Okay, I'm going to say it and take the consequences.

[Pacifist Patriot]

I am deeply saddened by what happened to Scott Olsen. The entire incident cannot be morally or legally excused. I hope he makes a full recovery and soon.

But all the focus on his status as a marine has me wondering about others who were hurt on that shameful night. What if he hadn't been a marine? Isn't it enough he was simply a human being standing up for democracy and economic justice? Sometimes I feel his status as a military veteran is being exploited.

I saw a graphic on another post with the caption, "We Do Not Shoot Unarmed American Troops In The Head."

Well of course not. I would hope in this country we don't shoot unarmed people anywhere on their bodies.

I am not being heartless at all and I'm not ignoring the service he did give our country. I just hope people see him as more than just a marine, and if he'd been a sales clerk or a data analyst would care about his fate as much.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. I hear what you're saying and agree, Pacifist Patriot...

I think there are several things going on.

1. Focusing on him (especially since the injury was so severe) shows the irony of serving in the military overseas and, thankfully, coming home safe, yet getting injured on American soil exercising his civil rights by law enforcement.

2. It's very significant for a "people's protest" such as this to gain military support.

3. It may be that his story is being exploited with the intent to kind of shove it in right-wingers' face, for the above two reasons.

4. Also, focusing on Scott Olsen puts focus on ending wars as well as what's going on at home.


That's how I see it. :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. I agree and I sympathize with all of those points.

I just hope it doesn't get out of control. In any way or form.

[dotymed]

31. IMO, "it" has already gotten out of control.

The brutality of the "jack-booted" enforcers of this authoritarian regime have already crossed the line. When I call this a regime, I am not saying that President Obama is in charge. I think he has become a useful pawn for TPTB.

I'd like to imagine that President Obama is being forced to maintain the status quo. I really do not believe that, but I would like to. I do know that the current republican challengers to the "throne" would be worse for America. Just like most Americans, I am tired of "voting" for the lesser of two evils.

I pray that we can change the direction of America peacefully, but it is hard when we are met with extreme violence. I know that most Americans (we, I ) do NOT want a physical war. We would stand very little chance against the best trained and equipped military in the world.

We do not want death and destruction in the streets (yet we already have some of it). We DO want many changes. changes that would make America a great country. A country where all people are equal. Not a country (as it is now) where money is king.

I applaud the restraint of OWS protestors and I think that such restraint should be mandated to those who are tasked with "maintaining the peace." Instead of doing so, they have been violent thugs against the very people and the country that they swore to serve and protect.

War is pure destruction. Just look at the countries that we have destroyed in the name of "democracy." If it comes to that in America, I pray that the military will realize that our constitution, that they swore to defend, allows us the freedom of dissent and to demand redress. If so, then hopefully the military will stand with the people.

[Ship of Fools]

35. Wait until 2012. When enough people get turned away from the polls

because they lack "proper ID," THAT will be the time to worry.
Prediction: Repubs steal WH & Senate, violence ensues, WH breaks out National Guard,
followed by the end net neutrality. Heard it hear first (maybe 178th). Just sayin ...

[dkf]

3. That is the dangerous word..."exploited".

[OneGrassRoot]

4. "highlighted" may be more appropriate in some cases...

but when it comes to media, including social media, no doubt exploitation is involved somewhere along the line.

[PATRICK]

8. Without veteran status

He would be another non-reported accident presumed to be somewhat responsible for his own injury and a long shot gamble on winning a case against a police self-investigation. The fact that only reluctantly did the media "notice" he was a veteran in this script, highlighted the overall brutality at all. It is the ultimate service to the country. Many who make that sacrifice get ignored or fail.

When it comes down to ultimate confrontation, a fake government can only fall back on the army, even a large minority of supporters and cronies and all controlled institutions are not enough. Today, looking about, we have a just opposition to the repression of free speech(NEVER carried out against the pathetic baggers) by law officials, first responders and their unions, all in promoting simple legality and justice, mostly unsupported by failed political leadership.

You can never expect anything but reluctance from corporate news. Reluctant stories are spun. Spin is defended. A new cycle of ignoring argument and facts spins itself away from the simple event. Others obviously are not going to benefit from this "break" in the fact boycott which continues. To even argue about defending his victim status is to struggle in the MSM net. Screw them.

At another time such a symbolic martyr will be a spark to even greater effect. Looks like the repression mode will continue looking to see if the "mobs" will give up and dissolve in media lies.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. Well said. :) n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Thanks. I do appreciate the well-reasoned responses.

They are tempering the squirmy factor I had from approaching it emotionally.

