Republican Politician Shot: Steve Scalise

[Dragon Angel]

Me, I'm happy as long as we can look at and acknowledge the validity of a criticizing someone who would pop those caps. And do so without smothering them in #NotAllAntiRepublicans.

My perception is that you were inadvertently doing the smothering thing. Remember that he started out by saying "What happens if we become a party where only one point of view, the most extreme and violent one, is considered acceptable?" It was a hypothetical question. A counterfactual.

There is a natural human urge to go " #NotAll________ " whenever we see something that looks like a criticism or a false claim, about a category we identify with. This urge is very strong. I've been trying to back up and recognize it and train it out of myself, and I'm sorry if I bothered you when I tried to apply the 'back up and train' thought process to your post.

It's good, nothing to be sorry about. In all honesty, two of the impeti behind my response to TRR was previous experience seeing the lack of nuance elsewhere that I'd mentioned, and previous experience dealing with TRR.

It's too easy to descend, for instance, into a discourse where communists are directly compared to Nazis such as in horseshoe theory. It's too easy to let misconceptions slide by unchallenged, where, well, we know who the Nazis are, but our history with communism has been plagued by decades of anti-Left propaganda. It's difficult to tell where truth and falsehood are separated because in the American mind, we are trained to believe Stalinist communism is representative of every branch of communism to exist, and naturally that makes it extremely hard to even begin a discussion.

Then there is also TRR being needlessly hyperbolic. I'd only realized it in the last several hours that our history discussing this topic is perhaps coloring my views here. Honestly, that sort of hyperventilating does much to poison the discourse too, which is why I'm very careful in making definitive nuance-free statements about possible futures.

One riot occurring in one place can have a desirable effect in certain contexts. In most contexts it's just a riot, at best does no long term good, and at worst does damage to a good cause.

But when we scale it up to "embrace the pro-violence fringe of your own movement," this becomes disastrous. The pro-violence fringe will first take over the state at the expense of non-violent factions with similar goals (the Bolsheviks driving out the Provisional Government), then the thugs will take over the fringe movement at the expense of the intellectuals (Stalin taking over after Lenin's death), then the thugs will purge everyone who isn't a thug and ultimately the revolution will be betrayed, because it carried the seeds of its own destruction.

There are ways to have a successful revolt against an oppressive government, but being respectful towards the most violent fringe of one's movement isn't on the list.

The Republicans are in grave danger of experiencing this exact process over the next few decades, and the main thing stopping it is the set of basically peaceful civil institutions the US has. The same set that also stops us on the left from profiting by a shift to political violence, even if we wanted to.

Fair. Largely we agree here, a massive tool such as a riot has to be used in a careful and controlled manner. I definitely am not willing to respect the fringe that will never under any circumstance stop considering violence. I just don't want to completely rule out the option of violence.

It "helps" that I've also seen hot takes (elsewhere) on the level of "The Gay Rights movement has done harm in the past, look at Stonewall!", so I might've been heated by those as well.

Okay, but when there is a specific person present in the room who is favoring escalating violence, seems willing to approve or at least give a free pass when an enemy gets assassinated, and who is insulting and berating people for being 'fake leftists' for saying assassinations are bad (or even that riots are bad)...

Disagreeing with that person, specifically and individually, is appropriate. As is pointing out that their position, followed to its logical conclusion, creates the sort of slide into exclusionist revolutionary thuggery I just described.

When the people saying "let's form militias, and it sounds pretty good if some of our political enemies get assassinated!" are right there in the room, it is not a good time to go talking about how such people are an insignificant fraction of the left. Or to say that there is no need to debate against such people.

Yeah, I have no interest in measuring how Leftist someone is anymore, it rarely ends well.

I can't speak for Ralin, his views are sometimes further to the extreme than mine. Soontir was probably speaking from cynicism, but his point about the Republicans in power about to enact laws that can kill tens of thousands is still a valid one. As much as I'd like to believe that the law of this country will help us in the end, try selling that to someone from a community of color that is routinely discriminated against, jailed, and murdered by cops. Try selling that to members of queer communities who have similar actions done to them, with the added bonus of lawmakers trying to restrict our rights to exist. Queer people of color have the worst of both worlds in these regards.

In any case this is all really irrelevant, because I initially got on TRR's case for hyperventilation. You're probably right in that there was miscommunication; I saw a discussion going somewhere, and I wanted to nip that in the bud before it sprouted into another garbage dump. I don't mind criticism or debate, just don't throw something ridiculous into the mix please, I've had enough discourse trolling from people tangential to my own circles.

Over time, the Overton window will tend to switch towards 'mass shootings of political enemies' if, whenever the advocates of mass shootings ARE challenged, they are met with trolling and derision. It is not helping if, in addition to being trolled and derided, those who speak out against mass shootings are also smothered with #NotAllAntiRepublicans.

I wouldn't say it's so much a lack of watchfulness/concern, as a question of whether it's contextually appropriate to dispute why people are saying what they say.

Think of it like this: What if someone decided to say Hillary would have been equally as bad as Trump? Hillary would have appointed obvious corporate interests into her cabinet, Hillary would have instructed the Justice Department to ignore Title IX provisions for transgender students, Hillary would have made movements to abolish the ACA, Hillary would regularly taunt anyone to the Left of Right from her Twitter account, ...

You would think that preposterous, correct?

This is how I feel about judging far left groups who are not averse to the idea of violence. I guess a lot of this has to do with personal experience with them, but seeing TRR say so confidently that far leftists may one day round up anyone not as far left as them ..... that was something I couldn't let go.

The Overton window ... is another discussion, that I can kind of see where you're coming from. But, as it seems right this moment the American window ranges from center or center-right to fascism, it's not the foremost concern on my mind.

[ker-huggity]

[Flagg]

As to my point regarding Attica and riots "getting shit done", I should have added the caveat that that's when all "legitimate" avenues for dealing with grievances have been tried. And even then, injuries and loss of life should be kept to a minimum when possible.

Targeting politicians who you hate for assassination as they play golf or are in front of a Safeway holding a rally is completely unacceptable and will remain so unless things start getting Nazi Germany or Soviet Union scary. And even then, you're screaming into a hurricane unless the military is on your side.

[The Romulan Republic]

The issue though is you're making broad and absurd conclusions over a series of smaller groups (I use the term "far left" because that is what US politics would call them and it is less obnoxious than listing every group at once) and their beliefs that right now are not at such a level. I am somewhat frustrated here because you only give me a vague metric of "more than a few" that makes me wonder about your authenticity on this matter.

