The Problem with Black Lives Matter

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.

Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.

Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.

And to add (I missed this second post sorry!)

ZealotX wrote: Oh and I'm glad you had the amazing opportunity to go to such an international school. Most of us didn't get that opportunity and didn't get the memo that diversity has become the accepted norm.

This opportunity wasn't a matter of "Accepted Norm" but a choice my parents made between the school options. They choose to put all of there effort into providing me, there child, with a unique experience rather than "Following the sheep" as it were.

I believe it was Kobos who said

In general the growth of the next generation of children being exposed to more racially opened parents is in fact going to help the problems

Which I agree with. If more parents were to strive towards setting good, positive and accepting roles for there children to modulate, many of our greater problems will slowly resolve through good, positive leadership.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Bottom line? There's a lot of "stuff" that's NOT okay.

Exactly so. Much of what you posted i am not denying or disagreeing with. But what I feel you are not grasping is the difference between

Working towards a positive and better future

vs

Adding to the problem


Just because the world around you is doing "Not Ok" things - Doesn't give you justifiable reasons to behave in similar action.

We blame THEIR actions. We use their actions to JUSTIFY our response.

Exactly. And I am saying that is an incorrect manner of action.

Typically in long debates there is a danger in ending up in loops. It's no different from walking in the jungle and losing direction. You can end up going in circles. In this case the added danger in this is that the person you're speaking to can take what you're currently saying outside the context of everything you've previously said and while you are focused on saying new things, those new things could cause you to be misunderstood. So in an effort to avoid that, I'd like to point you to a previous post to provide some context and restate a few points. If you already read then consider this me restating my positions for the record.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/118436-the-problem-with-black-lives-matter?start=20#286703

First, we need to, at some point, understand a few things:
1. There are varying degrees of racism.
2. It is possible to be racist subconsciously or be manipulated by a person who is racist.
3. Reverse racism doesn't exist. The reaction is not the same as the action that caused it.
4. Movements that create an unheard voice will attract those who feel like they haven't been heard
5. Movements are not a monolith and everyone in it will not totally agree on everything.
6. It's not cool to hijack another human's pain and suffering by trying to force mass inclusion. It belittles and drowns out the source of the pain.
7. Black people have had a different history with the police than whites. Period. There are whites that hate the police too but but the reason of race is unique to black people.
8. A lot of racist whites join the police force in an effort to subdue and mistreat black people
9. Most of the stories of blacks getting beaten and murdered by police are never counted and not publicly heard or disseminated
10. There is no reason to insert "white lives don't matter" into the statement "black lives matter". This is a form of transference as well as an effort to "muddy the waters"
11. Some, not all, policing evolved out of the slave catchers and some of that mentality still exists
12. Many police officers are "programmed" by a police culture to seek out black people as "the problem".
13. There is also an economic component in targeting minorities
14. Police violence in general is not the central issue or theme of BLM, but rather the RACIST targeting of unreasonable police violence and aggression.
15. The BLM organization cannot police every expression of anger or frustration on the part of every single person that wants to participate
16. The reasons for someone participating in a protest are not always in line with the organization's design leading people who take advantage of protests who are not truly BLM members or supporters but rather subversives with a different ideology and agenda. Confusing and conflating this with BLM is typically done in an effort to destroy BLM because a person is hostile to it because of the 2 sides of the conflict they find themselves more on the opposite side.

From here I'd like to tackle, once again, this notion of adding to the problem. I'd also like to inject the spirit and consciousness of this video for the record as it pertains to views of hate and how to correct them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

Now, I think we can agree that this has been a very civil discussion. We are, after all, civilized people. And more than that, I think everyone who has posted on this thread has displayed a high level of intelligence, including emotional intelligence and empathy. These are the people that black people wish they were interacting with on a daily basis because even if you can't fully "get it" you can at least be conscious of that fact and be sensitive and empathetic to the degree in which you are capable. This is all most black people are even asking for. But it seems like society (in general) turns a blind eye when a majority of individuals aren't directly affected. It becomes easy to then become a back seat driver, critical of everything including the emotional responses of people who are going through something that you've never truly experienced.

