Trump's NFL Protest Statement Sticks In My Craw More Than Usual

NFL players in pretty much all of Sunday's game
took the knee in solidarity against Trump

Donald Trump doesn't like it when people disagree with him. And he always sounds off on it.

We should be used to it by now. And the latest dust up should be just another in a long series of stupid Trump sideshows. But for some reason, the NFL protest comments Trump made in Alabama just stick in my craw.

And everybody else. He stepped in it, and everybody is rebelling. It's amazing how many NFL games today are doing the whole kneeling and locking arms thing in defiance against Trump.

Friday night, it was NFL players who kneel during the national anthem to protest how police often treat African-Americans.

As related in the Daily Kos:

"'That's a total disrespect of our heritage. That's a total disrespect of everything that we stand for,' he said, encouraging owners to act. 

'Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flags, you'd say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He's fired,'" Trump said to loud applause.'

So a peaceful protest - protected by the First Amendment - is a bad thing that should be criticized, but marching menacingly as a neo-Nazi white supremacist in Charlottesville is OK?

Twitter the cable "news" outfits and other outlets have been a shoutfest ever since the comments made the light of day.

Once again, Trump - or one of his evil, dumb minions, are trying to get people fired from doing something completely benign: Peacefully protesting, without causing injury, harm or a lot of disruption, really.

That's really something. And so un-American.  A president trying to get private employers to fire people who have viewpoints that he doesn't like.

In the grand scheme of things, when things like Trump's warmongering with North Korea, the suffering of people in post-hurricane Puerto Rico, and Russia's meddling are going on, a jerk like Trump insulting NFL players is not the biggest crisis in the world.

But this has really touched a nerve.  People really cherish the right to speak out, even if they disagree with others speaking out. Sure, some of the right wing wackos on those cable shoutfests say the NFL players who 'take the knee" during the national anthem are somehow disrespecting the flag, which is nonsense.

They actually ARE respecting the flag by participating in their own way to improve the nation. Efforts to make this a better nation are by definition patriotic.

But Trump only cares about his ignorant base. So he caters to them, because the deplorables can only understand the red meat Trump throws at them.

The National Review admits this:

"(Trump) takes a commonly held sentiment - most people don't like the NFL protests - and states it in an inflammatory way guaranteed to get everyone's attention and generate outrage among his critics. When those critics lash back at him, Trump is put in the position of getting attacked for a fairly commonsensical view. 

Of course, NFL owners firing players on the spot for protesting isn't necessarily common sense, but this where 'seriously, not literally' comes in. Since everyone knows that owners aren't going to do this, Trump's statement registers for his supporters merely as forceful opposition to the protests, not as a specific plan of action."

The flaw with this argument is the critics seem to outnumber the base. A lot of people who once disliked the NFL protests suddenly see their value, or at least can muster some sympathy for them.

Which is why the number one hashtag on Twitter overnight and today has been #TakeTheKnee.

That even NFL owners who supported Trump and even donating to him are not happy with the so-called president's whines.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who previous called Trump a very good friend, said he was "deeply disappointed by Trump's comments."

"I think our political leaders could learn a lot from the lessons of teamwork and the importance of working together toward a common goal.... Our players are intelligent, thoughtful, and care deeply about our community and I support their right to peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel is impactful."

At today's Detroil Lions game, not only did the team take the knee, so did singer Rico Lavelle when he finished singing the national anthem.

Donald Trump loves to cause division. It diverts attention from his misdeeds. So the more we argue among ourselves, the more he loves it. He started another big argument. And he did it classlessly, as usual, by using words like "bitch" and such.

It seems people are still more united than he would like. A few Trump partisans are appalled by the NFL protests, yes, but most of us are watching the First Amendment at work at NFL sidelines of all places.

That's a great thing to watch.

Teresa Kaepernick @B4IleaveU

Replying to @JamilSmith

Guess that makes me a proud bitch!

Eric Ebron 

✔@Ebron85

Does anyone tell trump to stick to politics, like they tell us to stick to sports? Smh.

Ben Gardner @BenGardner87

To be clear, Colin Kaepernick's "crime" is protesting systemic racism and police brutality. Trump called him a "son of a bitch" tonight.

Manny Fidel 

✔@mannyfidel

Trump on Kaepernick: son of a bitch!

Trump on Nazis: they're bad but like lol idkhttps://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/911407560938442757 …

Arizona Republicans Want To Make The First Amendment Cost You, Big Time

Some Republican state lawmakers are trying to find ways to
stop mostly peaceful demonstrations like this one

UPDATE: 

Public outcry over a bad idea by lawmakers is always a good thing.

That bill that I describe below that could have led to racketeering charges and asset seizures for even the most innocent protest organizers is gone. 

Stick a fork in it.

Arizona House Speaker J.D. Menard said his office got manhy calls about the proposal and the conversation around it had become "toxic"

He will not be moving the bill forward, so it's dead.

Remember, folks, if something doesn't sound or look right, speak up! It worked here in Arizona.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION:

There's been lots of protests around the nation lately, mostly by liberal groups and people opposed to Donald Trump, and by extension, Republicans who are propping him up.

That's cool. It's always refreshing to see people express their First Amendment rights to speak out.

Be assured, I'd say exactly the same thing had it been a bunch of conservative Republicans marching out in the streets.

One thing I don't like, and few people do, is when demonstrations turn violent and ugly. Usually, it's a peaceful protest, and then a few yahoos in the crowd smash windows or set fires or do something stupid.

Sometimes, it's an anarchist who generally agrees with what the protesters are saying, but want to take it further and cause trouble.

Other times, it's provocateurs who oppose what the protesters stand for and want to undermine their message.

Either way, that behavior is criminal, and I'm all for arresting people who do that type of thing.

However, Republican lawmakers in Arizona want to take this beyond criminally charging idiots who cause injury or damage.

They've introduced a bill that would allow the state to charge protest organizers with racketeering and seize their property if somebody turns violent during the demonstration. 

Never mind if the protest organizers intended a peaceful demonstration. Never mind if the organizers had no way to know that somebody would end up causing trouble. If one moron causes trouble, the protest organizer is in big trouble under this legislation.