I'm not one of them, I am not a political scientist who has studied them academically. I suppose I probably know them about as well as any average person gets to know a differing point of view through conversation.

There are many who wouldn't be averse to political compromise without violence, as long as that does not mean "compromise all our rights in the process a.k.a. The Democrat Stratagem" which they justifiably complain liberals in this country allow. Before you latch onto that, I know you have spoken out against this before, but you do need to realize there are shades of gray in this seeming black and white image you have.

I do feel that the Democratic Party too often compromises, though I also feel that this grievance is often exaggerated- into the false and incredibly destructive "Both sides are the same" narrative, for example.

I don't see that as a problem that violence by Left-wing activists is going to solve, however. If anything, it'll simply widen the rift between Progressives and Centrist Democrats, and split the Left's vote.

Can you not reductio ad absurdum Jews into this conversation then because your tendency to be hyperbolic can confuse it.

I didn't see it that way. It was one, one of many possible examples of how an extremist, us vs. them mindset could end up targeting more and more people for not being on the "right" side.

I know the moment you bring anti-Semitism into a conversation, there's an immediate association with Nazis, but it wasn't my intention to say "Left wing extremists are Nazis", or even that they would become Nazis. That was your interpretation only.

Well, I suppose it was also a jab at Ralin, a way of saying: "You know, you're not behaving that differently from the people you're fighting."

Okay, extremist thinking could lead there. Are far left groups not in constant discussion as to whether or not we are going down a dark path by massacring Christians? (There are very many Christians who would consider themselves one of them.) Are far left groups now widely accepting that we should beat up liberals?

Both signs point to no, and I'm not convinced they will point to yes in the foreseeable future.

As Simon_Jester said:

Insofar as the far left is massively unlikely to do what TRR describes, it is because the far left in the US is utterly unlike the pro-violence, murder-thy-opponents culture that TRR is criticizing. If they became that which he is criticizing, they would do as he describes, because that is what radical violent political factions always do. There's a reason Martin Niemoller's poem became so famous as an iconic description of the experience of an intellectual under Nazi tyranny.

I can't really put it any better than that, so apologies for simply quoting his post.

That'll be something I will never say, and is something I believe you or perhaps Simon_Jester to a lesser extent are ascribing to me. Violence is neither the only or best means to bring change. I view it as a desperation measure, which can only be stopped if the government and the authorities stop putting people into situations where they feel they need to be desperate.

Okay, that's fair. However, I think that you have to be careful about concluding that we have reached the point of "desperation measures" prematurely. Fear and anger can cause even the best people to jump to worst case scenarios and close their minds to other possibilities.

I'm pretty sure also that, with the exception of the few loons who want a violent revolution no matter what, those who will look the other way on political violence do not actually want violence to happen. They just want to live in peace and honestly, probably, would not care if we didn't have a fully anarcho-communist government or whatever despite their stated affiliation. Not many people are that much of an ideologue if they can maintain a stable equilibrium in their lives.

Just as what occurred in the Civil Rights Movement, present the oppressed with an alternative path to satisfy their desires (a desire to live with equal rights, equal opportunity, and a full quality of life) and they will abandon the extremes. No one except the few wants to die in battle.

You're probably right- I sure as hell hope so.

But again, my fear is people jumping to the "last resort" prematurely.

I can't devote emotional or intellectual bandwidth on clairvoyance that, at the very best, has only a high single digits percentage chance of happening. I don't want this mass conflict to happen either, in case that isn't clear by now.

But whenever one turns to extremism, and violence in particular, one has to be prepared for the possibility of escalation. To not consider that possibility is, with all due respect, irresponsible.

Again, to me, it is reminiscent of the fantasy of the "short, victorious war".

No, but a. This was set in the early 2000s, a different time under a different economy and coming still from decades of economic prosperity at home, and b. This was based on such false pretenses that were blatant even only after a few years passed. This is not a good example at all, because the effects of massively cutting healthcare and people drinking lead are quite material today.

I am extremely adverse to using domestic/economic policy differences as the bench mark for justifying violence. Those issues do affect people tremendously, yes, but their is a wide disagreement on what the best policy is in those fields, even without accounting for greed and malice, and any policy change will affect the relative health and security of a lot of people. Their will always be disagreements on such issues- I don't feel that this is nearly clear-cut enough as grounds to revolt, else we would constantly have people revolting against every new domestic and economic policy that they didn't approve of or that adversely affected them.

No, because not only does the United States absolutely suck at intervention, but also because having your military intentionally massacre civilians is a crime against humanity.

This dodges the question, in my opinion.

If it is a crime for soldiers to do it to citizens of an enemy country, surely it is no less so for domestic terrorists to do it against their own countrymen?

This is a loaded question. Can you restate it without immediately declaring me as actively wanting blood in the streets, thanks.

Let me rephrase, then:

Do you, or would you under any circumstances, support preemptive political violence, and/or violence targeted at civilians (be they voters, activists, or politicians on the Right)?

If yes, then see question one.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm not one of them, I am not a political scientist who has studied them academically. I suppose I probably know them about as well as any average person gets to know a differing point of view through conversation.

I do recommend you find several who belong to those circles and follow them to get better ideas of what happens within our political spectrum. Alternate between them if you like. It'll help you to get a solid gauge of what they actually believe in, and filter out the propaganda, third-hand reports, and rumormongering.

I do feel that the Democratic Party too often compromises, though I also feel that this grievance is often exaggerated- into the false and incredibly destructive "Both sides are the same" narrative, for example.

I don't see that as a problem that violence by Left-wing activists is going to solve, however. If anything, it'll simply widen the rift between Progressives and Centrist Democrats, and split the Left's vote.

Oh no, both sides are certainly not the same. That still can't stop any of us from being gravely disappointed that we still aren't being heard. But at least they've cleared the incredibly low bar of "not being utterly racist, sexist, homo/transphobic shits".

Given historical precedent, violence or not, there will probably be wider rifts anyway, as evidenced by the letters Martin Luther King received in his lifetime about how he espoused radical change too sudden, and "violent" rhetoric. It's why he complained much about the white moderate.

It doesn't matter what anyone does, such narratives will continue to be generated until the end of time.

I didn't see it that way. It was one, one of many possible examples of how an extremist, us vs. them mindset could end up targeting more and more people for not being on the "right" side.

