Brad: I am concerned that, as applied to the atrocious, borderline violent behavior by the two women in Seattle who deprived thousands of people to hear what Bernie Sanders had to say, your focus on Sanders' retention of Simone Sanders as his National Press Secretary and his latest publication of his actual policies comes dangerously close to an argument that the ends justify the means.

The motivation behind the abusive tactics on display in Seattle are open to question. According to Adalia Woodbury of PoliticusUSA rather than hailing from BLM, the two women hail from "Outside Agitators 206" that has declared war on "the NAACP, the Urban League, most Black local churches and labor organizations...Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-Push Coalition and 'King Rat' Al Sharpton's National Action Network."

See alsoThe Real Black Lives Matter Wants Activists To Publicly Apologize to Bernie Sanders.

to be continued...

Ernie said @1:

your focus on Sanders' retention of Simone Sanders as his National Press Secretary and his latest publication of his actual policies comes dangerously close to an argument that the ends justify the means.

Actually, I think it did.

According to Adalia Woodbury of PoliticusUSA rather than hailing from BLM, the two women hail from "Outside Agitators 206" that has declared war on "the NAACP, the Urban League, most Black local chures and labor organizations...Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-Push Coalition and 'King Rat' Al Sharpton's National Action Network."

And if that is the case, that's a problem why, exactly?

I see little difference between what the abusive behavior by Outside Agitators 206 to shut down the Seattle Sanders rally and the deliberate efforts by the Koch-funded 'Tea Party' to shut down dialogue at town hall meetings during the healthcare debate.

It does not further the goals of democracy when the few engage in abusive behavior that prevents calm, thoughtful dialogue. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the rights of those, many of whom traveled great distances to hear Bernie Sanders speak.

Consider this disgusted African American who traveled to Seattle only to be deprived of that opportunity.

In answer to your question @2, I think it matters whether Agitators 206 actually intends to further racial justice or to simply attack others to draw attention to themselves. I think democracy matters. What occurred in Seattle was not democracy.

Ernie said @3 & 4:

I see little difference between what the abusive behavior by Outside Agitators 206 to shut down the Seattle Sanders rally and the deliberate efforts by the Koch-funded 'Tea Party' to shut down dialogue at town hall meetings during the healthcare debate.

I'll help. The Koch-funded 'Tea Party' was fed complete disinformation and, thus, was acting on bullshit. No matter how these protesters behaved (and, it was obnoxious, btw, in case you don't understand my feelings on this), they were doing so from a very real place.

BTW, I don't know that "Outside Agitators 206" is actually who they were. But, in any event, it doesn't matter.

It does not further the goals of democracy when the few engage in abusive behavior that prevents calm, thoughtful dialogue.

Yes. That has been said about many protests movements for many decades (centuries?)

I think it matters whether Agitators 206 actually intends to further racial justice or to simply attack others to draw attention to themselves.

No matter their tactics, I have absolutely no reason to believe their actions were not sincere.

I think democracy matters. What occurred in Seattle was not democracy.

That was an act of disruption and defiance. Both important elements of democracy. It also appears to have largely achieved its ends. But we'll see.

BTW, I also had no problem with Tea Partiers disrupting town halls, etc.. It was often maddening, due to how disinformed they were. But, ultimately, it helped bring their misinformation to light and ultimately informed the public --- about what yutzes they were.

You really don't know whether those two women who obnoxiously shut down the Seattle Sanders rally did so "from a very real place." There are a multitude of less lofty goals they may have had in mind, some of which were suggested by the African American man in the video.

Irrespective of their motives, their behavior was both unacceptable and counterproductive.

I don't know any other way to put it than to say that you are flat out wrong in your belief that the ends justify the means. How we protest is just as important as why we protest.

I would strongly urge all to read Martin Luther King Jr. The Power of Non-violence, June 4, 1957.

What these two women did was not reflective of democracy. It was the small scale tyranny of the few silencing the right to democratic discourse of the many. The same could be said of the 'Tea Party' tactic of shouting to shutdown the town halls.

The only difference between those two examples and the Nazi brownshirts who disrupted German political rallies in the late 1920s was the level of violence applied.

Definition of "liberal" - None of our business if psychotic invaders over there somewhere condemn girls to execution if refuse to become sex slaves. (ISIS)
None of our business if they export murder and rape to other countries. (ISIS)
None of our business if a madman GASSES BABIES and hundreds of children plus 1100 adults at once. (Assad/Syria)

Bernie's response should warm your heart when asked how he would vote in 2013 after Obama went to Congress to beg for permission to use the military, before the CW Disarment (excepting Chlorine) Deal:

"How about going to war against our dysfunctional health care system?"

