh? The “rights of peaceful demonstrators” do not in any way get violated when the police “steps in against those who were seeking to create violence”. That’s about as ridiculous a view of reality as it gets.
I’m not wasting my time. I might as well bang my head against a wall.
Really? You genuinely can’t think of a way that police, in attempting to quell violent protests, might end up also suppressing peaceful protests?
If you can’t, I’ll recommend a reading list for you from the history of the nation of your choice. But surely you misspoke there.
Burn down a newly built community center designed to help people. It was due to open in just a few months. Way to go, Baltimore. 
The right to “peacefully protest” ends when people around you are throwing rocks at police, burning cars and looting stores. The people who violated that right are not the police. It’s the people committing the violent acts. Once the police catch/arrest/disperse the violent thugs, your right to peacefully protest resumes. So the police, in stopping the violence, is in fact upholding your right to peacefully protest.
This shit always happens, which just makes people more racist and paranoid and police are encouraged afterward to be even harsher on the area. Lovely vicious cycle.
The difference between a moderate and an extremist is that if you abuse a moderate for long enough, he will become discouraged and will give up. The extremist never will.
Creationism is one example, and “Unanswered questions about Benghazi” is another. The extremists will never give up. The deliberate quoting out of context of the mayor of Baltimore by right wing hate radio stations and Fox News is only the latest example of the Rush Limbaugh school of Big Lies.
Maybe in other more reasonable points in our history (I’m talking about within my own lifetime) I would be considered a moderate. In the current political climate, I’m a crazy bleeding heart socialist; but arguing with someone like Terr on a message board just isn’t worth the effort. Most everyone on here sees him or her for what they are, and I’ll never convince Terr to see things differently so what’s the point?
A Robert Heinlein quote involving attempts to create operatic-pigs comes to mind.
From what I hear on TV, Baltimore was finally starting to make some progress in revitalizing some of the “bleak” neighborhoods. Nice new CVS, presumably some good jobs there – torched. Other new stores as well as some “Mom & Pop” stores run by people who live in the community – trashed and looted. Also, in addition to the youth center which was burned down, there was a senior community center and affordable apartments for the elderly which had been in the works for eight years and was almost finished – burned to the foundation.
Sad.
For anyone who thought the conservative movement wouldn’t have nasty repercussions, here you go.
This isn’t new for Baltimore. Just youtube search “Baltimore youths attack” and you’ll get a crapload of videos dating well before these riots.
If you want a Good Yuk, turn on Fox and listen to their news analysis on what’s going on in Baltimore. Megyn Keller’s head is on fire with napalm shooting out of every orfice. Too funny.
I don’t think I can. I’m afraid I’d either destroy the TV or have a stroke.
Baltimore’s Mayor made more than one mistake in the past 12 hours. Probably will cost her the job.
The idea of allowing some rioting, looting, and general mayhem might be a good one after all if the areas messed with are not the most high profile or expensive. From what I could see from pictures the only stores being looted were convenience stores and maybe a CVS. In fact most people pictured were just stealing toilet paper.
Why not just allow rioting in a small area where it can be controlled and easily cleaned up?
You do realize that no one actually advocated letting people riot, right?
And no, it’s not a good idea. It can’t be controlled. Do you really think that it can be confined to a small area? How would that work? “Okay everyone, you can riot here, just nowhere else”. I don’t think people would listen. I also think that the property owners where it was “allowed” might be a little upset and might even bring lawsuits against the city that allowed it.
Even if that is true, what does that have to do with anything? A shopkeeper is not the government. He is not the police. Stealing his stuff and setting fire to his store is not retaliation against somebody who has wronged you, it is the persecution of an innocent third party. It’s like going home and beating the shit out of your wife because your boss is a dick.