I know the moment you bring anti-Semitism into a conversation, there's an immediate association with Nazis, but it wasn't my intention to say "Left wing extremists are Nazis", or even that they would become Nazis. That was your interpretation only.

Believe me, I've seen horseshoe theory used enough as half-baked justification to be intellectually lazy in these types of arguments that it wouldn't have surprised me if you did intend to use it, albeit without awareness of the name, the concept, and its fallacies.

Okay, that's fair. However, I think that you have to be careful about concluding that we have reached the point of "desperation measures" prematurely. Fear and anger can cause even the best people to jump to worst case scenarios and close their minds to other possibilities.

Even the best people are still human beings. It is extremely difficult to continue to have faith in a system where you know people around you are dying, and the ones responsible are not being punished for it. That's why, as much as I'm aware of what could possibly happen, I'm not going around policing people's reactions toward an event. I see myself as one day being potentially caught in the Republicans' legal carpet bombs, or mistreated or worse by someone because I'm trans.

Again, to me, it is reminiscent of the fantasy of the "short, victorious war".

Which only the few who will never let go of the idea of a Glorious Violent Revolution actually believe in.

I am extremely adverse to using domestic/economic policy differences as the bench mark for justifying violence. Those issues do affect people tremendously, yes, but their is a wide disagreement on what the best policy is in those fields, even without accounting for greed and malice, and any policy change will affect the relative health and security of a lot of people. Their will always be disagreements on such issues- I don't feel that this is nearly clear-cut enough as grounds to revolt, else we would constantly have people revolting against every new domestic and economic policy that they didn't approve of or that adversely affected them.

Yet, you can't take them and put the violence itself in a void. It's not a "disagreement" when politicians decide to revoke my right to use the bathroom. That's a direct assault. It's not a "disagreement" when black communities are routinely targeted for stop-and-frisk searches. Those are direct assaults.

A disagreement is "What operating system do you like? I like Windows, you like MacOS." In politics, a disagreement is "How much should we tax the corporations?" A direct assault is when the government strips your human rights and leaves you with little to nothing in the way of nonviolently fighting back.

This dodges the question, in my opinion.

If it is a crime for soldiers to do it to citizens of an enemy country, surely it is no less so for domestic terrorists to do it against their own countrymen?

It's a difference in power.

We the United States are a superpower that has control over the strongest military this planet has ever seen. Yet, we have a long history of using that power irresponsibly, and we have a long history of committing war crimes in distant nations with a shit's chance of us ever being forced to face consequences for them. The State in any country remotely like ours is a behemoth that can trample anyone it desires to.

By contrast, a left wing shooter is a single man, in this case literally as he had all the signs of it. The US Left does not have nearly as large of a terroristic history as the US Right, the last time I remember an event close to this being the NCGOP office arson, and that was still only property damage. He was a single man with a suicide mission who happened to work for Sanders, whose actions are being grossly unfairly painted as Sanders' responsibility. He has already faced his punishment for it.

I'm not saying their effects are dissimilar, but it's only honest to acknowledge that power difference.

Let me rephrase, then:

Do you, or would you under any circumstances, support preemptive political violence, and/or violence targeted at civilians (be they voters, activists, or politicians on the Right)?

If yes, then see question one.

This is a very hard question.

Insofar as violence is defined as "punch Richard Spencer / <insert card-carrying Nazi> in the face"? My answer is a combination of "a little violence is good for the soul" and Martin Luther King's speech on riots:

Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

[emphasis mine]

Insofar as violence is defined as "assassinate Republicans"? No.

[Simon_Jester]

One riot occurring in one place can have a desirable effect in certain contexts. In most contexts it's just a riot, at best does no long term good, and at worst does damage to a good cause.

But when we scale it up to "embrace the pro-violence fringe of your own movement," this becomes disastrous. The pro-violence fringe will first take over the state at the expense of non-violent factions with similar goals (the Bolsheviks driving out the Provisional Government), then the thugs will take over the fringe movement at the expense of the intellectuals (Stalin taking over after Lenin's death), then the thugs will purge everyone who isn't a thug and ultimately the revolution will be betrayed, because it carried the seeds of its own destruction.

There are ways to have a successful revolt against an oppressive government, but being respectful towards the most violent fringe of one's movement isn't on the list.

The Republicans are in grave danger of experiencing this exact process over the next few decades, and the main thing stopping it is the set of basically peaceful civil institutions the US has. The same set that also stops us on the left from profiting by a shift to political violence, even if we wanted to.

Fair. Largely we agree here, a massive tool such as a riot has to be used in a careful and controlled manner. I definitely am not willing to respect the fringe that will never under any circumstance stop considering violence. I just don't want to completely rule out the option of violence.

I don't know if you meant the underlined passage as ironic humor.

But it is damn good when read as ironic humor.

And indeed, in the spirit of ironic humor, a diehard opponent of political violence might agree with those words, including the obvious 'catch-22' that comes with the underlined passage. Namely... there's no such thing as a carefully controlled riot; it's a contradiction in terms.

As George Carlin put it, I'd be more comfortable with the military concept of a 'surgical strike' if it were more common to do surgery with high explosives.

I can't speak for Ralin, his views are sometimes further to the extreme than mine. Soontir was probably speaking from cynicism, but his point about the Republicans in power about to enact laws that can kill tens of thousands is still a valid one.

Nearly any issue of national policy can be cast as one where thousands of lives are at stake, because the country itself is so large that anything which changes the death rate by 0.01% or whatever will amplify to have that level of effect.

If we get into the practice of talking about revolution every time we fear losing an argument that may increase mortality, we're going to end up in a permanent state of talking about revolution and, as you say, "never under any circumstance stop considering violence."

As a test case- how would you feel about someone who started endorsing assassinations of political figures or armed militias forming because it looked like the government was going to reintroduce leaded gasoline? Think carefully before you answer. Leaded gasoline caused significant increases in infant mortality, and caused brain damage in large numbers of children that led many of those children to lead poorer, more brutish lives. There is considerable evidence that the dramatic drop in crime rates since the 1970s and '80s comes from (among other things) the abolition of leaded gasoline. Going back to the way things were before could kill thousands!

What would you think of someone who said this was grounds to assassinate some congressmen?