"How about a war against Wall Street?"

"How about a war against the high cost of higher education?"

"How about addressing the major planetary crisis, which is global warming?"

"How about a war against the attacks on our privacy rights?" - Speaking at a fundraiser (of course)
- Senator Bernie Sanders has no business making high level decisions based on the Appeasing nonsense like the above, which I interpret as meaning: "to hell with Syria, President Assad go right ahead GAS to DEATH 20,000 or 2 million who cares." Furious radicals cared, streaming into Syria as the world ignored the War ON Civilians by the Assad regime; racking up 8,200 dead kids/year for example.
ISIS base in Syria - what a surprise. President Obama rejected advice to prop up a stabilizing force of Assad opponents able to take on ISIS too.

Ah, I see our pal Irwin Mainway is back with his Assad is the epitome of evil, but let's ignore all the atrocities committed by Israel.

I'm pleased that Nicole questioned Bernie on foreign policy, but a bit disappointed that neither she nor he addressed the subject of the role played by the military-industrial complex as a component of the corporate global empire. Also, I am curious as to what Bernie would say in response to removing the Orwellian label of "Department of Defense" and restoring the original title, "War Department" to make it clear that the bulk of military spending has nothing to do with "defending" the United States.

Got to totally agree with Earnest here.

This wasn't really really BLM, it was two Agitator 206 Aholes whose main goal is to shut down the Democratic party.
One of the black chicks was a freaking teabagger that was a Palin supporter
Shouting down the ONLY guy that is running for president that would help you in anyway whatsoever is literally like protesting gun control by shooting yourself in the head.

Stupid beyond belief.

If democracy means anything then it means having to deal with all sorts of people and behavior and convince others why you are right. Majority rules, even if the majority are a bunch of misinformed sheep who prefer to follow the loudest demagogue.

Sanders handled the situation the way he chose to handle it. IMO he could have been less of a wimp. His actions don't reassure me that he will be strong enough to defy the dominant interest groups that largely shape government policy.

He said he would endorse Hillary if he does not win the primary. Enough said.

Sanders is completely full of it when he talks about foreign policy. Brad I would not call that interview holding his feet to the fire. I would have loved to hear her ask him directly if he would be willing to cut all aid to Israel to force an equitable solution to that never ending tragedy.

Unfortunately, he is no Ron Paul when it comes to ending the self-defeating quest to sustain the empire. There is no viable alternative than to give up on global hegemony. Any attempt to improve the domestic picture is doomed to failure when the economy crashes under the weight of military spending. MLK Jr. explained this clearly, and lost a lot of support as a result. (as explained in the second article below).

Here are a couple of interesting articles on Sanders and his history from Counterpunch.

http://www.counterpunch....deal-with-the-democrats/

http://www.counterpunch....-hope-for-black-america/

SH @11 wrote:

Sanders handled the situation the way he chose to handle it. IMO he could have been less of a wimp.

And just how would SH, too cowardly to use his or her real name here, have handled "the situation"?

Should Sanders have emulated our right wing friends and had police or paid goons ready to manhandle and arrest anyone who dared approach the podium? Would you prefer the type of presence as occurred at GWB's SOTU when capital police arrested Cindy Sheehan because she simply wore an anti-war T-shirt?

Should Sanders have stooped to their level and engaged in a shouting match w/someone who had no interest in dialogue and who came close to striking a Sanders supporter when he dared to ask how long she wanted to speak?

Or perhaps you think the bravery should have come from the thousands whose right to hear Bernie speak was shut down? Should they have charged the podium and dragged these two screaming women off by their hair?

Do you even "think" before you write?

@12

I don't use my real name anywhere online because I value privacy. Anonymous speech is a cherished right under the first amendment. I have posted things five years ago I do not agree with any longer. Since I cannot be sure to be consistent on all my opinions forever, or not to say something really stupid, I would rather just get my point across without worrying about leaving an eternal digital footprint. I also do not want to jeopardize future employment opportunities if some jackass employer wants to find out "who I really am" (which is meaningless since we are all constantly evolving). That is also why I stopped using Facebook.

However, I would be happy to meet you in person and talk if you are ever in NYC.

To answer your question, there is no right way to respond. I certainly wouldn't want to see him use the police or endorse violence against them because I don't believe in that sh#t. But whatever he chooses to do does inform us of the kind of president he might make.