You can see pretty plainly what the Arizona Republicans are trying to do here. Many Republicans are increasingly hostile to First Amendment rights and are really sick and tired of people going out into the streets to publicly criticize their policies.

So their trying to shut everybody up so they can do what they want, voters and constituent sbe damned.

This legislation would mean that everybody would be afraid to organize a demonstration. Or, if someone does organize a march, somebody who doesn't like the demonstrators' point of view would break a window or start a fire.

That way, the organizers woud be in hot financial water (or worse) and not organize future protests. And everybody who knows that the organizer who has his or her assets seized because of the actions of someone they had nothing to do with would never set up any new protests.

As Arizona Democratic State Senator Martin Quezada said, "This bill only serves to chill people's rights to free speech by allowing one bad actor to turn peaceful demonstration organizers into racketeering felons."

Why do so many Republicans hate democracy lately?

As Quezada points out, it's already illegal to start riots, break windows and set arson fires.

Sponsors of the bill say they want to stop riots before they start, and dragged out that Donald Trump trope that people are paid to demonstrate and cause trouble, so they want to stop those allegedly paid thugs.

Democrats point out that, besides the legislation probably being unconstitutional, it could backfire on the Republicans. 

Say a Tea Party group wants to hold a demonstration to cheer on something Trump or Republicans in Congress are doing. Great! Then some idiot, maybe a liberal activist, smashes some car windows during the Tea Party party.

Would these Republicans be willing to charge a fellow Republican with racketeering if that happened? I wonder.

Either Arizona Republicans can't think ahead to such circumstances, or they would only apply their proposed law to liberal demonstrations.

Which is it?

In any event, this crackdown of First Amendment rights is spreading among Republican controlled legislatures nationwide.

According to Alternet:

"In recent weeks and months, politicians in at least 11 states - Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, Indiana, Virginia,  Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina and Arizona - have either introduced or threatened to introduce bills that make it more dangerous or costly to attend protests, or be anywhere near them."

The Arizona legislation, like some of the others, could hold people who merely peaceably participate in demonstrations to those racketeering charges and asset seizures.

Say you object to Trump's immigration policy and your city is holding a demonstration against that and you want to participate. Would you go if you knew if some moron caused even a tiny bit of trouble that you could have your life ruined?

This legislation is the stuff of dictatorships.

Let's hope everybody protests against this type of legislation, before they essentially become illegal.

Running Down Protestors: Bills Sprouting To Stop Civil Disobedience

Will legislation in North Dakota allow motorists to run down
people like this, at the Standing Rock reservation protest site?
Opponents wonder. 

For months, there have been constant demonstrations and protests in North Dakota over the Standing Rock Indian Reservation as people object to oil pipeline construction there.

Other anti-fossil fuel protests have cropped up elsewhere in the nation.

The response from some oil industry-friendly lawmakers is to try and stop the protests, even if doing so is probably unconstitutional.

In North Dakota, a number of people do not agree with the protesters who are fighting the oil pipeline around Standing Rock.   Some lawmakers in the state are fed up with the demonstrations.

Which is their right. Unless they take it to far,

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and many other media outlets, a bill sponsored by North Dakota State Rep. Keith Kempernich, a Republican frrom Bowman, would protect drivers from legal trouble if they accidentally hit, injure or kill pedestriaions who are obstruction traffic.

You can see how this can be abused.  Somebody's pissed off that demonstrators are blocking the road. This somebody is a hothead and decides to ram his car into the people on the road.

And there are some hot heads out there, as a video of masked men threatening protesters at a North Dakota hotel demonstrates. 

Kempernich's proposed law would give this hot head cover. "But officer, I panicked. I thought they were out of the way. I didn't mean to run them over!

Case dismissed.

Kempernich comes down solidly on the side of the not-demonstrating motorists. "If you stay off the roadway, this would never be an issue.....Those motorists are going about the lawful, legal exercise of their right to drive down the road....Those people didn't ask to be in this."

The language of the bill does seem to give a lot of cover to people who run down demonstrators on a road, even if Kempenich says the bill is not intended to let people who intentionally run down protesters off the hook.

Says the Star Tribune:

"Under Kempenich's proposed legislation, drivers who negligently injure or klll pedestrians who are 'obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street or highway' would not be liable for damages, and  anyone who 'unintentionally kills' or injures a pedestrian who was blocking traffic 'is not guilty of an offense.'"

Yeah, a lot of people might be irritated when demonstrators block off roadways.  Often, though, it's a form of civil disobedience to call attention to a particular cause. (Black Lives Matter protestors last year sometimes blocked highways)

You can argue whether this form of civil disobedience is a good idea or not, but gosh, does Kempernich's bill open up a potential can of worms.! And possibly some injuries and deaths.

It's not just North Dakota.

In Washington State, a state senator named Doug Ericksen, R- Ferndale wants to label a lot of demonstrations "economic terrorism"  and make it illegal,  notes the Seattle Times.  

His proposal would allow felony prosecutions of protesters who purposely break the law through economic disruptions such as blocking traffic or sitting on railroad tracks.

Demonstrators who oppose rail cars with lots of oil tankers have often blocked trains in Washington and elsewhere, so that's part of where this idea came from.

It looks like what Erickson is doing is going after the money that funds demonstrations, thereby cutting off any publicity or changes in public opinion brought on by protests.

Erickson told the Seattle Times his legislation would go after wealthy, liberal donors, like billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer, or organizations with deep pockets, like the Sierra Club.

Erickson's proposal has little chance of passing, but he ought to be careful what he wishes for. He's a big Trump supporter. What if a pro-Trump crowd blocked traffic? Would they get in trouble under his idea? So far, he hasn't said.

Other states getting in on this are Indiana, where there's a bill that would authorize police to clear demonstrators from roads "by any means necessary."

Now there's a slippery slope. Does that include just opening fire on them and killing all the protesters?

Yes, civil disobedience can be irritating or disruptive. That's the point. However, the United States has a long history of this kind of thing, and despite the short term pain, civil disobedience has almost always created long term gain.

Think the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Womens' liberation in the 1970s. Gay and transgender rights in recent years.

This old cliche is still totally true: The best response to excesses in free speech is more free speech.

Instead of trying to squelch demonstrations, people opposed to all these demonstrations ought to come up with their own arguments as to why their way of thinking is better.

