If I remember the story right, the guy who found them in the facility looked around and immediately realized they were nonviolent protesters, as he’d encountered similar types at a previous posting. He was fired for not reacting violently to their presence. IMO, that’s the only sad part of the whole ordeal.
3 Likes
Wow, there we go… this is the world we’re entering.
1 Like
Here’s an article about the guard. Fortunately, there are still good people in the world. Those who don’t see the need to rough up peaceful, compliant people.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/08/fired-y-12-guard-claims-hes-a.html
3 Likes
Ah yes - typical management scum CYA.
Stand-up guys like this poor bloke stiffed as a matter of routine; someone high up the food chain fucked up, everyone within cooee has to pay.
3 Likes
Source?
ETA - NVM I see the link.
It’s in my next comment, but here you go:
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/08/fired-y-12-guard-claims-hes-a.html
Because real lawyers are actually pretty anal? At least they’re supposed to be. It’s Internet convention at this point and I don’t think too hard about it.
Pow! Thanks for this. My takeaway – maybe this goes with “weep for joy” – is that the Pharisees, and all of the might contained within the heavily armed Roman Empire, couldn’t change his mind. They had to kill him. Fucking cowards.
Thank you, resident German guy, for pointing out the forest to the guy who only sees the trees. The kicker is, we’re pretty much <a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment"target="_blank”>already there. Funny how this didn’t seem possible only a handful of years ago.
1 Like
From what I’ve read about Harper, I’d support a law that keeps him some vast metaphysical distance from me. Something like a political influence restrainig order…
Yeesh.
Soooo, they employ level-headed, sensible people BECAUSE THEY AUTHORISE THEM TO USE LETHAL FORCE, then fire them for being level-headed and sensible? Colour me un-fucking-surprised…
4 Likes
It’s a dumb convention, because it distracted me from your excellent post exhorting people to change things that suck.
Hahahaha: run and hide… other than a mea culpa for being a mouthpiece for lazy law & order, that’s pretty much your only option left.
It must be nice living in a world of black and white where all you have to do is apply someone else’s previously determined set of rules to a case without considering the activist implications of those actions. It would make this mucky grey area called “life” much easier to navigate.
If an 82 year old can perpetrate what the NYT called “the biggest security breach in the history of the nation’s atomic complex.” then aren’t you concerned about the ‘bad guys’ who could also execute such a plan (but use explosives instead of spray paint and blood)? Don’t bother answering that, I know you’ve already run for the hills.
1 Like
they definitely should have nuked it then.
1 Like
I’m sorry, could you point out were I said that we didn’t have any problems that we need to deal with? Cause I’ve looked and I can’t find it.
Now whether or not we are inescapably descending into a hopeless pit of tyranny I suppose is a matter of opinion, or perspective.
One perspective being that people are largely people and do what they do for the reasons people have for centuries. And exactly as has been the case for centuries, the problems we face are not the harbingers of doom, but simply new problems that should be dealt with. Important to this perspective is the acknowledgement that, while things might not immediately line up exactly with how we as individuals might like them to be, we can still work to change them as there are viable solutions available and reasonable resources and systems in place to create that change.
Another perspective is that never before in history have things been as bad as they are right now, and as a result it is absolutely and without a doubt useless to try and change things. The systems are too corrupt (because we’ve never seen corruption before, right?), the power we face is too great (Because we’ve never fought powerful people before, right?), and the damage is too far gone (because we’ve never rebuilt before, right?). As a result of the hopelessness of the situation, the only thing to do in the face of such oppression is bitch about it on the internet, all the while enjoying more luxury and freedom than most of the rest of the world, and certainly more luxury and freedom than has been enjoyed for the entire history of the human race.
If we are on the precipice of doom and tyranny, hither to unknown in this world please tell me, From when have we descended? What era would you rather be living in? Where is the pinnacle of human achievement that by contrast makes our lives today the hopeless living hell of a dark nightmare that you seem to think? If you do honestly think that modern life in this country is a “dark Nightmare” at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it’s one of the cushiest dark nightmares one could hope find them self in.
A note, as you seem to have a penchant for seeing strains of jingoistic American exceptionalism where none actually exist. When I speak of freedom and luxury, I do so, not to tout the virtues and victories of 'Murica nor do I suffer from the misconception that 'Murica has any sort of monopoly on those virtues, I do so to point out the sad irony of a person living in a time and place where they more access to information, more access to resources, and a greater ability to create positive and lasting change than at nearly any other point in history and they believe themselves to be living in a “dark nightmare”.
1 Like
faith in a small subset of humanity: restored 
3 Likes
So your argument TL;DR: Could be worse.
My argument TL;DR: boiling frog metaphor
It must be nice to live in a world where justice is variable and based on whimsy, where the law is malleable and can be changed when convenient and no need to consult those pesky legislatures. . .
Nevermind, I forgot, this is America in 2014, we’re already there. . .
But that’s not at all what anyone’s said in response to your original comment. Rather, that nuance is, indeed, required in pursuit of justice, and that intent has a part to play in charging, prosecuting, and if found guilty, sentencing someone. What, exactly, is wrong with that?
2 Likes
Intent has no bearing on breaking and entering, or destroying property. Intent may be considered when circumstances forced the crime, but not when done for purely poltical reasons.
And this IS black and white ? Did she trespass ? Yes.
Did she destroy property ? Yes
Did she break and enter ? Yes.
Guilty. She took the risk, broke the law, and got caught. End of story.