As much as I'd like to believe that the law of this country will help us in the end, try selling that to someone from a community of color that is routinely discriminated against, jailed, and murdered by cops. Try selling that to members of queer communities who have similar actions done to them, with the added bonus of lawmakers trying to restrict our rights to exist. Queer people of color have the worst of both worlds in these regards.

See, I get that, but the problem is that there are other minorities who have been similarly oppressed, discriminated against, jailed, murdered, and in some cases outright legally barred from existing. For example, Jews.

Making political violence more normative has rarely if ever worked out beneficially for Jews. Because it's a lot easier for the gentile 97% of the population to organize a pogrom than it is for the 3% to organize a viable Jewish militia that can stop pogroms.

Likewise, two of the keys to victory for the civil rights movement in breaking down the Jim Crow regime of segregation in the South were the discrediting and dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, and the decline of lynchings. Because it's a lot harder to organize politically when roaming bands of terrorists and lynch mobs are deliberately targeting high-profile members of your community, and this is accepted as normative by the majority.

My argument is that if we look at minorities that have, on the whole, succeeded in making the transition to a discrimination-free way of life... Generally, they have done so in societies where political violence is not accepted or tolerated. And higher 'background radiation' of political violence in a society almost invariably causes more suffering among minorities than it does among the self-appointed thugs 'defending the majority.'

Over time, the Overton window will tend to switch towards 'mass shootings of political enemies' if, whenever the advocates of mass shootings ARE challenged, they are met with trolling and derision. It is not helping if, in addition to being trolled and derided, those who speak out against mass shootings are also smothered with #NotAllAntiRepublicans.

I wouldn't say it's so much a lack of watchfulness/concern, as a question of whether it's contextually appropriate to dispute why people are saying what they say.

Think of it like this: What if someone decided to say Hillary would have been equally as bad as Trump? Hillary would have appointed obvious corporate interests into her cabinet, Hillary would have instructed the Justice Department to ignore Title IX provisions for transgender students, Hillary would have made movements to abolish the ACA, Hillary would regularly taunt anyone to the Left of Right from her Twitter account, ...

You would think that preposterous, correct?

This is how I feel about judging far left groups who are not averse to the idea of violence. I guess a lot of this has to do with personal experience with them, but seeing TRR say so confidently that far leftists may one day round up anyone not as far left as them ..... that was something I couldn't let go.

I'm honestly kind of confused. If I understood you rightly...

I would like to point out that in a hypothetical future where not-violence-averse-leftists manage to take over America by, say, 2050...

My bet is that the the sometimes-considering-a-little-violence leftists of 2015 would bear little resemblance to the 'actually took over the country' leftists of 2050. Just as the could-imagine-assassinating-the-Czar leftists of 1885 bore little resemblance to the successful Bolshevik regime of 1920, let alone 1930.

The process of using violence to reshape society tends to empower the people aligned with your group who are most brutish. Eventually they will tend to start using that brutishness against members of their own in-group, not just against the out-group.

The Overton window ... is another discussion, that I can kind of see where you're coming from. But, as it seems right this moment the American window ranges from center or center-right to fascism, it's not the foremost concern on my mind.

It's a concern that would not even be remotely relevant, except in the specific context of someone coming in and saying "You know what the left needs? More political violence targeting its enemies!"

Because in that specific context, it is very much on topic and appropriate to say "no, that is a bad idea because

• ."
  
  And yes, one of those bad things is "violent left-wing movements, like violent right-wing movements, tend to end by tearing apart everyone 'insufficiently' left-wing or right-wing."
  
  I mean, in 1899, the idea that the very most violent factions of left-wing radicals could first ally with the rest of the left to overthrow the government, then start merrily purging other leftists less violent than themselves, would probably have seemed silly to the many left-leaning subjects of the Czar. By 1919, it wasn't so funny.
  
  Now, outside the specific context of a conversation exactly like the one we're having here and now, I agree it would be pointless to bring this up. Just like it'd be pointless to bring up comments about unicorns... EXCEPT in a conversation that contains people explicitly saying they wished unicorns were more common.
  
  ...
  
  More generally, I will note that civil war typically occurs when the Overton window of a given society 'fissions' like an amoeba into two separate windows that don't overlap. Once political violence starts flying back and forth it is nearly impossible to stop this process, because the people allied with the different violent factions have different "this-we-defend" lists of things they're willing to accept... that is to say, different Overton windows.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Update on Steve Scalise's current condition:

https://www.medstarwashington.org/news/ ... update/#q={}

Condition Update: Congressman Steve Scalise
June 16, 2017
Explore By Category :

Press briefing remarks by Dr. Jack Sava, Director of Trauma for MedStar Washington Hospital Center
Shared on behalf of the Scalise family, June 16, 2017, 3:15 p.m.

We are aware that many in the nation are concerned about the patients brought to us for care, after the shooting in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday, June 14. I want to provide some background and an update.

Special Agent Crystal Griner with the United States Capitol Police sustained a gunshot wound to the ankle, and remains hospitalized in good condition.

Congressman Steve Scalise sustained a single wound from a rifle, entering in the area of his left hip. The bullet traveled straight across toward the other hip, in what we call a transpelvic gunshot wound. The round fragmented, and caused significant damage to bones, internal organs and blood vessels. I understand he was awake initially, but due to severe bleeding, by the time he arrived at MedSTAR by helicopter, he was in shock.

My partners, Dr. Tony Shiflett and Dr. Christine Trankiem, as well as other doctors and nurses, saw him in the trauma center, and immediately transported him to the operating room for surgery. In the OR, he was in critical condition and received many units of blood transfusion for ongoing hemorrhage from multiple locations. He received truly amazing anesthesia care from Dr. Scott Frank and Dr. Eric Skolnick. Largely due to their work, we were able to get him through the operation and take him to Interventional Radiology, where Dr. Arshad Khan performed another procedure to further control bleeding.

From there he was taken to intensive care under the care of Dr. Chadi Abouassaly. Over the course of Wednesday night, we were encouraged to see evidence that we had controlled the bleeding. Yesterday, (June 15, 2017) Dr. Trankiem and I performed a second operation, and Dr. Rob Golden, our director of orthopaedic trauma, repaired a bone in the leg.

The Congressman remains in critical condition. Over the last 36 hours, we have been encouraged to see some improvement in his condition. We have controlled the internal bleeding, and his vital signs have stabilized.

The Congressman will require additional operations to manage abdominal injuries and other broken bones. He will be in the hospital for some time. Predicting the length of that hospital stay will be much easier after a few more days have passed. After discharge he will need a period of healing and rehabilitation.