If they do, they might even change minds. What a concept!

Another Journalist Arrested, Jailed For Covering Anti-Pipeline Protests In North Dakota.

Filmmaker Deia Schlosberg was arrested in North Dakota
for filming anti-pipeline demonstrators and could face
up to 45 years in prison. Add caption 

Last week, I thought sanity finally prevailed when a North Dakota judge dropped charges against Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman.

She'd documented an anti-oil pipeline demonstration by Native Americans that turned rather violent. (Guards for the company building the pipeline pepper sprayed protestors and threatened them with attack dogs.)

Goodman was charged with "rioting," mostly because her film of the incident turned viral, but a judge last week said the charge was unwarranted.

Yay! right?

Um, no.

Another journalist/film maker, Deia Schlosberg, was arrested in North Dakota more than a week ago and faces up to 45 years in jail, charged with conspiracy, along with activists Samuel Jessup and Michael Foster.

Reuters says the criminal complaint accuses Schlosberg of agreeing with Jessup and Foster two weeks in advance to "engage in conduct that would constitute theft of property" and of traveling to the pipeline site in the same vehicle as Jessup and Foster.

According to Reuters and other sources, Schlosberg was taken into custody early this month. For 48 hours, she was reported denied access to a lawyer.

The reports don't make clear what Schlosberg was supposedly going to steal, and of course a documentarian with a point of view would travel with people she's interviewing, and probably agreeing with.

Reuters said the Pembina County Sheriff's Office has repeatedly declined to comment. As if shutting up will make this mess go away.

Especially with the publicity this latest round of North Dakota anti-First Amendment censorship is getting.

A number of random celebrities are rallying around Schlosberg, including Neil Young, Mark Ruffalo,
and Daryl Hannah.

Whether the celebrities have any influence or not, North Dakota prosecutors really need to brush up on their Constitution.

I'm sure Schlosberg's work has a specific point of view, a slant, a bias, if you will, that North Dakota prosecutors don't like.  I'm guessing for sure she's on the side of the anti-pipeline demonstrators.

Of course those prosecutors are under no requirement to like her work. They, too have the First Amendment right to say she's biased, her journalism is unfair, her work is shoddy, if that's what they believe. They can yell these opinions from the rooftops and we'll all just have to suck it up and let them.

That's the deal in America.

What the state's attorneys and prosecutors in North Dakota can't do is shut journalists and documentarians up via criminal charges because they don't like what they're saying, or the way they're saying it.

State sponsored censorship, anyone?

State's Attorneys in North Dakota are elected positions, and it would be interesting to find out to what extent the oil pipeline companies contribute to their campaigns. I wonder how much those likely contributions are influencing decisions to press charges.

Meanwhile, the protests against the pipelines continue in North Dakota, with or without people filming it. About 80 people were arrested in demonstrations Saturday, says Reuters. 

Charges Dropped Against Amy Goodman, So Journalism Continues.

Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman is still facing
charges from her reporting in North Dakota, shown
here, of an anti-oil pipeline protest. Add caption

NEW UPDATE MONDAY 10/17

A North Dakota judge has declined to proceed with a rioting charge against Amy Goodman, her news organization, Democracy Now! just announced.

District Judge John Grinsteiner did not find probable cause for the charge, Democracy Now! reports.

So, journalism and the First Amendment lives for now, it seems.

UPDATE:

It seems the State's Attorney in North Dakota is digging in much more, in a bid to discourage journalism, or get publicity. Whatever.

After Amy Goodman announced she would go to North Dakota to answer the bogus trespassing charges for her coverage of a Native American anti-oil pipeline there, they want to up the criminal charges against her.

Goodman on Saturday announced the attempt at the steeper criminal charges on the Democracy Now! website.

The State's Attorney, Ladd Erickson, wants to add a charge of rioting against Goodman, who, as you can see in her video from the protest, isn't exactly rioting.

Kinda just filming and asking questions, like, you know, journalists tend to do.

A judge will decide Monday if there's probable cause to add the rioting charge.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION:

A couple months back, we mentioned Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman, who faces charges in North Dakota for the crime of covering a protest, mostly by Native Americans, against an oil pipeline that was under construction.

Freedom Of The Press Foundation quoted Goodman yesterday as such:

"I will go back to North Dakota to fight this charge.... It is a clear violation of the First Amendment. I was doing my job as a journalist, covering a violent attack on Native American Protestors."

Back on September 3, Goodman was the only journalist, or at least one of only a few journalists, who were on the scene as Native Americans went onto the property of the pipeline construction, and were met with security guards wielding pepper spray.

Goodman and her crew got it all on video, and that video went viral. It got no fewer than 14 million views on Facebook, and the video and story were picked up by major news outlets like CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and Huffington Post.

Days later, the Obama administration suspended construction of the pipeline, pending further review. The protestors feared the pipeline would contaminate drinking water and despoil Native American burial grounds.

As I noted when I first mentioned this outrage, it seems to me the increased publicity brought on by Goodman and the resulting shutdown annoyed state officials, many of whom benefit politically and maybe financially from the oil industry.

They were trying to teach other journalists a lesson: Stay away, don't criticize, don't cover or ELSE.

Amazingly, North Dakota prosecutors have not backed down, despite the additional uproar over the likely unconstitutionality of charging Goodman.

As Freedom Of the Press Foundation notes, the prosecutor in the case said, "Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions."

In other words, the problem for prosecutors is they thought Goodman was biased. Even if she was, you don't get to press charges against the journalist who created the allegedly biased reporting.

There's this little item called the First Amendment. Unless Goodman intentionally spread false, damaging information about people - which she didn't - you don't charge her. In fact, even if she was spreading malicious falsehoods -again, she wasn't. - you can try suing in civil court, but criminal courts stay out.

I'm not sure why North Dakota prosecutors are still pursuing this losing case. You'd think they'd have something better to do.

But we all ought to pay attention. With Donald Trump also less than enthusiastic about press freedoms to say the least, we need to keep on top of these things every time they happen. 

North Dakota Retaliating Against Journalist For Screwing Up Pipeline Project

Democracy Now! journalist
Amy Goodman faces a North
Dakota arrest warrant for
her work reporting on the
Dakota Access pipeline
protests earlier this month. 