I am not sure how I would have handled it. I probably would have asked for another mic and tried to engage the crowd, something like "make noise if you would rather hear me speak" or "keep making noise until they stop talking." Or maybe just ask the sound techs to turn off their mics.

You probably think that is would be a stupid idea because he would be lowering himself to their level, but you don't propose any solution besides lamenting how rude these people were.

I guess we just have to hope everyone is totally civil and plays by rules you think are fair, because "fighting back" in any way would by necessity require you to stoop to their level. Good luck with that.

Whining about these people will not stop them in the future. I am simply saying that they were trying to get their point across, and Sanders needs to be able to deal with people like this if he hopes to succeed in the long term in a democracy.

Did you read the articles I shared? What do you think of Sanders' voting record over the years?

When I say succeed long term in a democracy I am referring to the democracy Brad describes. Not the managed crap practiced by the two dominant parties.

SH @13 wrote:

Whining about these people will not stop them in the future.

I'm not "whining" about these people. But unlike you and Brad I refuse to applaud their unacceptable and counterproductive behavior.

I very much agree with the goals of Black Lives Matter, which is precisely why I object to obnoxious, counterproductive (and in this case, quasi-violent) tactics.

If you had taken the time to actually read Martin Luther King Jr. The Power of Non-violence, June 4, 1957, you would have already understood why I have taken that position.

Your comments reflect that you failed to do that.

Oh, and I've previously read Paul Street. Some of his criticisms are valid. Some are over the top and more reflective of Street's desire to burnish his own "I'm further left than Bernie" credentials.

Ernie said @ 15:

unlike you and Brad I refuse to applaud their unacceptable and counterproductive behavior.

I must have missed me (or SH for that matter) "applauding" them. While I appreciate that you do not "accept" their tactics, to describe them as "counterproductive" suggests you haven't noticed anything that has happened since then (including these conversations, btw.)

Brad @16 wrote:

While I appreciate that you do not "accept" their tactics, to describe them as "counterproductive" suggests you haven't noticed anything that has happened since then

The only thing in the campaign that appears to have been the product of what occurred in Seattle was Simone Sanders imploring the Portland crowd to fend off a disruption with a loud "We stand together!" The policies that Sanders posted at his website simply embodied what Bernie had been saying in his stump speeches ever since Netroots. So, I seriously question the accuracy of your suggestion that anything substantively positive flowed from what those two women did in Seattle.

Their abusive "tactics" drew the enmity of thousands in attendance whose right to hear what Sanders had to say was violated. Assuming those two actually sought to further the BLM cause (of which I have my doubts), the "tactic" did not garner allies to the cause. That's counterproductive!

Finally, if you argue that the end justifies the means, you cannot evade the charge that you've applauded, or at least made excuses for, their obnoxious behavior.

@15

Thanks for the link to PONV, I haven't read that since college. He is an amazing human being.

One last question. You seem to be very concerned about these women's underlying motivation. Do you disagree with their tactics because you believe they were counterproductive, or do you disagree with their tactics as a matter of principle regardless of their motivations or message? Phrased differently, is there any situation where you feel the ends would justify such means?

Thanks for your thoughtful question @18, SH.

In the case of the #BLM Netroots protestors, I don't doubt for one minute that they were sincere about their goals. In the case of the Seattle event, I entertain serious doubts that they actually intended to advance the #BLM movement.

Either way, I think MLK's form of non-violent protest has a track record as the most effective model for social change. As MLK put it: "The nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding...The end of violence or the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community. A boycott is never an end within itself. It is merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor but the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption."

I don't subscribe to the ends justifies the means --- especially since there is a more effective way to achieve those ends without trampling on the rights of others, as occurred in Seattle.

On a point of comparison, where Sanders afforded a microphone, the stage managed Hillary Clinton campaign simply banned them from her event, then evaded adverse press coverage by meeting with them privately.

There's an open question that arises from this as to whether a Clinton administration would be less transparent than a Sanders administration.

Ernie said @ various:

The only thing in the campaign that appears to have been the product of what occurred in Seattle was Simone Sanders imploring the Portland crowd to fend off a disruption with a loud "We stand together!" ... So, I seriously question the accuracy of your suggestion that anything substantively positive flowed from what those two women did in Seattle.

First, if you haven't you should read Nichols' full article over at The Nation from yesterday, as he speaks in some detail not only about the history of these things, but very specifically on how it has change Sanders campaign (as well as O'Malley's and Clinton's.): "We Need Activists to Make Politicians Better"

Next, feel free to read The Hill today, with comments from African-American members of Congress: "Black lawmakers back disruptions of Sanders, Democrats' events"

Those links are in response to your comment above minimizing the various successful responses to those protests.

