Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Lima vs. Lima | Re: Children Trapped in Adult ... »

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Guns of Boston?

posted by on October 23 at 13:43 PM

First the Army brigade reassigned from Iraq to the U.S. to deal, as the Army Times put it, with “civil unrest or crowd control,” and now this, from The Hill:

Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.

Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.

In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.

Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.

“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him… This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”

Whether we’re talking election theft, manufactured crisis, or old-fashioned race rioting, this bristling of batons in cities is a little unnerving.


Photos from the RNC in St. Paul by dk pan.

(UPDATE: Eli posted this yesterday, but I’m leaving this one up. If I didn’t get a chance to read it—Slog’s hauling ass these days—maybe you didn’t either.)

RSS icon Comments


I thought this was illegal?

Posted by cochise. | October 23, 2008 1:46 PM

Of course, all of the ghetto rats here in Chicago that vote the Socialist in are going to go out on their tenement rooftops and shoot their gats into the air, thus requiring an increased police presence; and of course they're the same thugs that are going to rape white women and steal flat screen TVs from Circuit City which also requires an increased police presence. At least if Obama wins he can advise that they stand down.

Posted by Banna | October 23, 2008 1:49 PM

Which is why the most effective response to stolen elections is a peaceful general strike.

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 23, 2008 1:51 PM

Nice how their assumption is:

If Obama wins, the liberals will riot

If Obama loses, the liberals will riot

Posted by switzerblog | October 23, 2008 2:43 PM

This is why early voting is important!

Unless you're like me and love getting stickers that declare your participation in a common and should-be-required-but-isn't act.

Posted by AJ | October 23, 2008 2:46 PM

@4: No, their assumption is, if Obama wins, right-wingers will riot. If Obama loses, black people will riot. Duh.

Posted by CQ | October 23, 2008 2:47 PM

#6 Read the fucking article.

Posted by Jay | October 23, 2008 3:20 PM

Here's an intresting, and maybe a little disturbing, assessment:

Posted by Seajay | October 23, 2008 7:32 PM

One assumption is true: if McCain wins(in light of all the voter roll purging and intimidation tactics employed by the GOP), we'll KNOW the election was stolen.

Posted by revolt! | October 23, 2008 10:01 PM

seajay@8: from the article you cited:

But it does seem that liberals are continuing to do whatever they can to increase anger at America, or at least at "white America."

oh, liberals are the ones inciting hate this election? that's rich.


Posted by ellarosa | October 24, 2008 8:55 AM

@10: So there's been no hatred over Iraq, then? No anger over Chimpy McBushitler and Halliburton and the 'Bush lied people died' mantra? And no efforts to bring it on to Mr McCain by calling him 'more of the same?'

The article was basically about racism charges being thrown. For the record I didn't say I agreed with it, I just said it was interesting. (It seems to have interested you a bit.) I find SLOG interesting too, though I patently don't agree with it.

The US has often been called a racist society. But compared to whom? What progressive, enlightened European or any other country can show a roster of African-ancestered achievers on a par with--to throw up a few examples--Martin Luther King, Toni Morrison, Louis Armstrong, Oprah Winfrey, Herman Cain, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Robert L. Johnson, Thurgood Marshall, Morgan Freeman, Marion Wright Edelman, Jessye Norman, Tiger Woods, Booker T. Washington, and Vernon Jordan, not to mention Mr Obama himself? To be sure, racism is part of our past, but it seems like Dr King's dream ... "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," is as far away as ever. And it would be an offense to Dr King's memory to look at a judgment of some person--of any colour--'by the content of their character,' and then label it as racism or bigotry. I've criticised Mr Obama here, but it's never been on the basis of his skin, and never will be. I'd offer the same criticism of him no matter what colour his skin was.

Racism is an ugly charge, and peculiarly effective because it can't be disproven due to the fact that it makes an offense out of thought. Anyone charged with it, to exonerate h/hself, is tasked with proving that they DO NOT THINK something ... which of course, is impossible for anyone to prove at any time. Therefore, it's great in the political arena because there will always be people who believe it no matter at whom and under what circumstances it's levelled. This is a leftist tactic that goes back a hundred years, when Communists purged and killed each other over 'deviationism' and all the other 'isms' of the years. They always work for the same reason: you can't prove what you are or are not thinking. For that very reason, people too free with charges of racism risk simply being tuned out, and treated like the boy who cried 'Wolf!' in the story. The point of that story was not how bad he was for being mischievous; the point was that his mischief created an opportunity for the danger to become even more dangerous by desensitiing people to it by overexposure.

Posted by Seajay | October 24, 2008 11:49 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.