On behalf of the MedSTAR Trauma team, I’d like to thank the special agents on the scene for their outstanding life-saving response, and I’d like to thank the first responders for the excellent care given to all the people injured. We are aware here at the Hospital Center of their critical role, and we salute their commitment and dedication.

Bio: Jack Sava, MD, FACS

Jack Sava, MD, FACS, is the director of Trauma at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, a Level I Trauma Center. He also directs the General Surgery Residency Program. He has specialized training in General Surgery, Critical Care and Trauma.

Dr. Sava received his undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and his medical degree from McGill Medical School in Montreal. His internship was at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, followed by a surgical residency at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and a fellowship in Trauma/Critical Care at LAC+USC Medical Center.

He is a member of numerous surgical associations, has lectured locally and nationally, and has authored many abstracts, journal articles and book chapters in his field.

Other Physicians Mentioned in Statement

Tony Shiflett, DO, Trauma Surgeon
Christine Trankiem, MD, Trauma Surgeon
Chadi Abouassaly, MD, Trauma Surgeon
Scott Frank, MD, Anesthesiologist
Eric Skolnick, MD, Anesthesiologist
Arshad Khan, MD, Vascular Interventional Radiologist
Robert Golden, MD, Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeon



June 15, 2017, 8:10 pm

Earlier today, Congressman Steve Scalise underwent a second surgery related to his internal injuries and a broken bone in his leg. He remains in critical condition, but has improved in the last 24 hours. The Congressman will require additional operations, and will be in the hospital for some time. At the request of the family, we will continue to provide periodic updates.



June 14, 2017, 8:15 pm

Congressman Steve Scalise sustained a single rifle shot to the left hip. The bullet traveled across his pelvis, fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding. He was transported in shock to MedStar Washington Hospital Center, a Level I Trauma Center. He underwent immediate surgery, and an additional procedure to stop bleeding. He has received multiple units of blood transfusion. His condition is critical, and he will require additional operations. We will provide periodic updates.

In summary, he suffered significant internal bleeding when the bullet fragmented upon entering his hip. His condition is improving, but he's still in really rough shape. Bleeding has been stopped, but he's going to have an extensive hospital stay.

[Dragon Angel]

Fair. Largely we agree here, a massive tool such as a riot has to be used in a careful and controlled manner. I definitely am not willing to respect the fringe that will never under any circumstance stop considering violence. I just don't want to completely rule out the option of violence.

I don't know if you meant the underlined passage as ironic humor.

But it is damn good when read as ironic humor.

And indeed, in the spirit of ironic humor, a diehard opponent of political violence might agree with those words, including the obvious 'catch-22' that comes with the underlined passage. Namely... there's no such thing as a carefully controlled riot; it's a contradiction in terms.

As George Carlin put it, I'd be more comfortable with the military concept of a 'surgical strike' if it were more common to do surgery with high explosives.

lol, oops. Yeah I kind of goofed my wording there. What I meant to say is something along the lines of "it must be a tool not often proposed". Funnily I did catch that earlier but I missed the damn edit window and I became distracted and didn't make a second correction post. Oh well.

The rest of your post I'll respond to you soon.

[Flagg]

Update on Steve Scalise's current condition:

https://www.medstarwashington.org/news/ ... update/#q={}

Condition Update: Congressman Steve Scalise
June 16, 2017
Explore By Category :

Press briefing remarks by Dr. Jack Sava, Director of Trauma for MedStar Washington Hospital Center
Shared on behalf of the Scalise family, June 16, 2017, 3:15 p.m.

We are aware that many in the nation are concerned about the patients brought to us for care, after the shooting in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday, June 14. I want to provide some background and an update.

Special Agent Crystal Griner with the United States Capitol Police sustained a gunshot wound to the ankle, and remains hospitalized in good condition.

Congressman Steve Scalise sustained a single wound from a rifle, entering in the area of his left hip. The bullet traveled straight across toward the other hip, in what we call a transpelvic gunshot wound. The round fragmented, and caused significant damage to bones, internal organs and blood vessels. I understand he was awake initially, but due to severe bleeding, by the time he arrived at MedSTAR by helicopter, he was in shock.

My partners, Dr. Tony Shiflett and Dr. Christine Trankiem, as well as other doctors and nurses, saw him in the trauma center, and immediately transported him to the operating room for surgery. In the OR, he was in critical condition and received many units of blood transfusion for ongoing hemorrhage from multiple locations. He received truly amazing anesthesia care from Dr. Scott Frank and Dr. Eric Skolnick. Largely due to their work, we were able to get him through the operation and take him to Interventional Radiology, where Dr. Arshad Khan performed another procedure to further control bleeding.

From there he was taken to intensive care under the care of Dr. Chadi Abouassaly. Over the course of Wednesday night, we were encouraged to see evidence that we had controlled the bleeding. Yesterday, (June 15, 2017) Dr. Trankiem and I performed a second operation, and Dr. Rob Golden, our director of orthopaedic trauma, repaired a bone in the leg.

The Congressman remains in critical condition. Over the last 36 hours, we have been encouraged to see some improvement in his condition. We have controlled the internal bleeding, and his vital signs have stabilized.

The Congressman will require additional operations to manage abdominal injuries and other broken bones. He will be in the hospital for some time. Predicting the length of that hospital stay will be much easier after a few more days have passed. After discharge he will need a period of healing and rehabilitation.

On behalf of the MedSTAR Trauma team, I’d like to thank the special agents on the scene for their outstanding life-saving response, and I’d like to thank the first responders for the excellent care given to all the people injured. We are aware here at the Hospital Center of their critical role, and we salute their commitment and dedication.

Bio: Jack Sava, MD, FACS

Jack Sava, MD, FACS, is the director of Trauma at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, a Level I Trauma Center. He also directs the General Surgery Residency Program. He has specialized training in General Surgery, Critical Care and Trauma.

Dr. Sava received his undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley, and his medical degree from McGill Medical School in Montreal. His internship was at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, followed by a surgical residency at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and a fellowship in Trauma/Critical Care at LAC+USC Medical Center.

He is a member of numerous surgical associations, has lectured locally and nationally, and has authored many abstracts, journal articles and book chapters in his field.