I brought up the Boston Tea Party because that was a famous riot. It was illegal. And it happened because of an emotional outrage. That outrage eventually led to war. We could sit here and say "oh that wasn't okay". We could say that killing someone is never okay. However, if someone is trying to kill you or your family then how quickly does killing become okay? call it a necessary evil. And even then people could criticize your use of deadly force. Well maybe there was something else you could have done. I mean... how did you know this intruder was going to kill anyone in your house? You could have allowed them to take whatever they wanted and called the police after they left. Again, we are civilized people having a civilized discussion.

And yet the societies that claim to be the most civil also go to war when they believe it to be in the best interest of their people. And they kill people. And there's "collateral damage" far greater than all the riots that have ever taken place in this country. One could argue that Americans have consistently made the problems of the world worse through the use of force. And yet we always feel justified when we're attacked.

No matter how you personally feel, you cannot control the U.S. Military, can you? The U.S. Military is funded through your tax dollars and its actions can be systematically traced back to your voting record as a citizen of the United States. But you have no direct control over what millions of other people in this country do; not with their time, their money, their guns, etc. As a citizen of the United States you never told kids to shoot up a school. As a European citizen you never told a white kid to go shoot up a black church.

So now, let's continue in the vein of civil and intelligent discourse.

If you cannot be personally blamed for things other citizens of the United States do, why are we blaming Black Lives Matter for all the things individual protestors do? If you cannot control white people to keep them from shooting up black churches how can black people control other black people and keep them from vandalizing businesses? Are we psychically linked and know what individuals are planning and have the resources to stop them? Does BLM have its own NSA to read all the facebook posts and tweets and all communications of every person who they didn't even know was going to show up to a peaceful rally? Are there BLM private police, BLM military, BLM secret services? Do you imagine that there are secret meetings in the basements of Chinese restaurants where top BLM officials are telling people to instigate violence at their peaceful demonstration?

How exactly do you imagine BLM would be able to stop people from doing what they want?

If you cannot give me a rational explanation as to HOW BLM is supposed to protect the intent of their planned and organized events then how much sense does it make to blame BLM and say THEY (BLM) are making it worse or adding to the problem?

What problem are they adding to?

Are they adding to the problem of racism? If so, how so? Are they adding to the problem of white supremacy? If so, how so?

What is "the problem"?

Is it the perception of Europeans?

If so, do you think every single black person who feels completely provoked by how we are collectively treated, cares about how white people perceive them? Let me tell you the truth. They (Those who DGAF) fully believe and have the perception that Europeans HATE them and that's why they do what they do to us collectively. But how many Europeans are actively trying to change that perception? How many care enough to do so? But black people are the ones expected to care about how we are perceived so that whites wont hate us. The expectation, one which is ridiculously incorrect, is that black people are the ones with the problem. And this comes from a misunderstanding of racism and white supremacy. It comes from a misunderstanding of the the victim to the point where you can blame and shame the victim, thinking that at the same time you're not defending her rapist.

Think about that.

Let's say a woman is taken to the male college dorm by a friend. While she's there, she gets brutally gang raped by 4 guys on the football team.

How much do you talk about what she was wearing? How much do you talk about how she may have been intoxicated? How much do you focus on her interactions with them and what she may have said or whether she was alone in the "wrong" room? How much? And do you understand that for each one of these you are blaming the victim and defending her rapists? If a woman is raped it doesn't matter what she said or did. It matters who did it and how it was wrong. Why do we allow ourselves to get distracted by the woman in the red dress?

Black people were mistreated for over 400 years in this country. I'm not saying that gives us a right to break the law. But whenever we break the law we're treated like we're the only ones who EVER break the laws. That's amazing! White people can afford good lawyers who allow them to break laws all the time. The corruption in this country is so easily seen and so pervasive that people voted for someone on the off chance that he would somehow "destroy" the system. Our president as broken many laws and people voted for him, knowing this, to be their primary representative in the world. They thought his populism and the "movement" was more important than the man and his bad acts. Did republicans reject him because he defrauded students at Trump University which wasn't even a university? It became a partisan issue whether he was good or bad, even though he was verbally assassinating his own character. But like he said, he could shoot someone and not lose his support.

But if BLM cannot do the impossible, and police the frustrations of every individual black person, then we should elect the founders president and vice president of the United States!

NO?! BLM shouldn't exist because they're "adding to the problem"?