[Scuba]

5. Nicely done. Thanks.

[EFerrari]

13. People also mistake projection for empathy all the time.

That's why "Fraser" was funny. Fraser projected all over people and prided himself on his compassion. And he was shown to be wrong in his projections all the time, which made him look silly.

[hootinholler]

6. Yeah, I can relate

It's been bugging me too.

[JackDragna]

7. It goes deeper than this.

The Marines, like many U.S. branches of service, have a long history of being a bludgeon for our foreign policy. They've committed atrocities in many different theaters of war, been used as an enforcement tool for corporations (especially during the early part of the 20th century) and have been an integral part of the abject cruelty suffered by other nations at the hands of our armed forces. Scott Olsen deserved a hell of a lot better than he got, but not because he's a Marine - it's because he was an American. There are plenty of dead Iraqis right now who took real bullets to the head fired from Marines and I find it deeply disturbing how liberals now want to "talk up" the tough-guy nature of our troops, now that one of them has finally experienced the ham-fisted type of brutality our government has established and defended in other countries.

edited for spelling.

[unionworks]

12. I am holding back

if I said what I want to to you, I would be banned immediately.

[JackDragna]

21. Get angry at me all you want..

..but I defy you to tell me anything I just said that's wrong. If I'm not wrong, then your beef is with the system, not with me.

[ieoeja]

37. There is nothing remotely liberal about pacifism. In fact, it is a very conservative stance.

During Vietnam liberals defended the free speach right of protestors. They mostly disagreed with those protestors. But defending unpopular speech is a liberal thing.

Since then a lot of people have conflated the two. For Rightists it is now a standard piece of their propaganda.

American wars entered into by Liberals:

- American Revolution
- War of 1812
- Mexican-American War
- Spanish-American War
- World War I
- World War II
- Cold War
- Korean War
- Vietnam
- Kosovo

American wars entered into by Conservatives:
- Civil War (won by the Liberal)
- Grenada
- Panama
- Iraq (continued by Liberal, ramped up by Conservative, ended by Liberal)
- Afghanistan

Liberals have started more wars. And have a much better won/loss record in large part because just about the worst thing you can call a General is, "too conservative". Conservatives make for highly incompetent military leaders.


**Note: I am talking wars. I realize we engage in minor military actions non-stop. In addition to the Banana Wars, we have walked into many a war zone to evacuate foreign nationals, we have trainers, we have observers, there were a couple of Marine Corp officers with the Japanese when they landed in China, we once had one Green Beret go along with an Israeli commando raid against a Syrian outpost where another American Green Beret happened to be training the Syrians, etc. This has happened pretty much non-stop since the late 19th century.

**Okay, I did leave out the Indian Wars. But those were pretty constant for a century as well regardless of the president. They might have ended much earlier if not for Andrew Jackson. And he was very liberal except for his intense bigotry.

[JackDragna]

40. My comment isn't so much about pacficism..

..as the general tendency for the left, in this situation, to laud members of the military while generally being the ones who condemn their excesses overseas. I'm also not sure the wars you listed as being entered into by "liberals" were really engineered by the political left. The two world wars, for example, were arguably entered into because of the nation's desire to establish itself as a dominant power on the world's stage. The Japanese, for example, didn't just attack us because they were "bad:" we had an oil embargo against them, partially in response to their aggression in the East, but also because we increasingly saw them as competitors for dominance in the Pacific.

[leftynyc]

9. It also points out the rank

hypocrisy of the right who claim to worship our military. When it comes down to it, they only support people who think as they do who just happen to be in the military. All others are traitors and scum. Just try and find ANY Democrat or person on the left that has a military background that they haven't hated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. It points out a deep dichotomy, when those who are 'spreading democracy' overseas

are shot in the head for participating in it at home. That raises two uncomfortable questions: what are we REALLY over there for; and, how much democracy do we really have here?

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Exactly. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I'm no spring chicken

So I remember that many of the 60's protesters came out of the military. So it is not a surprise to me to see them there. Nor does it bother me. Sorry if it is supposed to.

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. I'm not in the least bothered by protesters being from the military.

I'd be delighted if every last soldier, sailor, airman and marine joined in the Occupy movement.

I've learned a lot from some of the very well-reasoned responses here and it's tempered the little squirmy feeling I had about the situation.

[The Doctor.]

14. It's not the sympathy, it's the effect.

This particular incident brings the message that OWS is NOT only comprised of and supported by 'commie pinko hippies'. It brings the message home to the rest of the nation that ALL Americans have a stake in this. It does not detract from the attacks on other Americans, it just helps people see that the media is full of shit.

That make sense?

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Yes, thank you.

[FormerDittoHead]

28. Exactly this. OWS has been painted, over and over, as a bunch of live-at-home kids...

And while "hippies" vote too, in the political spectrum, it's a nice way of debasing and minimizing their opinions.