Their abusive "tactics" drew the enmity of thousands in attendance whose right to hear what Sanders had to say was violated.

Yup, they probably did.

Assuming those two actually sought to further the BLM cause (of which I have my doubts), the "tactic" did not garner allies to the cause. That's counterproductive!

That's quite debatable, but, in any case, that's your opinion (which is welcome), though I don't think they actually care about your opinion. With all due respect.

Finally, if you argue that the end justifies the means, you cannot evade the charge that you've applauded, or at least made excuses for, their obnoxious behavior.

I guess we havve different definitions of "applauded". In any event, while I certainly agree they were obnoxious, that doesn't matter either. Many also believed the Occupy protests --- which you certainly "applauded" --- were obnoxious and, in fact, lost allies and was seen as counterproductive (by many).

Either way, I think MLK's form of non-violent protest has a track record as the most effective model for social change.

Your opinion is yours (and, may or may not be correct, I'm not trying to take a position either way), but many disagreed with you and MLK's form of protest (see Malcolm X and many more) then, as many still do today.

And, again, feel free to read those links I posted at the top of this response.

Brad @21 wrote:

Many also believed the Occupy protests --- which you certainly "applauded" --- were obnoxious and, in fact, lost allies and was seen as counterproductive (by many).

1. Actually the Occupy movement was the polar opposite to what occurred in Seattle. The two women in Seattle had no respect for the rights of others to have their say. The Occupy movement respected the right of everyone in the movement to voice their opinion. Those who found it offensive --- the establishment --- were of a same mind as those who found the civil rights movement offensive.

2. If you recall, my principal criticism of Occupy related to its anarchist insistence that it couldn't do anything absent 100% agreement amongst the participants, which I saw as a prescription for its own demise.

3. Occupy emulated the civil rights movement by deploying principles of non-violence. It was brutally suppressed by militarized police forces, whose actions were coordinated by a federal government whose leaders at that time included President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Brad @21 wrote:

You should read Nichols' full article over at The Nation from yesterday, as he speaks in some detail not only about the history of these things, but very specifically on how it has change Sanders campaign (as well as O'Malley's and Clinton's.): "We Need Activists to Make Politicians Better"

Nichols addresses a point on which you, I and he are in full agreement --- that there is a need for political movements "to put pressure on candidates to do the right thing."

But there is not one word in Nichols' article that supports your position that the ends justify the means.

Nichols' role model is the late labor leader, A. Philip Randolph, former head of the mostly African-American Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Randolph's 1940 march on Washington was the precursor to the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where MLK delivered his famous I Have A Dream speech.

Bernie Sanders took part in the 1963 march on Washington.*

Randolph not only deployed the principles of non-violence embraced by MLK, he was both MLK's role model and collaborator. Thus, Nichols tells us:

Thus, while Nichols believes it essential for social movements to maintain pressure on our candidates and elected leaders, there is not one word in that article that suggests he either applauded or endorsed the atrocious behavior that was on display in Seattle.

*If he were to carry through with it, Sanders could really advance a political revolution via a proposed new million American march on Washington

Brad @21 also wrote:

I don't think they actually care about your opinion.

Therein lies the problem. Those two women don't give a damn about anyone's opinion but their own. And they don't respect the rights of others to hold an opinion with which they disagree.

Finally, Brad @21 wrote:

Next, feel free to read The Hill today, with comments from African-American members of Congress: "Black lawmakers back disruptions of Sanders, Democrats' events"

The Hill quoted Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) as saying: "While disruption is uncomfortable, it does result in candidates acknowledging and addressing the issue with policy proposals."

However, Johnson went on to say: "When that happens, the need to protest is abated."

There is no question but that, in every speech that followed the Netroots protest, Bernie Sanders specifically addressed the very issues that were the topic of your July 22, 2015 interview of Tia Oso. So, by Johnson's own standard, the need for #BLM to protest Bernie Sanders had abated by the time he was accosted by two women in Seattle, whose motives and connections to #BLM are open to serious questions.

That reality helps to explain the vigorous dissent from the African American man in the above-posted video, whose right to hear Sanders was trampled upon by these two obnoxious women. It also explains why the national Black Lives Matter movement called upon those two women to apologize to Bernie Sanders.

Once again, from MLK's The Power of Non-violence:

Likewise, the disruption that occurred at Netsroots should not have been an end within itself. Assuming those two women in Seattle were sincere (which I doubt), their attack on someone who, by then, was clearly championing the #BLM cause was incredibly stupid!