Journalist Amy Goodman had a career highlight on an important story last week.

Goodman, executive producer of Democracy Now! on September 3 showed up  at Native-American protests agaist the Dakota Access pipeline.

The Native Americans were understandably upset about the pipeline disrupting burial grounds and threatening future contamination of their drinking water supply near the Standing Rock reservation.

The protests turned violent. The Native Americans stormed the construction site. Private security guards responded with attack dogs and pepper spray. Goodman and  her videographer got it all on video.

That video is rather shocking, with all the dogs and pepper spray and such. Clearly, the security people could have handled the protests much better than they did. The video is at the bottom of this post.

It was big and dramatic and really shined a light on what was going on in North Dakota. Goodman's video of the protests went viral, and such obscure media outlests like CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and Huffington Post rebroadcast Goodman's video.

Amid the swirl of media attention, the Obama administration ended up suspending the pipeline construction, pending further review.

Goodman got an amazing scoop, and like any good journalist, changed the course of events by exposing and effectively calling attention to an important public issue.

Naturally, pipeline advocates are annoyed with Goodman for her reporting. That's fine. Some of those pipeline advocates are in local government. In a chilling display of press intimidation, the Morton County, North Dakota sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant on Goodman, accusing her of criminal trespass.

She was on pipeline property when she conducted interviews and filmed the scene. That's what journalists do, and in America are generally given wide berth when reporting major news events, even when they occur on private property.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said, "This arrest is a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from coverning protests of significant public interest.....Authorities in North Dakota should stop embarrasing themselves, drop the charges against Amy Goodman, and ensure that all reporters are free to do their jobs."

The Morton County sheriff's office is declining comment, says the Guardian.  However,  I see what's going on here. I doubt the Morton County sheriff's office or anyone else who'se after Goodman expects her to suffer much of any consequence from this.

But the arrest warrant is a shot across the bow, a warning to American media. Don't stick your nose in our business unless you want to deal with expensive litigation and other trouble. The clear message to the media is, "shut your mouths and look the other way."

Goodman is a classic muckraking journalist, an increasingly rare breed in American news media. She's an investigative journalist who does tend to go after The Powers That Be, and that ruffles a lot of feathers.

She's somewhat of an advocacy journalist, who tries to cover important issues that aren't getting much attention elsewhere. She comes at things from perhaps a liberal perspective, but she is very careful to get her facts right. She's got all the right journalistic chops.

I noticed no credible outfit is questioning Goodman's accuracy with her North Dakota reporting. They just don't like the fact she reported it. (Other national media wasn't there, but she thought it was an important story, and went there.)

Goodman will come out of this just fine. But we should all care what's happening. Lord knows the American news media is far from perfect.  Neither is the government, or private business, or any other organization. The cliche is light is the best disinfectant. Let the media continue to shine the line in dark places, and under the potentially corrupt darkness under all those rocks.

North Dakota officials need to drop the charges again Goodman now and move on.

Here is the video from Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! that the North Dakota authorities are not happy with:

Trump Violence A Hallmark Of World's Most Ignorant, Entitled Candidate

Anti and pro Trump partisans confront each other
in Chicago Friday night.  

Trumps famous incendiary words are only part of the reason why there's so much hate and trouble surrouding his increasingly odious rallies.

A lot of the trouble comes with Trump's attitude that he's going to do what he wants, when he wants, without ever consulting with anybody else.

He lies to get his way.  He's a classic bully who gets what he wants at the snap of a finger, and he's not going to stop now.

That's to everybody's detriment. Except Trump, of course.

It appears a lot of the trouble in Chicago Friday night came when Trump abruptly canceled the rally for safety reasons "after meeting with law enforcement."

Note the artful dodge here. Somebody in Trump's camp probably did talk with someone in law enforcement, so you technically have a "meeting" here with law enforcement.

However, both Chicago and University of Illinois police said they played no part in the decision to cancel the rally and as Acting Police Superintendent John J. Escalante said, "were kind of taken by surprise" by the announcement to call off the rally.

Surprising the police like this is never a good situation, especially when you have two large groups of people angry at each other - the Trump partisans and those demonstrating against the candidate.

Police usually have crowd control methods that work a lot better when they know something is coming, i.e. a rally with 10,000 people being cancelled.

I bet the police, through no real fault of their own, were caught flat footed by the announcement the rally would be canceled, and inevitably chaos erupted.

This plays right into Trump's (small) hands and perhaps that was his plan all along. Trump had been under escalating criticism for the violence at his rallies.

Now, he had a bunch of anti-Trump protesters here, and an abrupt rally cancellation would inflame the situation. The anti-Trump crowd would  get into fights, and then Trump could blame the liberal "goons" for all the trouble at his rallies, deflecting the blame away from Trump and his supporters.

I might have gotten too conspiratorial here with my theory but I wouldn't put it past Trump.

A Trump rally earlier Friday in St. Louis, which until Chicago was one of the worst yet, lends credence to my theory.

There's no question Trump is a goon. In St. Louis he said of the protests: "Part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long (to kick protesters out) is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore....There used to be consequences. There are none anymore."

Essentially he was saying it was OK to beat up a protester, then. I'm all for arresting and charging someone if, IF they're doing something illegal. There's you consequence right there. It shouldn't be assault, as Trump advocates, at least implicitly.

I get it that Trump isn't the one that made many of his supporters so angry. A complex, messy stew of economic turmoil, social change and other frustrations did that, not Trump. But Trump is using that anger to his advantage, and creating a show by whipping up that anger until we literally get sucker punches being thrown at his rallies.

Trump is a showman, and he realizes the rage he fans just makes the show all that much better. At least to his fans. And his ego. It's all about his ego, after all.

Trump said the protesters were "so bad for our country." Really? Protest, peaceful protest, anyway, is enshrined in the First Amendment.

But I know how much Trump hates the First Amendment except in the moments it benefits him.

Not all anti-Trump demonstrators are blameless. True,  rhe vast majority were peaceful, as were the vast majority of the Trump supporters, Neither side should resort to violence. It was a fail to see fists flying.

I'm also gratified there were large anti-Trump protests, but if their aim was to shut down the Trump rally rather than just demonstrate against it, that makes me uncomfortable. Free speech, even odious free speech, should be encouraged, not shut down.