Only if you wear a suit, go to church or serve in the military have you shown that you're worthy of being taken "seriously".

[Exultant Democracy]

45. +1

[H2O Man]

16. Recommended.

I think that people can be horrified at the serious injuries that an individual human being sustained as a result of simply exercising their Amendment 1 rights; yet still understand that the symbolism of the horrific event communicates to a wider audience than those exercising their Amendment 1 rights.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Excellent point

But I think it is being emphasized because 1. His injuries were the worst yet suffered by an OWS protester...they almost killed him; and, 2. The fact that he is a Marine cuts the legs out from under the right-wing/media claims that OWS is nothing but lazy students and wasters.

But your point is well taken.

[WilliamPitt]

18. dupe

[justiceischeap]

19. Sadly, it makes great PR.

That's what this nation has come to. We've been conditioned to be rah-rah troops (even when they are raping female soldiers, torturing Iraqi's, killing innocent people with "hit the haji with the humvee") that when a peaceful demonstrator standing as an ex-military representative gets hurt, the first thing we do is use it to our advantage to show just "how far this nation's fallen."

I totally agree with your sentiment, we should be hearing about that woman in the sun dress that was lying injured on the ground but she kinda looked like a hippy, she had dark skin and wasn't as sellable by the media.

[XemaSab]

20. I think it's that as a veteran his loyalty to the US is unquestionable

and that if people who supposedly "support the troops" support the shooting of Scott Olson, they should take a serious look at which side they're on.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. You're absolutely right. Thanks.

[woo me with science]

36. Well said. nt

[tblue]

26. You're so right. Of course.

It wouldn't matter to me who the injured man was. But I think this narrative makes a more powerful argument for various reasons.

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. I agree. They've been stated eloquently above by several people.

[backscatter712]

29. It makes a lie out of the right-wing "dirty commie hippie" smear.

The Breitheads have been howling about "dirty hippies" that are "shitting on the sidewalk", "wearing patchouli oil", to try to drive that wedge between the "radical" protesters and regular people.

Except Scott Olsen wasn't a "dirty hippie" - he was a Marine. Grievously injured by the police for expressing his First Amendment rights.

It exposes the hypocrisy of the right.

[bloom]

30. It is sad

It is sad that all people would not be equally mourned, be equally considered citizens.


To the degree that someone thinks that a Marine (or any other military person, esp. male ones) are more symbolically American - just goes to show you the degree of inequality that exists.


I don't think that military veterans should be considered above others. I think that is a way of creating a more unequal society - one that favors men - as men are more likely to be in the military.

Some one from the Pentagon was saying recently that those who have 'put their lives on the line' - no matter what their role in the military has been - should be given priority over non-military people. For people such as that one - the only way to expect any sort of government service or help is to have been in the military.

I think it just goes to show that we are becoming more of a military state, more of a police state, all the time.

[Hotler]

32. k&r n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

34. It's all about marketing for a cause. n/t

[ieoeja]

38. If he hadn't been a vet, you would be hearing and reading Rightist jokes about him.

That is the truly disgusting part.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. As an ex-marine, I completely agree. He is just another citizen/victim of the oppression.

But, I will say, that his being an ex-marine being used to bring the violence against protesters to the public is fine with me. In a way, it's using the establishment's own "patriotic" propaganda against them.

[Marr]

41. It's because our militaristic society has so lionized military veterans.

When your societal values are largely dominated by military industrial complex interests, and regularly tell you that military service makes an individual into some sort of spiritual cousin of Superman, naturally you're going to highlight incidents like this one. Middle of the road people can dismiss the generic protestor as a "dirty hippy".

[BlancheSplanchnik]

42. true point, yet the MEME EXISTS -- it's our opportunity to use it positively

in fact, we MUST use it, in order to overide the RightWing memes that authoritarians have manipulated for so long.

[pipi_k]

43. That was my thought as well...

And IMO, it's just as vulgar as when people point out that it was a Muslim person who did this or that crime.

Or a black man.

Or any other sort of label.


What, is that supposed to make the person more hateful? More vile?


Same thing here. Scott Olsen being labelled an Iraq vet only serves to put him ABOVE the rest of humanity. And it serves to revile the cops even more, almost like they purposely targeted him, when in fact, they did not.

Also, and this may piss people off, but I'll say it anyway...

Had Scott Olsen been a teabagger out there with his own sign...or some other RW personality, the cheers here would have been deafening. Along with some really NASTY commentary about how he must have "deserved it", or how it would be one less RW asshole in the world if he died.

It sucks totally that they're never just human beings, but they always have to be given labels so we know who's "good" and who's "bad".

