>> ^blankfist:

Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".


Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?

And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.

Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

As dumb as the little law is, that's all this video is about. Some people breaking a dumb little law and being arrested for it.

Now if one of the cops had said, "Hey, you know what? This is AMERICA.. F the court's decission.. dance all you want!" that would have been awesome.. but in the end, this is not indicative of massive opression or anything. There is some dumb logic to this law (the keep it a place of tranquility.. as it reads in the court order), and the cops in this video didn't go around tazing everyone or being overtly rude or belligerent.

Infact the guy who pretended like he didn't know he was breaking any law annoys me. If you're going to break the law to make a statement, don't play ignorant when it's obvious you're perfectly aware of what you're doing. Weakens your stance, imo.

It's good to keep one's eyes open for stuff like this on a more broad scale, but as it stands this is a skirmish over one idea of what should be allowed in a specific public area vs another's.. and I can see both sides. I totally side with the dance freedom though myself.

Also this is a city-state, so I would bet federal judges like to flex their muscle here and there amongst DC.

>> ^Shepppard:

Not that it's here nor there, but if I went to see a memorial and there were a bunch of people being disruptive in any way, shape or form, I'd be rather upset at that.
What we see here is a video of the cops showing up and what follows. As bareboards said, we don't see what happened prior to the video. It could've been as innocent as two people dancing (however, "Flash Mob" really makes me think there were more then that), or it could've been rather disruptive.
Honestly, if you're going to be there to protest, at least take the time to do it right. Lets use me as an example, if I went to D.C. I'd love to see things like the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, etc. Take in the sights dedicated to history, because that's something I truly enjoy.
If I got to one of those places and i'm not able to enjoy it fully because someone decided they wanted to make a flash mob for whatever reason, not even taking the time to buy a protesting permit, I'd be pretty bummed. I would have traveled however far and not been able to enjoy something I was looking forward to because of this.
I'm not saying how it was handled was right by the cops, but I am saying that the protestors were being rather ignorant to everyone but themselves by how they handled this situation, too.


Respect. There are certain places that demand it. Also, if a cop tells you not to do something and you go right ahead and do the very thing he told you not to do right in his face, your incarceration is imminent. Duh. I don't think they were arrested for dancing so much as belligerence.

Anyone know which bill he's referring to?

He is referring to what I think is the H.R. 1540

With the infamous endless war section 1034.

Here it is in all of it's glorious unconstitutionality.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

longde; I showed you when I was being patronizing, in the comments about Couey. No other comments are patronizing. I cannot help if some points are stated bluntly.

As far as the "pro-cop bias"--stop assuming just because I question you beliefs. Here is an example of how I think in ALL matters--not just about cops.

I personally am atheist and think belief in a higher power is kind of sad (Like a fat woman eating a whole tub of ice cream.) Most religious people act horribly towards atheists like myself. However, I give religious people the benefit of doubt. I am not pro-religious... Just like I am not pro-cop. Pro-cops make excuses for violence, pro-religious makes excuses for belligerent a-holes, I DO NOT, EVER! However, I tell you what I try to be--non-judgmental.

The answer to my statistics isn't worth the time. Let's just say that you were the one who said he knew about cop beatings in his community, and I have yet to get your number.

Lastly, "setting the bar low." Oh grow the fuck up (I have to patronize to the hyperbole you use here.) Cops are humans, and they sometimes are horrible sacks of shit. See, I agree one case of abuse is too much, and your statement implies that I do not. Also too much; is one car wreck, one cancer case, one still-born and one mental retardation, one electrocution, one accidental drowning or shooting, the list goes on and on to infinity. Yes--all of those are bad, and all of those are going to happen. But to classify, for example, heart-attacks, something that happens quite often (about 1 million a year,) as close to cop beatings, that's insane hyperbole. All I ask is that you use the proper adjectives, instead of lumping the same words together
for the shake of shock-and-awe, or whatever reason you are doing it.

I do appreciate the fact that you have not said, "Well, I have a life and gotta go!" So many pricks do... So thank you for still pointing out your beliefs and not resorting to being a child.


>> ^longde:

Yes, you are patronizing; it oozes out of your posts. No, you don't know what you're talking about.
The correct answer is that there is not enough data to prove one way or another. Even the organization in the link you provided admit the severe limitations of their technique, which primarily relies on media reports. Your obvious pro-cop bias (nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it) leads you to think that the very scant data supports your point.
Even your back-of-the-envelope calculation show your bias. And do you really think that 54 cases of brutality in a year is so insignificant? Probably because you think you or your loved ones will never be on the wrong end of a stick. 54 is quite alot for one city. Hell, one is too many, to be frank. Setting a low bar for our officers is not helping them.
>> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="

Unnecessary note about the choice of narcotic used: imagine if he were paranoid instead of belligerent.