The antidote to bad free speech is more free speech, so of course peaceful demonstrations are fine here.

I'm definitely no fan of Trump's GOP rivals in the presidential campaign, but I have to say they were spot on and  made some very good points in reacting to Trump's Friday Night Fiasco..

"There aren't fights breaking out at my rallies, Ted Cruz rallies, John Kasich rallies, Bernie Sanders rallies," noted GOP candidate Marco Rubio, the Senator from Florida.

Cruz correctly chimed in: "There's no doubt that a candidate bears responsibility for the culture that is set from the top."

Which proves Cruz and Rubio at least occasionally understand something Trump does not.  That with rights come responsibilities. We are free to say what we want in this nation, but there are consequences to what we say.

Trump, as noted above, wants consequences all right. As long as he never has to deal with any of thoae consequences.

Consequences, apparently, are for the little people.

Trump And His Supporter Use Media, Hate It, And Are Trolled By It

Donald Trump wants to weaken First Amendment
protections for the media. It's a dangerous idea. 

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but his relationship with the media is......complicated.

I agree with the pundits who say he would have never gotten this far in his inprobable, successful and many say scary success in his bid for the Republican nomination for U.S. President.

After all, he's gotten so, so much free media. People love a train wreck, a controversy, so he's been great for media outlets as people tune in to watch, read or hear the latest outrageous Trump remark.

I'm not sure the media is to blame for Trump's rise or not, but it's something to consider. And Trump should be grateful for all the free 'advertising' he's gotten because he's constantly on the news.

The media attention on him isn't always fawning of course. There's lots of journalists, pundits, comedians, social media wizards and the like who can't stand Trump, who point out all his hypocrisies, bad ideas, racist comments, xenophobia, greed, and ego.

Trump, needless to say, is not a fan of people who even question him. Just ask Megan Kelley, the Fox News anchor who had the gall to ask him vaguely pointed questions months ago in a Republican debate, and Trump still hasn't gotten over jabbing at Kelly on Twitter.

Which leads me to one of Trump's dangerous ideas. At least I think it's dangerous and so do a lot of other people.

He would weaken libel laws to make it much easier to sue media outlets, and win.

According to the Associated Press:

"The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republica front-runner would mean that 'when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,' he said at a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will 'have problems.' He specifically cited the New York Times and The Washington Post."

First of all, if a journalist knowingly broadcasts something that is false and said with malice and can harm a person's reputation, that person can sue for libel and likely win.

You can't sue and win if what is reported is true, or is opinion, you're covered. In other words, you'd open yourself up to a legitimate lawsuit if you accuse Trump of being a child molester, because he is most certainly not. He has not definitely not committed any kind of crime like that.

However, if you broadcast an opinion that his idea to build a wall on the Mexican border is stupid, you're covered. The First Amendment guarantees you can criticize a public figure's positions on any topic he or she discusses.

The Associated Press goes on:

"First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions.

'His statement shows why we need libel protections,' said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 'Trump gets offended, he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate. That's not a good reason to sue someone.'"

Since freedom of speech is in the Constitution and the Supreme Court hs repeatedly endorsed the legal standard, Trump would not be able to change the law through Congress or via executive order. You'd have to amend the Constitution.

The press freedoms we have protect the nation basically from tin pot dictators. If the public learns about politicians and other public figures via an unfettered press, they can vet these candidates, learn about any red flags, and assess for themselves whether they want to vote for a particular person or not.

Also, if the press can freely report on unethical and illegal activity by any public official, that bad behavior can be stopped.

If the First Amendment protections weren't there, politicians and others could get away with anything.

I'm not saying Trump is suggesting loosening the libel laws so he can do bad things. He's not. He just doesn't like getting his ego bruised. But still, his idea is dangerous.

Of course, under the First Amendment, the media can use satire, jokes and other methods to highlight a public figure's foibles.

This was on full display this weekend, when Trump approving re-tweeted a quote that, as it turned out, was said by 20th century Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

It turns out the web site Gawker had created a Twitter bot that posts quotes from Mussolini, but attributes them to Trump. They wanted to see if Trump would re-tweet or otherwise embrace them.

Sure enough, over the weekend, Trump approvingly re-tweeted the Mussolini quote, "It's better to live on day as a lion that 100 years as a sheep."

Trump later defended using the quote on Meet The Press, essentially saying Mussolini was what he was but the quote is good.

Trump's supporters are subject to jokes, too. A video hosted by Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, has him sending wwomen posing as "Fox News Girls" to political events to ask Republican voters about Trump and others.

The questions the "Fox News Girls' ask are cringe worthy to say the least. They make up outrageous, made-up policy positions they say liberals voiced and ask Trump supporters to comment on them.

People will believe anything, apparently, as the video shows.

Here's the laugh out loud video:

Ferguson Authorites Charge Journalists Because They Want Us All To Shut Up Already

Police square off against demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri
last August, with the McDonald's where the journalists were
arrested in the background. 

I was mystified earlier this week when St. Louis County, Missouri decided to proceed with criminal charges against reporters Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post.

In what had been up until now a pretty much forgotten incident, the two journalists were in a Ferguson Missouri McDonald's restaurant during the unrest last August following the police shooting of Michael Brown.

Police fairly violently detained the pair that night for "trespassing" and "interfering with law enforcement."  Those charges were quickly dropped and the journalists were let go.

But what mystified me is that this weekt St. Louis County, Missouri prosecutors resurrected the charges against Lowery and Reilly from that night last August in the Ferguson McDonald's.

I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories, but the one proposed in Salon, a leftish news and commentary site, makes sense to me.

The fact that it does make sense is chilling.

Salon notes that Lowery and Reilly have high powered news organizations with an army of lawyers behind them, so they'll get off scot free eventually.  Plus, the criminal charges really seem to be trumped up, and possibly a violation of First Amendment rights.

St. Louis County prosecutors must know all this, so why bother pursuing the journalists.

That's because a lot of news we get comes from small scale "citizen journalists,"especially when new stuff breaks out in Ferguson or anywhere else.

These citizen journalists are usually bystanders with cell phone cameras that take in what's going on.

Salon theorizes - and I agree - is that the charges against Lowery and Reilly are really a message to these citizen journalists. Which is tell the world what we do, especially if it's not necessarily kosher, and we'll come after you.