Other Physicians Mentioned in Statement

Tony Shiflett, DO, Trauma Surgeon
Christine Trankiem, MD, Trauma Surgeon
Chadi Abouassaly, MD, Trauma Surgeon
Scott Frank, MD, Anesthesiologist
Eric Skolnick, MD, Anesthesiologist
Arshad Khan, MD, Vascular Interventional Radiologist
Robert Golden, MD, Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeon



June 15, 2017, 8:10 pm

Earlier today, Congressman Steve Scalise underwent a second surgery related to his internal injuries and a broken bone in his leg. He remains in critical condition, but has improved in the last 24 hours. The Congressman will require additional operations, and will be in the hospital for some time. At the request of the family, we will continue to provide periodic updates.



June 14, 2017, 8:15 pm

Congressman Steve Scalise sustained a single rifle shot to the left hip. The bullet traveled across his pelvis, fracturing bones, injuring internal organs, and causing severe bleeding. He was transported in shock to MedStar Washington Hospital Center, a Level I Trauma Center. He underwent immediate surgery, and an additional procedure to stop bleeding. He has received multiple units of blood transfusion. His condition is critical, and he will require additional operations. We will provide periodic updates.

In summary, he suffered significant internal bleeding when the bullet fragmented upon entering his hip. His condition is improving, but he's still in really rough shape. Bleeding has been stopped, but he's going to have an extensive hospital stay.

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

[Dragon Angel]

Nearly any issue of national policy can be cast as one where thousands of lives are at stake, because the country itself is so large that anything which changes the death rate by 0.01% or whatever will amplify to have that level of effect.

If we get into the practice of talking about revolution every time we fear losing an argument that may increase mortality, we're going to end up in a permanent state of talking about revolution and, as you say, "never under any circumstance stop considering violence."

Then we look into the motives of the actors.

If a national policy change is being proposed, and it's a theory that is untested/unprecedented or those making the change are not fully aware of its effects for any number of reasons? Then that is not a cause to call for a revolution. On the other hand, if those making the change have been informed and have knowledge that their legislation will affect tens of millions of the helpless ... and cause a significant portion of them to die ... only to raise the positions of an insignificant few? Then that is no longer an innocent human mistake; that is evil, based on the purest greed imaginable.

We know the Republicans have information that the AHCA will dismantle protections for tens of millions of Americans; they are trying to defame the very organizations proving the Party incorrect. We know they have heard their constituents, as evidenced by the many enraged town halls that are now decreasing in number because they do not want to face their base. Yet, they are choosing to go ahead with the legislation anyway. I'm not sure if there is a legal definition for negligence such as that, but there is certainly a moral one.

Those who have power over others, if they are caught wantonly abusing such power, do not deserve that power.

Now with all that said...

As a test case- how would you feel about someone who started endorsing assassinations of political figures or armed militias forming because it looked like the government was going to reintroduce leaded gasoline? Think carefully before you answer. Leaded gasoline caused significant increases in infant mortality, and caused brain damage in large numbers of children that led many of those children to lead poorer, more brutish lives. There is considerable evidence that the dramatic drop in crime rates since the 1970s and '80s comes from (among other things) the abolition of leaded gasoline. Going back to the way things were before could kill thousands!

What would you think of someone who said this was grounds to assassinate some congressmen?

Unless we have truly become a neofascist or plutocratic State, and the law no longer pretends to care about justice for all, I wouldn't call for a Congressman to be shot.

This example is probably one where I wouldn't even explicitly endorse a riot for, at least, in isolation. If combined with other actions that show grave indifference toward minorities? And those minorities are clearly staying unheard? The prospects become quadratically murkier, since this already shows depraved negligence.

See, I get that, but the problem is that there are other minorities who have been similarly oppressed, discriminated against, jailed, murdered, and in some cases outright legally barred from existing. For example, Jews.

Making political violence more normative has rarely if ever worked out beneficially for Jews. Because it's a lot easier for the gentile 97% of the population to organize a pogrom than it is for the 3% to organize a viable Jewish militia that can stop pogroms.

I like the concept of intersectionality because of this. In that way, we can still consider Jews will also be screwed over, just as precedented in previous generations. People of color, queer people, Jews/Muslims, and name any marginalized group; all of us share this struggle, because we know what will happen if far right white nationalist conservatism continues unchecked.

Is there a possibility Gentile members of a hypothetical revolution will eventually turn on the Jews, or <not group> will turn on <group>? Maybe, but there would have to be an incredible change in the discourse for it to be anything besides unicorns. I mean, like, a change that would alter the raison d'etre of many of the involved groups of the far left.

Likewise, two of the keys to victory for the civil rights movement in breaking down the Jim Crow regime of segregation in the South were the discrediting and dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, and the decline of lynchings. Because it's a lot harder to organize politically when roaming bands of terrorists and lynch mobs are deliberately targeting high-profile members of your community, and this is accepted as normative by the majority.

My argument is that if we look at minorities that have, on the whole, succeeded in making the transition to a discrimination-free way of life... Generally, they have done so in societies where political violence is not accepted or tolerated. And higher 'background radiation' of political violence in a society almost invariably causes more suffering among minorities than it does among the self-appointed thugs 'defending the majority.'

Thankfully, the process of discrediting the Republicans is going along infinitely smoother than I'd hoped months ago. I feel as if we really can possibly get through this without a repeat of the 60s.

...I have been known to be wrong in my optimism, however.

Beyond that, though, societies that can achieve rights for discriminated groups without violence can only do so if there is a functional system designed to allow them their voices. We still have such a system ... for the most part, thank the universe. Will it be the same 10, 20 years from now? God only knows. I can only hope for it. Trump clearly has ideas that the entire government should bow down to His Divine Orangeness, and the reasons why he hasn't achieved such absolute obedience yet is because the government still functions outside of DC, several of his own appointees have their own agendas, and because most importantly, he is a Grade A Moron.

We do know that we have tolerated specific instances of political violence in our history, so it's not like we have won our rights in a vacuum of it. I don't know how history would view instances of political violence today far down the line ... perhaps like how we have accepted the mid-20th century's instances into our hearts, or perhaps much much lower.

I'm honestly kind of confused. If I understood you rightly...

I would like to point out that in a hypothetical future where not-violence-averse-leftists manage to take over America by, say, 2050...

My bet is that the the sometimes-considering-a-little-violence leftists of 2015 would bear little resemblance to the 'actually took over the country' leftists of 2050. Just as the could-imagine-assassinating-the-Czar leftists of 1885 bore little resemblance to the successful Bolshevik regime of 1920, let alone 1930.