:eyes:

[Lyric]

44. You know what? If anyone in this country has earned the right to speak

...it's the soldiers who've actually risked their lives to protect those rights. People like Scott Olsen.

Even the most rabid, slobbering Freeper out there would recognize that people like Scott have paid for those rights in ways that the rest of us never will. A veteran's right to protest ought to be one of the most sacred things in this nation--and for most of us, it IS. But the Oakland police violated that sanctity. They physically harmed a veteran Marine who was just trying to exercise the rights he risked his life to protect.

If people seem more upset over Olsen than over a normal person getting hurt, this is the reason why. The violation of anyone's rights is horrible, but to violate the rights of a veteran? It's just beyond the pale.

[progressoid]

46. Devil's advocate here.

Simply because someone is a veteran shouldn't necessarily give him/her special treatment.
Timothy Mcveigh, Lynndie England, Oliver North etc were veterans. Would we be defending them as vigorously if they had been attacked?

[Bonobo]

50. You don't have to EARN the right to speak. It is yours already. nt

[Downtown Hound]

47. No anger, you are absolutely correct. n/t

[Enthusiast]

48. kr NT

[ellisonz]

49. I disagree. If something like this had happened to anyone in that situation...

...there would be uproar. He was shot at close range in the head with a rubber bullet or tear gas canister and then a stun grenade was thrown at people who came to his aid. It is on videotape - it is indisputable. I do not believe it would matter if he was a college student from Berkeley, a Black man from Oakland, or a Latino woman from Richmond. The response would be the same - outrage at police brutality. The Oscar Grant shooting wasn't swept under the rug.

[yoyossarian]

51. It's mostly a matter of EXTREME contrast, I think...

After all, when you've faithfully served your country in extreme conditions such as war, your right to peacefully protest SHOULD be BEYOND REPROACH.

And let me quickly qualify that last statement: YES, EVERYONE in America's right to peacefully protest SHOULD be beyond reproach... but you know the names we're called, simply because we show the courage to stand up on our hind legs and say "FUCK THIS SHIT! I DIDN'T SIGN ON FOR THIS! I WANT MY FUCKING MONEY BACK!!"

Even Limbaugh wouldn't DARE call Scott Olsen a dirty hippy... or WOULD he? (Yes, I'm DARING you, you FAT FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!)

The point is, if he DID, there's a distinctly different resonance there...

I TOTALLY agree with you; We ARE all equal, under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (or certainly we're SUPPOSED to be)... but when stuff like this happens to a VET, one who has put his ass ON THE LINE for two tours of duty in what is arguably HELL ON EARTH for his country, CERTAINLY this unfortunate and EVIL incident has a MUCH greater chance of causing A LOT of more regular, blithely disengaged people to recognize the hideous injustices we are ALL living under...

So how can you really argue against that, in this particular context?

And, understandably, it gives a LOT of folks out there a great deal of encouragement, knowing that our brave Marines--who REALLY ARE some of the BADDEST-ASS MOTHERFUCKERS on the face of the earth, BAR NONE, and CERTAINLY worth ANY 30-40 FAT FUCKING DONUT-CRAVING American POLICE--not to mention EASILY THE EQUAL of at LEAST 10 t0 20 PUSSY-ASS fucking Blackwater darlings, who also have lived in relative isolation from any REAL danger these last 10 years or so--knowing that these, our BRAVEST WARRIORS, have now seen, VERY GRAPHICALLY, the great EVIL that this small minority of power-addicted GREED-HEADS represent to our continued survival as a country, not to mention the ENTIRE race of mankind generally... well, that is rather encouraging to our movenent generally, don't you agree?

So the worth of this unfortunate and MONSTROUS incident to our very just and UNSTOPPABLE movement CANNOT be underestimated.

BTW, this response is meant as a SINCERE answer to the question posed, which I fully understand... and let me add a GRATEFUL K&R for a thoughtful post, from my own PASSIONATE and ANGRY viewpoint, as one who has admittedly NEVER served, but MUST appreciate the very REAL COURAGE and SACRIFICE of our armed services, especially these last 10 years or so, in these times of purely pointless ECONOMIC wars created for the benefit of those DISGUSTING 1-15%, who have long believed themselves to be The TRUE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but are very soon in for a RUDE AWAKENING INDEED.

To everyone out there supporting this movement: PEACE IN OUR TIME!... but not until the DEVILS have been DRIVEN OUT!!!

And all my best hopes for a full recovery to this VERY brave and VERY PATRIOTIC young man, Scott Olsen, who had the AMAZING COURAGE to stand alone before that seemingly-unstoppable line of POLICE-CREATURES, as if they really were nothing more than the CORPORATE SCARECROWS they ACTUALLY ARE.