My point, in all of this, is that the attacks on BLM are political attacks based on people, knowingly or unwittingly defending racists and racism, in order to characterize and politically attack a movement based on the actions of a few. When it's white people everyone rushes to say they're not racist and how dare you accuse them. But when it's black people somehow it's okay to characterize them all (or large groups or organizations) based on the worst behavior you can find among them. And we have done the same thing with Muslims. So this is not even a problem that only affects black people but black people have been the "default Muslims" since before it was even a thing to hate on or be fearful of Muslims. And if it doesn't matter what we say or do, Europeans find reasons and justifications not to listen, then it's only going to result in more black people who hate and fear whites just as many whites hate and fear blacks. This is what we ignore when we brutally report on the fact that a law was broken or that someone was hurt, rather than what led to that riot (and who was hurt) or what led to that act of terrorism (and who was hurt). "Adding to the problem" looks at the symptom in order to avoid having to cure the cause. And no we cannot cure the cause when all Europeans seem to want to do is criticize the movement. It would be naive to think that the public political attacks against the movement is "help". If anyone is confusing these political attacks as help then this isn't the intelligent discussion I thought it to be.

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"

Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.

This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.

Senan wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Trisskar wrote: It is NOT ok to start riots...

"I think we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?"

Riots are illegal. Protests are not. If one feels like their voice is unheard they can protest. Rioting solves nothing, and has been proven to be counteractive to the point. Violent protest (riots) are less likely to succeed and are more or less an excuse to rage and smash stuff. A proper peaceful protests (alliteration for you right there ) are more likely to succeed and not land one behind bars.

This is an interesting take on rioting and violent disobedience, but I think it is a blanket statement that generalizes too much. Just what is a "proper peaceful protest"? The two most often cited examples of peaceful protesters are Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Both were assassinated. Their followers were beaten, sprayed with hoses, attacked by dogs, and sometimes killed. This doesn't take anything away from their methods or the achievements that each is credited for, but it demonstrates that sometimes the reaction to peaceful protest will still be increased violence, most often instigated by the oppressor. What about "proper peaceful law enforcement"?

Sure, rioting is illegal, but what drove people to that point? And what was the outcome? Dragging a man from his car and beating him with night sticks over and over despite the fact that he is too injured to fight back is also illegal, but four cops who perpetrated this violence against Rodney King were acquitted, despite video evidence. Minorities in South Central Los Angeles had enough of systematic, racially motivated violence by the police, and they rioted. I watched it happen as a teenager and it scared the crap out of me. I wasn't afraid of black people coming to steal my stuff. I didn't suddenly fear my black friends. It scared me because it wasn't black versus white. It was black, Hispanic, Asian, and even poor white people tired of being manipulated, harassed, and brutalized by a corrupt police force. Groups like N.W.A. and songs like "F*%k the Police" and "April 29th, 1992" by Sublime don't just come out of nowhere.

As scary and senseless as the rioting in 1992 was, it was an indictment of the police, and it worked in a way that no "peaceful protest" would have. Suddenly, the L.A.P.D. was on the defensive. Officers were now afraid of entering neighborhoods they had previously policed with unlimited authority. They had to rely on the National Guard to protect them instead. They were stuck trying to justify their misguided policies and training in the face of a very angry community that also included white and Asian business owners who were pissed that the police allowed the situation to get to the point where rioting was the only recourse people thought they had and then abandoned them to fend for themselves when the crap hit the fan. Chief Daryl Gates was forced to resign and the entire L.A.P.D. underwent sweeping changes. It has since been led by a black Chief of Police and a Hispanic Chief of Police. Officers are now trained in community relations rather than how to drive a tank through someone's front door. L.A. still has a lot of problems, but the L.A.P.D. is much more transparent and involves the community on a level that allows us to address our issues with police before it comes to the point where a riot is the only way to be heard.

Just like the Boston Tea Party example used before, sometimes people have to destroy some stuff in order to get any attention at all, and whether it is legal or not, it works. The question should be why law enforcement in L.A. or the British in Boston ever allowed the public to become angry and disillusioned enough to even consider illegal action.

holy crap this was good post. I'll add only one this.

If no protest ever disobeyed any laws we would still be serving kings and queens and America would lorded over by a tyrannical dictator.