Citizen journalists don't have legal teams to back them up like the Washington Post and Huffington Post.. What St. Louis County prosecutors are saying to citizen journalists is, "Shut up!

Or as Salon puts it, St. Louis prosecutors are saying:

"This is what happens if you cross us. It wants to make sure than any journalist who comes to Ferguson in the future will do what they're told. It wants them to remember what happens when you step out of line. If media elites howl in protest, well, that's OK. If the case against Lowery and Reilly falls apart, that's fine too. The message will have been sent."

I'm just hoping that St. Louis County's response to bad PR is criminal charges against those spreading the bad PR, to somehow comes back to bite them.

It would also be nice if St. Louis County officials someday realize they're not dictators in some backwater third world country.

Judge Tells Prosecutor That Writing Rap Lyrics About Gangs Is Not A Crime, Duh!

San Diego rapper Tiny Doo faced up to life in prison
because prosecutors said he profited from gang
activity by writing lyrics about gangs.
A California court tossed the charges recently.  

Last November, I told you about the rapper named Tiny Doo, who was jailed and charged with, as prosecutors put it, fitting the legal definition of a gang member who 'willfully promotes, furthers, assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.'

Prosecutors were applying a law that says if somebody personally profits from gang activity they can be charged with a felony.

So yeah, if Tiny Doo was gunrunning to make a profit and supply the gangs, that would be a problem. It would also be a problem if the gangs paid him to tell them the location of somebody they wanted to kill.

As I noted a few months ago, Tiny Doo did none of these things.

He released a rap album called "No Safety" which had cover art showing a gun and bullets. Plus some of the lyrics dealt with the things gang members do.

Because he made money rapping about the things gangs do, he profited from gang activity, said prosecutors.

Thankfully, a judge just said, Uh, No. The First Amendment wins after all. Just because gang members like your music, doesn't mean you should be charged with the crime of profiting from gangs.

Says 7NBC in San Diego:

"(Prosecutors) claimed his homegrown music helped inspire the violence, even though there is no evidence connecting him to the actual shootings."

The prosecutors' logic, it seems, is akin to somebody listening to the old song "I Don't Like Mondays," which is about a school shooting, and then claiming a real school shooting arose because the assailant happened to hear that song.

Or as Tiny Doo's defense attorney, Brian Watkins said, "I think the whole world was watching because when they put our First Amendment here in America on trial, to say that Brandon Duncan's rap music encouraged these shootings."

That's why I'm making such a big deal out of this one case. Slippery slopes don't always happen, of course, but what's to stop some prosecutor from making a crime out of producing any kind of art the prosecutor thinks is distasteful.

I happen to like the song, "I Don't Like Mondays" so should I be arrested as a potential school shooter even though the last thing I ever want to do is bring a gun near a school. (I don't even have a gun, for crissakes. )  

 7NBC in San Diego says San Diego County District Attorney spokeswoman Tanya Sierra released a statement saying the office would respect the court's decision but added this:

"While a debate over the law can be constructive and educational, combatting the scourge of deadly gang violence remains our focus. Instead of waiting for ore shootings and murders to victimize the community we used this law to cripple the organization."

I'm all for stopping violence and putting gangs out of business, but maybe prosecutors should have went after gangs without getting creative with the First Amendment. I'm sure they can pin a lot of evidence on gang members who shot or threatened people.

The District Attorney's office said all the people they charged in connection with the Tiny Doo case are gang members. So, prove it. Is Tiny Doo a gang member or not?  If he is, you'd think there'd be evidence beyond the fact he made rap music.

The statement from Sierra's office said court records show that everybody's a gang member in this case and the media is being manipulated.

I would think that somebody in the media would find the supposed evidence that Tiny is a gang member and report it.

If so, charge him. With real evidence. Until then, I'm totally writing this off as prosecutorial overreach. And I'm offended the prosecutor has such little regard for the First Amendment.

Will Curt Schilling Start Welcome Trend In Outing The Worst Trolls?

 Curt Schilling and his daughter Gabby discuss
the cyberbulling she experienced, and the
response to it by Curt Schilling on "Good Morning America"  

Congratulations to Curt Schilling, former Red Sox baseball great and current ESPN analyst, who has been getting tremendous Internet buzz the past couple of days for outing some terrible online trolls who attacked his daughter.

At least two of the trolls are learning that we indeed have freedom of speech, but there are always consequences to exercising that freedom.

If you're an awful person saying awful things, there's a chance awful things might happen to you.

The background:

The other day, Schilling Tweeted an innocuous congratulations to his daughter Gabby, because he'd just learned she'd be pitching for the Salve Regina University Seahawks next year.

Nice, but it shouldn't be a big deal. A proud dad celebrating his successful daughter. What's wrong with that?

Well, as is seemingly always the case, the trolls attacked.  The gleefully Tweeted very disgusting sexual and perverted insults against Gabby Schilling or gawd knows why.  Just wildly horrible jerks, I guess.

Curt Schilling decided to ignore the advice about ignoring the trolls and unloaded on them in his blog with a just perfect and aggressive flair. Don't mess with a dad whose daughter ahs been insulted.

The best part of Curt Schilling's blog post, and the part that's gotten the most attention, is how he outed a couple of the trolls who tweeted such awful things about his daughter.   He figured out exactly who they were, and identified them by name in his blog.

First, Schilling said this:

"Now let me emphasize again... I was a jock my whole life. I played sports my whole life. Baseball since I was 5 until I retired at 41. I know clubhouses, I lived in a dorm. I get it. Guys will be guys. Guys will say dumb crap, often. But I can't ever remember, drunk, in a clubhouse, with best friends, with anyone, ever speaking like this to someone."

Schilling outed one of the trolls as Adam Nagel, who went to Brookdale Community College and was a DJ on the college's radio station.

Schillling had this to say about Nagel: "You don't think this isn't going to be a nice compilation that will show up every single time this idiot is googled the rest of his life? What happens when a potential woman he's after googles and reads this?"

Well, aside from having a hard time getting dates, Nagel's time at Brookdale Community College appears to be over.

This person has been identified in media reports
 as Adam Nagel, one of at least two people
Curt Schilling tracked down as cyberbullies
against his daughter, Gabby Schilling.  

