Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The events in Ferguson, Missouri went from what could have been just another all too common and tragic incident in which an unarmed black man is killed by an overly aggressive and unprofessional police force, to what may be a historically significant event in American history. So how did this transformation occur and what does it mean going forward? Those are the two questions I intend to address in this post.
There are two primary factors that have collided to create the current out of control situation in a suburb roughly 15 miles northwest of St. Louis, which before this past weekend, almost no one had ever heard of. The first factor is the underlying tension in American society that I have been writing about for several years now. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the minority majority inner cities or their outskirts. Being a privileged person, I have thankfully never experienced the dehumanization and oppression felt by so many in these disenfranchised communities, but I can still understand the fact that these neighborhoods are ground zero in the civil unrest that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
The second factor is the entirely inappropriate and dangerous militarization of police forces throughout these United States. While extreme tension between impoverished communities and the police has been well documented for decades and expressed through music and movies (I grew up with NWAs Fuck Tha Police and Colors), the cops were generally speaking merely men and women driving around in patrol cars with guns and batons. Not to dismiss the violence that can and has been inflicted through those means, but the police in recent years have taken things to a whole new frightening level: Total Militarization.
I consider this trend to be such an existential threat to freedom and civil liberties that I have expended a considerable deal of time and energy over the past several years highlighting it. I have covered the topic too many times to list here (I will provide a compilation at the end of this post), but there is one in particular I want to mention. The post was published two months ago and was titled: The Militarization of Police Continues Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Silencers and More. In it I quoted the following from a New York Times article:
What is your answer to the militarization of law enforcement in America, 2A?
What is your answer to the militarization of law enforcement in America, 2A?
Disarm them. Whats yours?
Standing armies are very expensive and we are not going to have another big shooting war any time soon. Keeping force levels unrealistically high would be welfare for the MIC.What pisses me off is the way Obama is squandering the weaponry that was purchased a short while ago to fight terrorism. He must feel that the biggest threat in America is the citizens, because he's gutting our military.
An armored MRAP vehicle that cost the taxpayer over $600,000.00 Obama is practically giving them away to police departments for as little as $2500.00. There never was enough of them to protect all of our troops who are still deploying to Afghanistan today at Ft Campbell, and he's already giving them away. What are they going to use in any future conflict? Well, the answer is he's gutting the military to the point that deploying will be next to impossible. A policy letter was just released yesterday stating that the Pentagon was still on track to cut half of the active duty soldiers here at Ft Campbell as well as half of the civilian workforce during the next sequester in 2016. We don't even have what we need to take care of the place now, much less suffer a 50% reduction. Who in their right mind does this???
What pisses me off is the way Obama is squandering the weaponry that was purchased a short while ago to fight terrorism. He must feel that the biggest threat in America is the citizens, because he's gutting our military.
An armored MRAP vehicle that cost the taxpayer over $600,000.00 Obama is practically giving them away to police departments for as little as $2500.00. There never was enough of them to protect all of our troops who are still deploying to Afghanistan today at Ft Campbell, and he's already giving them away. What are they going to use in any future conflict? Well, the answer is he's gutting the military to the point that deploying will be next to impossible. A policy letter was just released yesterday stating that the Pentagon was still on track to cut half of the active duty soldiers here at Ft Campbell as well as half of the civilian workforce during the next sequester in 2016. We don't even have what we need to take care of the place now, much less suffer a 50% reduction. Who in their right mind does this???
Despite the flawed production process, lack of testing, and bulky handling, MRAPs were praised for their ability to save lives and limbs. In 2010, USA Today reported that MRAPs cut casualties from 2000 to 2010 by 30%, perhaps saving dozens of lives each month. In 2011, the Pentagon MRAP shop estimated that MRAPs saved up to a stunning 40,000 lives 10,000 in Iraq and 30,000 Afghanistan.
But theres been a recent reappraisal. In July, Chris Rohlfs and Ryan Sullivan wrote in Foreign Affairs that the heavily-protected vehicles were no more effective at reducing casualties than the medium armored vehicles. And the MRAPs are three times as expensive as medium protected vehicles.
The study suggested that the 40,000 saved lives figure was an unreasonable premise that assumes if the Army used up-armored Humvees rather than MRAPs, every attack on a vehicle would have resulted in the death of everyone inside. While it is clear MRAPs saved lives, it is absurd to assume a Humvee would lose every life it carried. Increased MRAPs also did not prevent IED casualties from skyrocketing in 2010.
What is your answer to the militarization of law enforcement in America, 2A?
What pisses me off is the way Obama is squandering the weaponry that was purchased a short while ago to fight terrorism. He must feel that the biggest threat in America is the citizens, because he's gutting our military.
An armored MRAP vehicle that cost the taxpayer over $600,000.00 Obama is practically giving them away to police departments for as little as $2500.00. There never was enough of them to protect all of our troops who are still deploying to Afghanistan today at Ft Campbell, and he's already giving them away. What are they going to use in any future conflict? Well, the answer is he's gutting the military to the point that deploying will be next to impossible. A policy letter was just released yesterday stating that the Pentagon was still on track to cut half of the active duty soldiers here at Ft Campbell as well as half of the civilian workforce during the next sequester in 2016. We don't even have what we need to take care of the place now, much less suffer a 50% reduction. Who in their right mind does this???
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what compelling reason we have to still be IN Afghanistan.
The MRAP was a typical Military Industrial Complex boondoggle. It was designed because the HUMMV wasn't standing up really well to the IED's our enemies were using after we declared "Mission Accomplished".