I submit as evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War

Sometimes people feel the need to fight; the need to revolt, the need for revolution. In most cases I think it comes after not being heard and not being treated fairly. But we live in a world that is more free today because of all the people who died fighting for it. The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous, especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,

No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't faught for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,

No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't faught for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"

You make good points, Trisskar. Nobody is innocent when we start talking about history.

I should also point out that while I was defending the need to riot or revolt at times, I also know that there are a lot of opportunists who use these moments as an excuse to break the law for their own gain. It is a distinction between righteous revolt and just plain old looting to get free stuff when the chance arises. Nobody used the BOston Tea Party to steal tea for themselves, which is what makes the Patriots different than the people looting Walmart. I certainly don't condone looting or destruction of property simply for selfish means, and regretfully, a lot of focus gets put on these criminals rather than the underlying motivation for the upheaval in the first place and the people who have a legitimate gripe.

I used the L.A. Riots as an example, so I should point out that there were also a lot of peaceful protests that took place outside of City Hall and police stations throughout the city, but they were overshadowed by the violent ones. Rodney King himself came forward and asked people for peace with his famous soundbite "can't we all just get along?" and many black religious leaders pleaded with the community to stop the violence and have a productive conversation with law enforcement. Both methods can be effective, and there is a time and place for both. Occasionally the time and place will overlap and we will need both.

Trisskar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The idea that one should never fight is ridiculous,

No one is saying we should never fight. I know for a fact that I never said as much.

I should also point out that

especially when the person who says that is a descendant of those who also rioted, revolted, and fought for freedom.

This goes for ALL races. Hinting towards a singular "Descendant" Isn't going to lend credence to anyone. There is not a single "Descendant" in the human race that hasn't fought for one's rights - right or wrong.


However there is a difference between fighting both unlawfully and without tact. And fighting in the defense of one's rights.

As a Jedi. It is especially important that we understand these differences and Understand "Time and Place"

What is the proper "time and place" when your rights are being violated? And fighting with tact, relative to who or what? Did the Native Americans fight lawfully with tact? Or is the very nature of war one that has little regard for such things? Should we line up with muskets and shoot straight forward? Is it lawful to simply conquer people and take their lands? Is it tactful to treat your slaves like they aren't human? I have to be honest with you. I am generally a law abiding person but if there is a law I find to be unjust and written by unjust individuals, I do not have any respect for said law. Why? Because laws aren't necessarily universal. Laws aren't necessarily moral. Laws are whatever those in power desire to impose on those without power.

In the bible's 10 commandments, probably the most popular legislation on the planet, it demands that the Israelites not have any other gods. Do you know what happened if they did?

Death.

When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai (according to the bible) with the 2 tablets of stone(the first time), the people were in the process of worshipping the Golden Calf. God had a conversation with Moses in which he expressed a desire to simply wipe out all the Israelites save for Moses and a few others. So what happened? Moses ordered people to murder each other based on "the law" of God. And Aaron became the high priest and that mantle was to be passed down through his family. So not only were the people kept under a tyrannical rule where they did not have freedom of religion, but the law gave the power of the religion to the bloodline of Moses even though Aaron clearly lied about the Golden calf "walking out of the fire".

Laws can be corrupt because they are man made and men can be corrupt given enough power.

For the Jedi, there was a legal order that called for their execution. Order 66. And the military, acting as police, went along with that order because it was legal. Jedi Lives Matter. Jedi were hunted down and murdered; armed or unarmed. There was a "time and place" to confront the Emperor; true. But the only remaining Jedi was on the side of the rebellion and was instrumental in training Luke to defeat the force that was "lawfully" in office. The Jedi weren't fighting for Palpatine's unilateral and malicious control of the government. They fought for democracy; for the weak and for those who were victims of tyrants and crime lords. If there was a Jedi watching the police beat an unarmed black man, wouldn't he intervene?