The process of using violence to reshape society tends to empower the people aligned with your group who are most brutish. Eventually they will tend to start using that brutishness against members of their own in-group, not just against the out-group.

I don't think you did, but I can still roll with this.

Yeah, but as it is the responsibility of a revolution (to use the term to mean any entity that desires incredible change) to ensure it does not spiral out of control with bloody radicals, it is also the responsibility of a society to make sure the demands of the revolution--at least, the demands that don't result in further harm to anyone else--can be peacefully met.

Imagine an alternate world where the Civil Rights Movement was completely ignored, the March on Washington was violently suppressed, and in general we still had conditions where black people suffered horrific conditions closer to the era. There would be a gigantic amount more impetus to react violently to State oppression, because much of the issues we resolved in this timeline still exist in that one, and in there we proved we could not handle a generally peaceful protest. Society narrowly avoided an infinitely uglier destiny because it managed to accommodate many of the needs of people of color and adapt, as imperfect as they are with today's standards.

The revolution, as it were, cannot allow brutish thugs to take over the movement, but at the same time society has responsibility in giving the people involved less motivation to elect a brutish thug. The US government around the Civil Rights Era succeeded in that masterfully, as opposed to Czarist Russia.

It's a concern that would not even be remotely relevant, except in the specific context of someone coming in and saying "You know what the left needs? More political violence targeting its enemies!"

Because in that specific context, it is very much on topic and appropriate to say "no, that is a bad idea because

• ."
  
  And yes, one of those bad things is "violent left-wing movements, like violent right-wing movements, tend to end by tearing apart everyone 'insufficiently' left-wing or right-wing."
  
  I mean, in 1899, the idea that the very most violent factions of left-wing radicals could first ally with the rest of the left to overthrow the government, then start merrily purging other leftists less violent than themselves, would probably have seemed silly to the many left-leaning subjects of the Czar. By 1919, it wasn't so funny.
  
  Now, outside the specific context of a conversation exactly like the one we're having here and now, I agree it would be pointless to bring this up. Just like it'd be pointless to bring up comments about unicorns... EXCEPT in a conversation that contains people explicitly saying they wished unicorns were more common.

In all fairness to 1899, I wouldn't have imagined it either. I wouldn't know exactly how a government without a Czar would function, and events such as Bloody Sunday would convince me that the Czar does not care about my plight. I'd look for people who would remotely give a damn, and have a strong enough platform to actually stand in front of the Czar and hold their ground, because there were not many other options for me left. Whether or not the people I allied with would betray me in the future, I couldn't even conceive of it, because I was too starving to care. I just knew that I had to find some way to keep myself alive.

In 2017, though, I do have historical precedent to study. I can try to avoid as many of history's mistakes as I can with history's lessons. Can American society also share in this responsibility? Can American society adapt, unlike how the Czarist regime could not?

If I'm starving, homeless, and without adequate health care to deal with diseases above the common cold, then I'm going to look toward anyone who can change these conditions for me. I'll try to use the lessons I've learned from history to mitigate any fallout, but all that is still academic compared to the active situation I'm in where I am just slowly and painfully dying.

More generally, I will note that civil war typically occurs when the Overton window of a given society 'fissions' like an amoeba into two separate windows that don't overlap. Once political violence starts flying back and forth it is nearly impossible to stop this process, because the people allied with the different violent factions have different "this-we-defend" lists of things they're willing to accept... that is to say, different Overton windows.

We can only hope, then, that society can adapt and help people like alternate-me, before brutish extremists can gain the hearts and minds of a dying populace.

[MKSheppard]

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

We've had this in effect since 1985, no insurance needed, etc.

[MKSheppard]

You realize everyone on all levels (you, the politicians, the media, etc) are only acting this way because instead of targeting random passers-by or co-workers, the attacker targeted Royalty?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

We've had this in effect since 1985, no insurance needed, etc.

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

[Flagg]

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

We've had this in effect since 1985, no insurance needed, etc.

The taxpayers pay for congresscritter healthcare, yet the scraps thrown to the masses via the ACA are currently under threat from the Republicans. But we know you knew that.

[Flagg]

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

We've had this in effect since 1985, no insurance needed, etc.

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

He knows that.

Plus Scalise's emergency, surgery, and hospital stay will be paid for too.

[MKSheppard]

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

The average grot in Bodymore who gets shot in a gangland slaying gets pretty much that from Johns Hopkins before he's released onto the streets. At least with Scalise, he's actually paying into the system with his Congressional insurance.

[MKSheppard]

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

The average grot in Bodymore who gets shot in a gangland shooting gets pretty much that from Johns Hopkins before he's released onto the streets. At least with Scalise, he's actually paying into the system with his Congressional insurance.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

The average grot in Bodymore who gets shot in a gangland slaying gets pretty much that from Johns Hopkins before he's released onto the streets. At least with Scalise, he's actually paying into the system with his Congressional insurance.

You have proof, I trust, that the "average grot" gets free (from his perspective) physical therapy and not just life-saving emergency care.

[MKSheppard]

You have proof, I trust, that the "average grot" gets free (from his perspective) physical therapy and not just life-saving emergency care.

You think they just wheel people out of Johns Hopkins and dump them in the street each day, leaving them to twitch their limbs helplessly?

[Napoleon the Clown]

You have proof, I trust, that the "average grot" gets free (from his perspective) physical therapy and not just life-saving emergency care.

You think they just wheel people out of Johns Hopkins and dump them in the street each day, leaving them to twitch their limbs helplessly?

Johns Hopkins might have higher standards, but considering that my father-in-law wasn't granted "free" physical therapy and may well have been able to avoid needing a wheel chair for the rest of his life if he'd been able to afford it...

"Emergency care" does not include physical therapy. It is simply the level of care required to save a life. If Johns Hopkins goes the extra mile, they're an excellent hospital that does not behave the same as most hospitals. Are hospitals legally required to give physical therapy without payment from the patient? There are "charity hospitals" that combine just eating the cost and donations from private individuals will provide proper, non-emergency care for those in need. But that's not the 1985 "save life even if the person definitely can't pay"

[Flagg]

I have literally seen people strapped to wheelchairs dumped off hospital property and told not to come back.

[Flagg]

Too bad the Democrats aren't willing to use this to point out that tax payer funded medical care that his party wants to take away from the public saved his life.