My father is very literal-minded and has real trouble making sense of scenes like this. For instance, the scene in Michael Clayton when George Clooney stands with the horses on the hill was a big mystery to him.

The YouTube commenter that gwiz is quoting also has some trouble with literal-mindedness. Not as much trouble as my Dad, but it never crosses the commenter's mind that Alex Cox (the director) is merely constructing a series of symbols. In the commenter's world, this scene can only be a thing that he can identify with, a dream. It must be a drug-induced dream: the human construction of an altered mind.

Well, why should it be so limiting? Ask Blankfist, he'll tell you that directors are visual storytellers. Cox had to figure a way to wrap this tragic tale up in some artistic fashion. Why not re-tell Sid's entire story in the last scene with nothing but symbols? Sid eats pizza in the wasteland (working-class England), he is belligerent and anti-social (flipping the table over), he begrudgingly dances with little kids (the Sex Pistols), and then he dies with Nancy (the taxi).

In fact, the soundtrack lists the title to this gloomy instrumental song as "Taxi to Heaven." So is it a dream or something much much more subtle and therefore better?

I rest my case, your honor.

Who needs to control their temper when they have *lies and religion to support their belligerence against *equality?

This is why people should learn to give up religion.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Has anyone found any back story on this? What started this anyway? This is why people should learn to control their temper.

Here's a script that I just came up with, for when you are digging on a beach and the cops show up.

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a member of the media cannot dig on a public beach?"

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a citizen cannot dig on a public beach, for that matter?"

Then when he can't or won't produce it ask him if he will take you to a supervisor so that you can ask them.

Don't be belligerent about it, but don't let them push you around. Remember I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just as a concerned citizen I think it's bullshit.

By the by, I still cannot find the statute on google that says you cant dig. Any google-fu masters out there?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/building-sand-castles-floridas-beaches-illegal-feds-oilhunting-reporter/

AHhh!! Where to start...

The fat, lazy, belligerently racist woman got what she deserves.

However, the gentleman's statement is absurd, "We're no longer in the 60's, we have rights now... Obama is President." Obama being President has nothing to do with their rights and liberties. In fact, the woman has a right to free speech (no matter how stupid, idiotic or racist it might be).

I'm not condoning her actions or words but I am pleased to see that he used HIS free speech rights to call her a "Fat Bitch" several times.

As for being sprayed with a hose, I'm sure that doesn't qualify as assault. But here in the Good 'Ol US&A you can sue anyone for anything (It doesn't mean you'll win though).

Dali was fascist scum.

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Dali was fascist scum. http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html

The Jackboot of Dada

Salvador Dali, Fascist

By VICENTE NAVARRO

The year 2004, the centenary of Dali's birth, has been proclaimed "the year of Dali" in many countries. Led by the Spanish establishment, with the King at the helm, there has been an international mobilization in the artistic community to pay homage to Dali. But this movement has been silent on a rather crucial item of Dali's biography: his active and belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century.

For every political assassination carried out by Mussolini's fascist regime, there were 10,000 such assassinations by the Franco regime. More than 200,000 people were killed or died in concentration camps between 1939 (when Franco defeated the Spanish Republic, with the military assistance of Hitler and Mussolini) and 1945 (the end of World War II, an anti-fascist war, in Europe). And 30,000 people remain desaparecidos in Spain; no one knows where their bodies are. The Aznar government (Bush's strongest ally in continental Europe) has ignored the instructions of the U.N. Human Rights Agency to help families find the bodies of their loved ones. And the Spanish Supreme Court, appointed by the Aznar government, has even refused to change the legal status of those who, assassinated by the Franco regime because of their struggle for liberty and freedom, remain "criminals."

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art. They compare Dali with Picasso. A minor literary figure in Catalonia, Baltasar Porcel (chairman of the Dali year commission), has even said that if Picasso, "who was a Stalinist" (Porcel's term), can receive international acclaim, then Dali, who admittedly supported fascism in Spain, should receive his own homage." Drawing this equivalency between Dali and Picasso is profoundly offensive to all those who remember Picasso's active support for the democratic forces of Spain and who regard his "Guernica" (painted at the request of the Spanish republican government) as an international symbol of the fight against fascism and the Franco regime.

Dali supported the fascist coup by Franco; he applauded the brutal repression by that regime, to the point of congratulating the dictator for his actions aimed "at clearing Spain of destructive forces" (Dali's words). He sent telegrams to Franco, praising him for signing death warrants for political prisoners. The brutality of Franco's regime lasted to his last day. The year he died, 1975, he signed the death sentences of four political prisoners. Dali sent Franco a telegram congratulating him. He had to leave his refuge in Port Lligat because the local people wanted to lynch him. He declared himself an admirer of the founder of the fascist party, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. He used fascist terminology and discourse, presenting himself as a devout servant of the Spanish Church and its teaching--which at that time was celebrating Queen Isabella for having the foresight to expel the Jews from Spain and which had explicitly referred to Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews as the best solution to the Jewish question. Fully aware of the fate of those who were persecuted by Franco's Gestapo, Dali denounced Bunuel and many others, causing them enormous pain and suffering.