The MRAP: Brilliant Buy, or Billions Wasted? | TIME.com
Despite the flawed production process, lack of testing, and bulky handling, MRAPs were praised for their ability to save lives and limbs. In 2010, USA Today reported that MRAPs cut casualties from 2000 to 2010 by 30%, perhaps saving dozens of lives each month. In 2011, the Pentagon MRAP shop estimated that MRAPs saved up to a stunning 40,000 lives 10,000 in Iraq and 30,000 Afghanistan.
But theres been a recent reappraisal. In July, Chris Rohlfs and Ryan Sullivan wrote in Foreign Affairs that the heavily-protected vehicles were no more effective at reducing casualties than the medium armored vehicles. And the MRAPs are three times as expensive as medium protected vehicles.
The study suggested that the 40,000 saved lives figure was an unreasonable premise that assumes if the Army used up-armored Humvees rather than MRAPs, every attack on a vehicle would have resulted in the death of everyone inside. While it is clear MRAPs saved lives, it is absurd to assume a Humvee would lose every life it carried. Increased MRAPs also did not prevent IED casualties from skyrocketing in 2010.
So really, it kind of sounds like the Army bought a lemon, and are trying to fob it off on someone else like a used car.
"It was owned by a little Old Lady from Afghanistan who only went to war on Sundays!"
What pisses me off is the way Obama is squandering the weaponry that was purchased a short while ago to fight terrorism. He must feel that the biggest threat in America is the citizens, because he's gutting our military.
An armored MRAP vehicle that cost the taxpayer over $600,000.00 Obama is practically giving them away to police departments for as little as $2500.00. There never was enough of them to protect all of our troops who are still deploying to Afghanistan today at Ft Campbell, and he's already giving them away. What are they going to use in any future conflict? Well, the answer is he's gutting the military to the point that deploying will be next to impossible. A policy letter was just released yesterday stating that the Pentagon was still on track to cut half of the active duty soldiers here at Ft Campbell as well as half of the civilian workforce during the next sequester in 2016. We don't even have what we need to take care of the place now, much less suffer a 50% reduction. Who in their right mind does this???
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what compelling reason we have to still be IN Afghanistan.
The MRAP was a typical Military Industrial Complex boondoggle. It was designed because the HUMMV wasn't standing up really well to the IED's our enemies were using after we declared "Mission Accomplished".
The MRAP: Brilliant Buy, or Billions Wasted? | TIME.com
Despite the flawed production process, lack of testing, and bulky handling, MRAPs were praised for their ability to save lives and limbs. In 2010, USA Today reported that MRAPs cut casualties from 2000 to 2010 by 30%, perhaps saving dozens of lives each month. In 2011, the Pentagon MRAP shop estimated that MRAPs saved up to a stunning 40,000 lives 10,000 in Iraq and 30,000 Afghanistan.
But theres been a recent reappraisal. In July, Chris Rohlfs and Ryan Sullivan wrote in Foreign Affairs that the heavily-protected vehicles were no more effective at reducing casualties than the medium armored vehicles. And the MRAPs are three times as expensive as medium protected vehicles.
The study suggested that the 40,000 saved lives figure was an unreasonable premise that assumes if the Army used up-armored Humvees rather than MRAPs, every attack on a vehicle would have resulted in the death of everyone inside. While it is clear MRAPs saved lives, it is absurd to assume a Humvee would lose every life it carried. Increased MRAPs also did not prevent IED casualties from skyrocketing in 2010.
So really, it kind of sounds like the Army bought a lemon, and are trying to fob it off on someone else like a used car.
"It was owned by a little Old Lady from Afghanistan who only went to war on Sundays!"
So you claim that because the vehicle doesn't reduce casualties 100% it's a lemon?
All of the whining about the costs of the war and this guy Obama is literally giving away whatever we have to show for all of those costs. $600K a crack just thrown away, and I would have loved to have one when I was in Somalia in 93', and because of Obama's policies we won't have them in the future.
Makes sense.....
[
So you claim that because the vehicle doesn't reduce casualties 100% it's a lemon?
All of the whining about the costs of the war and this guy Obama is literally giving away whatever we have to show for all of those costs. $600K a crack just thrown away, and I would have loved to have one when I was in Somalia in 93', and because of Obama's policies we won't have them in the future.
Makes sense.....
Okay, let's get realistic here.
The reason why the cops are so heavily armed is no one wants dead cops. So because the NRA has done such a wonderful job making sure that the Nancy Lanzas of the world are armed like the Zombie Apocalypse is coming, we want our police to be armed and protected well enough so they come home to their families at night.
Which works well, up until the point where you get ugly scenes like Fergeson where they use that firepower with impunity.
It's an arms race, and then one morning, we all wake up and find ourselves terrified about how scary these weapons are.
Yea, I'm sure the cops are really gonna like the idea that THEY have to give up firepower so that the criminals can have the upper hand in fire power. I don't think the cops will go along with that idea.
Okay, let's get realistic here.
The reason why the cops are so heavily armed is no one wants dead cops. So because the NRA has done such a wonderful job making sure that the Nancy Lanzas of the world are armed like the Zombie Apocalypse is coming, we want our police to be armed and protected well enough so they come home to their families at night.
Which works well, up until the point where you get ugly scenes like Fergeson where they use that firepower with impunity.
It's an arms race, and then one morning, we all wake up and find ourselves terrified about how scary these weapons are.
Okay, let's get realistic here.
The reason why the cops are so heavily armed is no one wants dead cops. So because the NRA has done such a wonderful job making sure that the Nancy Lanzas of the world are armed like the Zombie Apocalypse is coming, we want our police to be armed and protected well enough so they come home to their families at night.
Which works well, up until the point where you get ugly scenes like Fergeson where they use that firepower with impunity.
It's an arms race, and then one morning, we all wake up and find ourselves terrified about how scary these weapons are.
The police have been out gunned since the 70s.
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the president disarming the military at the same time he's arming civilians here and abroad.