I don't interpret Johnson's reference to positive impact of "disruption" as an endorsement of boorish behavior or a suggestion that it is a form of protest that is superior to that applied by MLK. But it if was, I would respectfully disagree with the Georgia Democrat on that issue.

White people exaggerating or fabricating black violence, to complain about and punish, is a well known and well understood mechanism of white supremacy. Which surely does not belong on BradBlog.
Has Marissa Jenae Johnson ever been actually violent, toward Bernie Sanders or anybody else? Because otherwise it sounds like “quasi-violent” and “borderline violent” are just synonyms for “not actually violent.”
Beyond the specific rhetorical distraction of “violence” vs. “nonviolence,” it is, in general, not the BradBlog’s job to police the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable black protest.
Martin Luther King is not your imaginary black friend.
The hashtag is #BlackLivesMatter, not #WhiteLawyersMatter. Nobody asked for your opinion.

Z--"Nobody asked for your opinion." Have you considered a career in the diplomatic field?

Z @26 wrote:

It is, in general, not the BRADBLOG's job to police the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable black protest

and:

The hashtag is #BlackLivesMatter, not #WhiteLawyersMatter.

Are you suggesting that being black serves as a shield that exempts one from any form of criticism of their conduct unless that criticism comes from another black person, like the one depicted in the video I posted? Is it also your position that no one, other than American Jews, can criticize Israeli policy?

If that is what you are suggesting, it appears to be a remarkably racist statement.

Next, Z states:

White people exaggerating or fabricating black violence, to complain about and punish, is a well known and well understood mechanism of white supremacy

I am going to assume that you are unfamiliar with the legal definition the word "assault." "The essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim." [emphasis added]

If you pay close attention to the video, you will not only see two women physically invading Sen. Sanders's personal space in a willfully offensive manner, but several instances in which they flail their arms in trying to wrest control of the stage and microphone from the other man, who was simply trying to ascertain the length of their speech.

I see no more validity in your effort to describe anyone who offers valid criticism of this type of obnoxious behavior as having engaged in "white supremacy" than I do in the efforts by right wingers to claim that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies of being an anti-Semite.

Z states:

Nobody asked for your opinion.

It may come as a shock to you, but in a democratic society, one does not have to ask for permission to hold or express an opinion.

Finally, Z tells us:

Martin Luther King is not your imaginary black friend.

If you were not so blinded by black vs. white, you would understand that MLK was cited because of the validity of his theory of non-violence, a theory that he, in turn, had acquired from the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi, who, in case you hadn't noticed, was not black.

Do you really think MLK would have approved of what took place in Seattle?

#7: Direct quotes of Senator Sanders in 2013 in response to President Obama begging Congress for its OK on a limited punitive strike against WMD-using Assad.
"How about a war against the high cost of higher education?" as Syrians were out digging more mass graves in Damascus.

I was going to comment about having gone to the L.A. Sports Arena to see Bernie Sanders speak, but instead I see this crap:

COMMENT #29
Irwin Mainway makes an appeal on behalf of "freedom fighters":

"...as Syrians were out digging more mass graves in Damascus."

Another in an endless string of variations of a timeworn theme? I think it is. In other words, we've heard it all before. These days, a majority of Americans are more than a little skeptical when it comes to hearing advocates' appeals for all things intervention. It's gotten old, really.

Irwin Mainway says U.S. military action will be swift and just:

"...on a limited punitive strike..."

...Which sounds suspiciously like this:

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

It's worth noting here that the only reason this is being discussed at all is because of that idiot Rumsfeld and others like him who caused a power vacuum and instability in the Middle East in the first place.

What else did Bernie Sanders say when Obama was begging congress?:

"To get involved in a bloody and complicated war in Syria makes no sense at all. We would reap consequences we can't imagine."

And what did Bernie Sanders say about what turned out to be the most disastrous foreign policy/military blunder in U.S history?:

"I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated?"

Crazy, huh? Let's go back even further and find out what he had to say about our need retaliate against Iraqi atrocities against babies in incubators:

"Clearly the United States and allies will win this war, but the death and destruction caused, will in my opinion, not be forgotten by the poor people of the Third World and the people of the Middle East in particular.
I fear that one day we will regret that decision and that we are in fact laying the ground work for more and more wars for years to come."

Anyway Irwin, most of us a pretty much sick of people like you who exhibit a stunted historical perspective while making appeals for either plundering or saving the world with endless intervention.