On its Facebook page, Brookdale posted this:

"Students and community members have rightfuly expressed concerns regarding recent social media comments made by a Brookdale student. 

The Twitter comments by this student are unacceptable and clearly violated the standards of conduct that are expected of all Brookdale students."

Though they didn't mention him by name, Brookdale officials said on the Facebook post that the student had been suspended, further disciplinary action would be taken, and Brookdale Police are also investigating the matter.

Brookdale also apologized to Gabby Schilling and said her accomplishments should be celebrated and "not clouded by offensive comments."

Most of the comments on Brookdale's Facebook page were supportive of the college, and urged officials to fully follow through on their discipline.

Then there's the other guy Schilling outed. He wrote:

"The other clown? He's VP of the Theta Xi fraternity at Montclair State University. I gotta believe if Theta Xi is cool with a VP of one of their chapters acting like this I'd preer to have no one I know in it. Also, does anyone attending Montclair State University have a student handbook? If so, can you pass it along because I am pretty sure there are about 90 violations in this idiot's Tweets."

This idiot is named Sean MacDonald. He actually recently graduated from Montclair State University so college officials really can't do anything about him. MacDonald recently started a job as a part-time ticket seller for the New York Yankees, but the Yankees quickly fired him when Schilling's blog post came out.

MacDonald's former fraternity isn't amused, either, saying "......inappropriate and offensive tweets that were posted by an alumnus of Theta Xi Fraternity. We agree wholeheartedly that cyber-bullying is unacceptable and should not be tolerated."

Predictably, neither Nagel nor MacDonald have responded to media requests for comments, says Heavy.com. 

Schilling says he knows the identity of some of the other trolls, and is considering legal action against them. However, several law experts said it might be difficult to bring criminal charges, because the troll comments didn't represent "true threats" that are likely to be carried out, says the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey.

Judging from the current Internet zeitgeist, most people seem pretty supportive of Schilling. Some are questioning why he's being so harsh on people who were supposedly only joking.

It's true pretty much everyone, including yours truly, has said moronic things in social media. We delete them, we explain them, we apologize for them and move on. But most of the stupid things we say on Facebook or Twitter or whatever reflect a momentary bout of ignorance, sarcasm, anger.

That's really not so bad and we shouldn't face severe criticism or life-long consequences for our little on-line mistakes.

Schilling points out that the trolls he outed went well beyond a bit of ignorance or posting something rashly.

"A mistake is tweeting once and saying, 'damn, I'm an idiot' and taking it down. These guys? They're making conscious choices to cyberbully an amazing and beautiful young woman in the Internet, and none of them know by the way, because they don't like her dad or they somehow think saying words you can teach a 5 year old is tough? Cool? Bad ass? Something I am missing? 

My right hand to God I promise all of you that tweeted that stuff, the friendsd around you saying, 'dude that's hilarious' and 'OMG that's awesome'? Those people? Inside they're actually thinking, 'what an ass#$!Q' and 'holy crap what a piece of trash,' no matter what they say to your face.'"

And the First Amendment?  As I noted, the government really can't prevent you from saying what you want. But they can stop you from making threats. The First Amendment also doesn't prevent employers, educators, friends and everyone else from shunning you because you are so awful.

It's time more Internet trolls learn this lesson, and Schilling is definitely helping with this process.

Schilling retired from playing baseball years ago, but he's still hitting at least metaphorical home runs. He definitely hit a grand slam with this blog post. Congratulations, Curt!

California Prosecutor Thinks The First Amendment Is Annoying, Can Be Ignored

A rapper named Tiny Doo faces a possible long
prison sentence because a whack job prosecutor says
he's profiting from gangs, what with the images
in guns and bullets and all on this album cover. 

Let's face it. Few people like gang members.

Given all the murders, the thefts, the drugs, the violence and whatever else they're up to, it's always awesome to prosecute when they start committing crimes.

So it's good that the district attorney in San Diego is going after a dozen or so gang members implicated in a string of shootings.

That's the slight glimmer of positivity.

Here's why I think the district attorney is a creep arguably worse than the gang members:

 One of those charged is a rapper named Tiny Doo.  (His real name is Brian Duncan, but his moniker "Tiny Doo" is more interesting.)

According to the Los Angeles Times, Tiny Doo faces up to 25 years in prison. Why?

As the Times explains it, "Prosecutors say..... Duncan fits the legal definition of a gang member who 'willfully promotes, furthers, assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.'"

Oh, Tiny Doo must have provided guns to the gang members so they could commit their crimes?  Or maybe drove them to them to the crime scene? Or told the gang members where they could find their victims to kill?

Um, no.  None of those things. He's clean.

It turns out Tiny Doo released a rap album. It's called "No Safety" and it has a picture of a gun and bullets on the cover.

Oooh! A picture of a scary gun! And bullets! Yup, that supposedly makes Tiny Doo a mass murderer or something.

This rapper, named Tiny Doo, faces a long prison sentence
for rapping about gang violence. First Amendment, Smirst
Amendment, apparently.  

Yeah, I'm sure the album is not my cup of tea, and I'm sure it's not the prosecutor's either. Everybody's a critic.

There's a little known California law that hasn't been challenged yet, that says people can't profit off gang activity. That's fine.

But prosecutors say Tiny Doo is profiting off gang activity because he raps about gang activity, which supposedly helps album sales, which means he's profiting from gang activity.

That is quite the little stretch isn't it, Mr. Prosecutor Man!

But last I checked, the government, under the First Amendment, can't suppress free speech, in this case in the form of a rap album, because somebody who listens to it might subsequently decide to commit a crime.

Oh sure, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, but rapping about gangs and violence? It's distasteful to some of us, but not illegal.

At least it wasn't illegal.

Apparently, though, the prosecutor wants to repeal the First Amendment. By his logic we're all criminals. At least most of us.

This morning, I listened to, and enjoyed the song "I Don't Like Mondays," which is about a school shooting. (Though for the record, I hate and am distressed by real school shootings.)

So should I be arrested for promoting school shootings? Or should the band who sings it, The Boomtown Rats, be prosecuted, even though the song is something like 30 years old?