We've had this in effect since 1985, no insurance needed, etc.

Flagg probably should have pointed out the tax payer funded physical therapy that Scalise will be receiving, as well as tax payer funded equipment to help with any resulting mobility issues. If the damage is significant enough, a tax-funded replacement for all the damaged bone, too. Scalise is going to get the best coverage money can buy. All at your expense.

To elaborate, when I say "saved his life" I'm talking about long term shit like surgeries, possible bone grafts, and joint replacements. Otherwise he'd be a bedridden lump in a nursing home (if lucky) before suffering an early death.

[Broomstick]

Update on Steve Scalise's current condition:...snip....

In summary, he suffered significant internal bleeding when the bullet fragmented upon entering his hip. His condition is improving, but he's still in really rough shape. Bleeding has been stopped, but he's going to have an extensive hospital stay.

Just to clarify further, based on what I (admittedly a layperson, but an informed one) know is typical of such injuries:

Most likely, both sides of his pelvic girdle have been shattered. That is, broken into multiple pieces. That will likely affect his ability to walk for the rest of his life, assuming it doesn't eliminate walking entirely.

"Damage to internal organs" usually means damage to bladder and bowel. This can range from "merely" serious and requiring removal of poritions of both, to complete destruction of the bladder (requiring an alternate means of handling kidney drainage for the rest of his life) and removal of major portions of bowel which will require at least a temporary colostomy, and perhaps a permanent one.

Managing infection - because with this sort of wound bowel contents i.e. shit and urine will have spilled into the abdominal cavity - will be a major, major concern for the near future.

There is a significant likelihood of sexual dysfunction for the rest of his life.

Depending on where, exactly, bullet fragments traveled he could also have damage to his kidneys, stomach, spleen, pancreas.... basically, everything below the rib cage. There have even been instances of ribs being fractured by fragments of bullets entering at the hip, as well as heart and lung damage.

Of course, I have no way of knowing his exact injuries but most likely Scalise is going to be permanently disabled to one degree or another for the rest of his life, and also likely a chronic pain patient. This sort of injury is typically a tragedy for both the individual and the family. "Life-changing" is also another typical euphemism. Even now, survival is not a sure thing. A lot depends on what happens in the next month.

I'm glad it seems the other injured are not so grievously damaged and on their way to recovery.

[Broomstick]

You have proof, I trust, that the "average grot" gets free (from his perspective) physical therapy and not just life-saving emergency care.

You think they just wheel people out of Johns Hopkins and dump them in the street each day, leaving them to twitch their limbs helplessly?

No, they transfer them to last-resort nursing homes so they'll twitch their limbs where the tax-paying public can't see them.

The care Scalise has received up until now, because it is required to save his life, anyone would get. Anything NOT immediately life-saving is what the uninsured do not get - that would include therapy, mobility aids, reversals of colostomies and nephrostomies when no longer needed, etc.

[Flagg]

You have proof, I trust, that the "average grot" gets free (from his perspective) physical therapy and not just life-saving emergency care.

You think they just wheel people out of Johns Hopkins and dump them in the street each day, leaving them to twitch their limbs helplessly?

No, they transfer them to last-resort nursing homes so they'll twitch their limbs where the tax-paying public can't see them.

The care Scalise has received up until now, because it is required to save his life, anyone would get. Anything NOT immediately life-saving is what the uninsured do not get - that would include therapy, mobility aids, reversals of colostomies and nephrostomies when no longer needed, etc.

Like I said, I was in the ER one night and watched security manhandle and strap an elderly man detoxing from alcohol into a wheelchair, slam his legs several times into a radiator and then unceremoniously wheel him off of hospital property and dump him on the grass. People were horrified but were either too sick (me and over a dozen more) or scared they would get the same treatment if they spoke out louder.

Best part? Catholic hospital.

[Soontir C'boath]

I would argue that we're a lot better off relying on the law to keep violence off the table.

Imagine saying "I don't like what this obnoxious fratboy is saying and he's talking about pouring goop on my car, I'm going to beat him up!"

Now, maybe if you win, you end up in a better outcome than you would have gotten by other means. If nothing unexpected goes wrong with the "beat him up" plan, you win. There is an ideal world where your 'pre-emptive strike' works.

But you have no guarantee of winning the fight with the fratboy. Even if you win, you have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where things like assault charges come into play. You certainly have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where this becomes a habit and you routinely assault people who offend against you.

Your argument basically boils down to there not being a guarantee of success when no one would rightly think in that ideal scenario. There are risks involved in any situations including peaceful protests so should people stop exercising their right to assembly and speech because they might get a rubber bullet to their face and face 70 years in prison?

Just now in the case of Philando Castile, he never had the chance to fight back and now his murderer is considered free from ever going to prison. The law was too late for him from the start.

Modern liberal civilization works, works in the empirical sense that it creates greater degrees of freedom, wealth, and collective achievement than any competing system. But it works through means that are subtle and sometimes hard to understand on an instinctive level. In particular, it does NOT work through raw animalistic violence directed against its internal enemies.

Unless you're the oppressed, then you just have to continue to take your lumps from the white man. It just goes back to one of Ralin's points, it's ok and works as long as you're one of the safe ones. For everyone else, there is no recourse, but to wait and hope you don't get lynched beforehand.

And I love how you already label it as "raw animalistic" as if battles cannot be fought with tactics and strategy, but just by a bunch of monkeys.

You can run a feudal state that way, you can run a grey oppressive dictatorship that only gradually runs itself into the ground that way. You can't run a functional modern democracy that way. And fantasies about purging the state of your political enemies really are fantasies. What will actually end up happening if you try it is very different from what you think will happen.

So saying "why don't we fight as dirty as we think our enemies are going to fight?" is a very dysfunctional approach to trying to win any kind of a long term struggle. Your best-case realistic scenario is destroying the thing you were fighting over, and it only gets worse from there.

That is if we are a "functioning democracy". Democrats outright admit they don't mind rigging primaries for their preferred candidate. Republicans gerrymander district lines to consolidate power, require a poll tax in the form of an ID, etc.

If a functioning democracy means we are able to exist in a stable form of oppression where rights are continually eroded, then I am pretty sure I don't want to live in your version of it. There will come a breaking point and peaceful actions (in which at least one state is trying to make it illegal atm) will not be enough.

Apparently, give me liberty or give me death is too much for the modern human. Or maybe it's just blacks that get to be six feet under.