None of these events are recorded in the official Dali biography and few people outside Spain know of them. It is difficult to find a more despicable person than Dali. He never changed his opinions. Only when the dictatorship was ending, collapsing under the weight of its enormous corruption, did he become an ardent defender of the monarchy. And when things did not come out in this way, he died.

Dali also visited the U.S. frequently. He referred to Cardinal Spellman as one of the greatest Americans. And while in the U.S., he named names to the FBI of all the friends he had betrayed. In 1942, he used all his influence to have Buñuel fired from the Museum of Modern Art in New York, where Buñuel worked after having to leave Spain following Franco's victory. Dali denounced Buñuel as a communist and an atheist, and it seems that under pressure from the Archbishop of New York, Buñuel had to leave for Mexico, where he remained for most of his life. In his frequent visits to New York, Dali made a point of praying in St. Patrick's Cathedral for the health of Franco, announcing at many press conferences his unconditional loyalty to Franco's regime.

Quite a record, yet mostly unknown or ignored by his many fans in the art world.

Vicente Navarro is the author of The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life and Dangerous to Your Health. He teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He can be reached at navarro@counterpunch.org.

Best post so far.

>> ^MaxWilder:

No damn reason? She tried to get away! Does that mean nothing to you?
You think complying with instructions from an officer of the law is the same as kissing their ass? You have a fucked up world view.
If an officer tells you to stop, you stop.
If an officer asks you a question, you reply with as much information you feel appropriate.
If an officer tells you to give identification, you politely ask what you are being charged with.
If an officer tells you what you are being charged with, you give identification.
If at any point you try to walk away, you are an idiot. If at any point you are rude or belligerent, you are an idiot.
This is not kissing ass. This is being respectful of the role in society that the officer plays. All you have to do is be polite. If that is difficult for you, that is your problem, not the officer's.
An officer is not under any kind of obligation, legally or morally, to show you more respect than you show him. Like I said before, if you comply with an officer's instructions and then you get beat, that is an entirely different story and I would be fully supportive of getting that officer fired and/or imprisoned. But that is not. what. happened. here. This is a video of two women who were disrespectful, unruly, tried to flee the scene, and laid hands on an officer while he was trying to do his job.

So what happens when the officer declines to tell you what you are being charged with? Do you refuse to give identification?

Also, you should always take advantage of your right to be silent.

>> ^MaxWilder:
No damn reason? She tried to get away! Does that mean nothing to you?
You think complying with instructions from an officer of the law is the same as kissing their ass? You have a fucked up world view.
If an officer tells you to stop, you stop.
If an officer asks you a question, you reply with as much information you feel appropriate.
If an officer tells you to give identification, you politely ask what you are being charged with.
If an officer tells you what you are being charged with, you give identification.
If at any point you try to walk away, you are an idiot. If at any point you are rude or belligerent, you are an idiot.
This is not kissing ass. This is being respectful of the role in society that the officer plays. All you have to do is be polite. If that is difficult for you, that is your problem, not the officer's.
An officer is not under any kind of obligation, legally or morally, to show you more respect than you show him. Like I said before, if you comply with an officer's instructions and then you get beat, that is an entirely different story and I would be fully supportive of getting that officer fired and/or imprisoned. But that is not. what. happened. here. This is a video of two women who were disrespectful, unruly, tried to flee the scene, and laid hands on an officer while he was trying to do his job.

No damn reason? She tried to get away! Does that mean nothing to you?

You think complying with instructions from an officer of the law is the same as kissing their ass? You have a fucked up world view.

If an officer tells you to stop, you stop.
If an officer asks you a question, you reply with as much information you feel appropriate.
If an officer tells you to give identification, you politely ask what you are being charged with.
If an officer tells you what you are being charged with, you give identification.

If at any point you try to walk away, you are an idiot. If at any point you are rude or belligerent, you are an idiot.

This is not kissing ass. This is being respectful of the role in society that the officer plays. All you have to do is be polite. If that is difficult for you, that is your problem, not the officer's.

An officer is not under any kind of obligation, legally or morally, to show you more respect than you show him. Like I said before, if you comply with an officer's instructions and then you get beat, that is an entirely different story and I would be fully supportive of getting that officer fired and/or imprisoned. But that is not. what. happened. here. This is a video of two women who were disrespectful, unruly, tried to flee the scene, and laid hands on an officer while he was trying to do his job.