Maybe we should arrest the members of Guns N' Roses. The rapper 50 Cent is seen holding a gun on his album "Guess Who's Back." Arrest him, too?

Did you watch NCIS on TV this week? There was probably a murder involved in the plot? So are you promoting violence by watching this show?

Tiny Doo's attorney, Brian Watkins, makes the same point, says the L.A. Times.

"If we're trying to criminalize artistic expression, what's next, Brian De Palma and Al Pacino?" Watkins said after visiting his client in jail. 

"Every drug gangster loves 'Scarface.' Does it encourage violence." asked Watkins, a reference to the 1983 movie directed by De Palma and starring Pacino." 

Prosecutors said that they have photos of Tiny Doo with the other gang members. OK. He has lousy friends. Maybe he's a lousy person himself, I don't know. It should be noted that Tiny Doo has no criminal record before this. 

The district attorney wouldn't comment. Probably hiding from the Big, Bad Reporter who wrote the article.

I'm hoping all the publicity building virally about this stupid prosecutor will make him back down. I wonder if this kind of thing goes on elsewhere, though.

I obviously want no harm to come to the district attorney, but I think he is going to come after me, anyway.

After all, I'm criticizing him pretty harshly. So he'll probably want to charge me with hindering a law enforcement official.

All because I'm probably hurting his Widdle Feelings.

I Love The Ferguson Police. Maybe.

Are the police in Ferguson overdressed here?
Photo by Jeff Roberson, Associated Press.  

Yep, that's right, I think the police out there in trouble Ferguson are  totally boffo. They've done us all an enormous favor.  

Or, they, and other police officials down there, are rapidly pushing this nation toward a crisis, I'm not sure yet.

No, I don't like that police in Ferguson shot an unarmed black teenager. No, I don't like that they played dress up, pretended to be soldiers with ridiculous amount of gear, and military trucks and gear.  I don't appreciate them arresting journalists who are trying to tell us what's going on.

I don't like that the police are trampling First Amendment rights. Or telling people "I will fucking kill you" for the high crime of walking down the street.  Or telling a CNN producer to get out because those "niggers" might do anything. 

The reason I love the job police in Ferguson are doing is because they've finally got us talking about whether arming local police to the teeth with hard core battle weapons is a good idea. They've got us talking about how our rights to peaceable assembly and speech are threatened by goons who say they are trying to keep the peace.

Police in Ferguson have us talking about race, crime, rights, poverty, freedom. I have no idea if all the talking we're doing because of Ferguson will improve things, but it's better than silence.

Look, I get it. Ferguson is complicated. There are a few criminals, looters, violent offenders, and jerks amid the hundreds, or thousands of peaceful protestors that have been out every night in Ferguson.

You've got to control the creeps, arrest them, put them away, but at what price? Isn't there a better way than to also treat everybody who lives in and near Ferguson like they are terrorists?

WAR GAME ARE FUN!

They brought the dogs out in Ferguson. Photo
by David Carson, St. Louis Post Dispatch  

We can start by police nationwide, who are taking advantage of federal giveaways to receive enought high tech arms to make Vladimir Putin blush.

Do we really want local cops to constantly act like third rate actors making some sort of lowbrow military Rambo movie? Yeah, in extreme events, some of this stuff might come in handy. But once in a blue moon. Do we really need entire invading armies to execute basic search warrants?

The juxtaposition of peaceful protests and police so pimped up in military gear it looks like they're in a knock down, drag out battle in Baghdad is disturbing to say the least.

The Economist has a good summary of how Congress, awash in military hardware campaign cash, perpetuate this extreme militarization of what used to be the nice police on foot patrol in your neighborhood.  

"In this as with so much else in American governance, it starts with federal cash. Every year Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets out the Defense Department's budget and expenditures. The version passed in 1990, in the wake of the sharp rise in drug related violence, allowed the Defense Department to transfer military gear and weapons to local police departments if the were deemed "suitable for counter-drug activities. 

"....The American Civil Liberties Union found that the value of military equipment used by American police departments has risen from $1 million in 1990 to $450 million in 2013."

Apparently, defense contractors weren't making enough money off of wars overseas. The bottom line would get even better if they encouraged police to declare war on us. The shareholders must be so excited. 

 U.S. News and World Report has a pretty good take on this point: 

"Have no doubt, police in the United States are militarizing, and in many communities, particularly those of color, the message is being received loud and clear: 'You are the enemy, ' writes Tom Nolan, a 27-year veteran of the Boston Police Department and professor at SUNY Plattsburgh, in an op-ed that appeared in DefenseOne in June, more than a month before the Ferguson riots.

Is that what police in this country really want? That we are their enemy? That is truly scary. 

FIRST AMENDMENT

I also love the police efforts to detain and shut up journalists covering the unrest. Yeah, like THAT'S going to work.

Lord knows some journalists are jerks, too, bloviating about nonsense and puffing up their over inflated talking head egos even more. But the truth is, most journalists, imperfect as they are,  just want to tell us what's going on. They want to make us understand the deal. And the have the First Amendment right to do so.

Apparently, the cops in Ferguson think the First Amendment is bullshit, and reporters should just shut up and regurgitate their happy little press releases.  I hope the national conversation about this crisis eventually convinces them otherwise. But I'm not totally optimistic on that one.

At least Ferguson has gotten so much attention, and drawn so many journalists, that police in Ferguson have ended up playing whack-a-mole. They detain three or so journalist to shut them up, and 30 journalists come in to yak and yell about journalists being detained.

I guess police in Ferguson police haven't figured out how to control the entire media like China has, which is a good thing.

And by the way, you Second Amendment enthusiasts. Where were you when they were trampling the First Amendment? I bet you'd be howling in the streets if the police trashed the Second Amendment as badly as the First. Aren't all the Constitutional Amendments important?

Who knows if the reaction to Ferguson will improve things in this country? At least we can count on minor victories.

The cop that told peaceful citizens and journalists to leave or "I will fucking kill you" has been reassigned away from Ferguson. (When asked for his name the "I KEEL YOU" cop said "Go Fuck Yourself" so I guess that's his unusual name)

I don't know how the rest of the Ferguson story will play out. I don't know if police will back away from arming themselves to the teeth.  I wonder if anyone will be held accountable for trashing Constitutional rights.

But something better change, dammit.

to