9 July 2010 Every right to riot

9 July 2010 Every right to riot


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070900340.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010070902105

Mehserle verdict of involuntary manslaughter spurs protests in Oakland

By TERRY COLLINS and GREG RISLING

The Associated Press

Friday, July 9, 2010; 10:31 AM

The riots in Oakland bring a serious question to mine.

What is there in the makeup of a minority community that leads to riots, riots that lead to the destruction of shops and residences serving and housing that community?

In 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King, riots broke out in many U.S. cities. Some of the areas still show damage from the fires and looting today. There was more rioting following the trial of Rodney King and that of O.J. Simpson.

Last night in Oakland CA rioters set fires, smashed bank windows, and looted an athletic shoe store and a jewelry store. To be fair, the video I saw today captured police arresting both white and black rioters. Oakland is more diverse in population than many cities.

I am puzzled by the use of riots as a response to police action, court verdicts, and shootings by police and by non-police. Invariably looting and arson yield unfavorable press and decreased services and housing for people who need those services to be within walking or public transport distances. I’m puzzled at the acceptance of looting and rioting by minority communities. I’m equally disturbed by minority and non-minority apologists who attempt to justify rioting by pointing to historical wrongs. Slavery was morally reprehensible, but there are no former slaves alive today. Education was once denied to minorities. That is not the case today. Voting is available to those who qualify. The situations of the early 20th century no longer exist. Minorities should not point to them as justification of illegal behavior, gang membership, etc.

I’d like to hear some comments about this. It’s a mystery to me and always has been.



Sanctions alone won't work on Iran

Network News

X PROFILE


By Charles S. Robb and Charles Wald

Friday, July 9, 2010



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070805070.html



I find myself in agreement with the authors in their assessment of how we should deal with Iran.

Iran can not field a large enough army to invade and destroy Israel. We cannot field sufficient troops to invade and conquer Iran, even if we pulled all our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and added them to fresh troops. Given these limiters, the likelihood that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear arms is 99% or higher, in my estimation. The probability that we would require the use of low-yield nuclear warheads to block and demolish Iran’s nuclear weapons program is about 90% in my estimation.

While there would be enormous protest mounted against a U.S. nuclear pre-emptive strike against Iran’s weapons program; I seriously doubt that any other nation would do more than reproach us verbally. No Arab states want a nuclear-armed Iran trying to rearrange the balance of political and religious power in the Middle East. No European or Asian nation wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Israel should not attempt such a strike at this time. The amount of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism already demonstrable would only increase.

The U.S. is probably willing to accept the loss of civilian lives in Iran that such a strike would cause. Such loss of life would likely solidify the position of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the militant fanatics who control missiles and who’s bases shelter the hardened nuclear plants. While the current President might fall, the willingness for Iranian reconciliation with the U.S. that many journalists reportedly find in the Iranian citizenry would vanish with the smoke and fires of an attack on Iranian soil.

The use of client terrorist organizations against the U.S. by Iran would increase. The support for Iran among Moslem nations would ratchet up appreciably. For that reason, if the U.S. decides to plan and carryout a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear production sites, it should simultaneously plan and execute a similar strike against the Pakistani nuclear weapons storage sites. That would help to eliminate the risk of Iran purchasing weapons grade fissile materials in order to extract revenge against the U.S.

While I dislike the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine, I have no reason to doubt that, should the current Iranian regime secure nuclear devices, they will be deployed against the U.S. and Israel with as much simultaneity as possible. I would hate for us to deploy thermo-nuclear weapons in today’s world. I would hate far more having such weapons deployed against us.

Dinner tonight will be seared sea scallops, sautéed spinach with mushrooms, potatoes with cheese sauce.


Shabbat Shalom!