For many people there is NO TIME or PLACE when it comes to a threat to your survival. If racism isn't a threat to you it would be natural to think that victims of it should fill out all the proper paperwork, go down to the right bureaucratic agency, and register complaints in triplicate. And when we're told to work within the law, and we do, and time and time again, the officer who murders one of us walks.... or the guy uses a hoodie as an excuse... or the cops shoot a kid in a matter of seconds because they think he has a gun when it's just a toy... when a guy has a licensed firearm and informs the officer (because no one who is planning to shoot an officer tells him in advance that they have a gun)... when a campus cop shoots a black driver who is driving away with no physical threat... when Mark Fuhrman talks about all the racist injustice he's seen and done... when there are laws on the books that treat one crime differently than another because the harsher penalty is aimed specifically at black people... when time and time again we find no justice and we don't feel safe around the police because we don't know whether or not they're in the mood to kill us and what we might say or do to trigger that response... what's the time and what's this fantastical place that you speak of? Because black people don't have a police force to oppress and murder white people while we wait.

As you said, there is not a single group in history that hasn't fought for their rights. What I want you to see or acknowledge is that the ability for oppressed people to challenge their oppression in a peaceful and lawful and legal way is mitigated by the opposing force and their capacity to hear and respond; change and adapt. You can choose to look at the victim or you can look at the perpetrator. But very few who identifies with the perpetrator are willing to look at themselves. That's "the problem". BLM is blamed because people don't want to look at themselves in order to see that racism is still a big problem in the United States. It's easier to say "I'm not racist because _______" and then turn the spotlight on BLM as if they have some magical ability to keep the peace. Nobody knew a crazy white guy was going to shoot up a senatorial baseball practice. People who are about to commit crimes don't normally notify the people whose responsibility you want it to be to stop them. It is by making BLM responsible that the racists are able to mitigate the message of their movement which is their goal. And because we can see their goal is to hinder, not help, we learn even more that they do not care about the lives of black people.

And of course all cops aren't bad but when cops, like Storm Troopers, are carrying out unjust orders, don't expect a Jedi not to take a few out in the fight for freedom/justice. How many Storm Troopers did Luke and the Rebels kill when the death star exploded? Just sayin'.

It's never easy to talk about the problems of something that is trying to solve a problem, especially when part of that problem is trying to create a constructive narrative, because it tends to drown out the narrative by changing topic, but that is the topic of this thread, so... its not about the good things about BLM, but the 'problems' of the BLM, I guess.

So first thing, there are laws in the 'West' around war, to try and make it more humane, after seeing in World War II the destruction capable from advanced civilizations. It's never really legal to just kill someone for no reason. The fictional Order 66 would not be a legal order by 'western' standards, in my unprofessional opinion.

I'd suggest the nature of the laws defines how humane a civilization is, or inhumane. So its not that something is called a law that makes it important, its what that law represents.

You can agree with the law or disagree. It'll just change how you interact with that society... as its not a 'sin' to break a law - but you might get 'policed'. Changing laws must be possible, but not necessarily easy - they need to change in accordance with some due process to ensure the implications are considered so the changes are not retrograde - assuming a change is actually needed. And finding out where fault actually lay is obviously the first step. To skip the steps in changing the law, or choosing to avoid changing it and being judge, jury and executioner yourself is inviting failure on many fronts.

But slow is unpopular, and not to mention when people are emotional there are various distortions which enter into how people perceive problems and possible solutions. It's not easy, but violence is another level, and as mentioned there are laws around that as well.

The worse thing to do is to react in like, to the inhumane, as fighting inhumanity needs to stand up to the same idealism it argues for otherwise it becomes nothing more then a reflection of the original problem. Parts of the BLM 'movement' is said to suffer from this, perhaps not the BLM organization or stated agenda, but the manifest nature of something is going to be less about what it says it is, and more about what is actually happening under its flag. How much of it is true, is it representative of the majority, I dunno but it only takes a steady stream of smoke for people to run from what they think is a fire.

Senan wrote: Nobody used the BOston Tea Party to steal tea for themselves, which is what makes the Patriots different than the people looting Walmart.

Something else I wanted to point out. The Boston Tea Party was done with a measure of tact and singular purpose. A powerful and note worthy purpose.

Even Martian Luther King is known best not for standing about in the streets holding signs and shouting out profanities....But by inspiring not only his own people.....but 'the other side' as well.....He did so with a powerful and not worthy message.


No one is going to hear the mouse in a field of belting sheep.


We need to inspire people - not bleat at them with repetitive rhetoric