quote:

The police said a total of 730 vehicles were torched

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:

quote:

The police said a total of 730 vehicles were torched

French Riot AGAIN

quote:

Poly: Not many cars burned in the Watts riots. Buildings instead. About 600 of them. Blocks and blocks of them. Seems only the white folks benefited much from the "Great Society Programs". I watched the flames and smoke from my hillside home. Looked like a war zone.

quote:

Not many cars burned in the Watts riots. Buildings instead. About 600 of them

quote:

Seems only the white folks benefited much from the "Great Society Programs".

quote:

When people get too poor or feel dis-enfranchised, things happen.

quote:

A French Lesson for Republicans

..
I know this will seem strange to those of us who like to make jokes about the French, but the fact is that there is a great deal to be learned from the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy (a member of the ruling party) in last weekend's "change" election in France -- and Republicans had better learn it.

For those of you who haven't followed it closely, here is some background on the election.

The Background: An Unpopular Incumbent President and a Desire for Change

Incumbent French President Jacques Chirac had been twice elected, has served a total of 12 years in office, and is very unpopular. Coming into this election, people were very tired of the Chirac government and there was a sense that there had to be change.

But the opposition on the left, the Socialist Party, failed completely to capitalize on this desire for change. They nominated a candidate of great achievement, Ségolène Royal, but she proved herself to be the candidate of the status quo, not the candidate of change. She was actually committed to keeping all the bureaucracies that were failing and all the policies that were creating unemployment. She was committed to avoiding the changes necessary for a French future of prosperity, opportunity and safety.

Normally, with the incumbent conservative government so unpopular, the left would have been expected to win the election, probably by a significant margin. But the conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, won decisively because he is an aggressive, different kind of French political leader. He is a member of the Chirac government -- the Minister of the Interior. But not only is he a man who is willing to stand up and fight for what he believes in, but Sarkozy is also a man who hasn't followed the normal French path to success by going to an elite university, becoming part of the ruling elite and fitting in.

Sarkozy: A Different Kind of Frenchman

Instead, Sarkozy is just the opposite. He was born of Hungarian parents who had fled communism in Eastern Europe. That makes him the first president of France who is a first-generation immigrant. It also means his name doesn't sound very French. And his style certainly isn't very French. He is a tough, confrontational leader -- a man who has been preaching things that don't sound very much like the French establishment.

In the campaign, Sarkozy argued that the French have to work longer hours and, in order to give them an incentive to do so, that they shouldn't pay taxes if they work overtime. He called for tax cuts to encourage investment so the private sector can create jobs. And critically, Sarkozy has said that the people must obey the law, that the creation of law and respect for the law is a central part of any civilized society. are simply "expressing their desire to disrupt society." It's jarring for a country that was very proud a few years back to have the first mandatory 35-hour work week in history. Yet an increasing majority of the French believes that without the kind of changes Sarkozy is calling for, France's stature will disappear in a wave of lawlessness and economic decay.

A Royal Commitment to the Status Quo and a Candidate of Change

As for the opposition in the French election, much like the American Democratic Party,
it is trapped by its commitment to big labor,

big bureaucracy, high taxes and

social values people don't believe in.

Every time French voters seriously looked at Ségolène Royal and the kind of politics she represents, she lost ground. She simply couldn't make the case that left-wing Socialist policies would work.

The result was a surprising and powerful upset by Sarkozy -- a victory by a center-right reformer, a member of the unpopular ruling party, who came to personify change.

And here's where American Republicans really need to pay attention: In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party.

If Republicans hope to win the presidency next year, they better find a candidate who is prepared to stand for very bold, very dramatic and very systematic change in Washington.

Not only that, but they had better make the case that the left-wing Democrat likely to be nominated represents the failed status quo:

the bureaucracies that are failing,

the social policies that are failing,
the high tax policies that are failing,

and the weakness around the world that has failed so badly in protecting America.

Only if we have that kind of campaign do we have a reasonable chance to expect the American people will vote for effective change for a better, safer and more prosperous future -- and that they will see that effective change as being Republican.. .

{even the green party voted for Sarkozy}


In the meantime, Sarkozy has pledged to repair relations between France and America, and we should take him seriously in his pledge. In particular, he has called on America to lead the world in addressing climate change.

This gives President Bush a unique opportunity to change the perception of his attitude toward both Europe and the environment. The President should take up Sarkozy's call for U.S. leadership on global warming by proposing a bold new initiative on market-based, entrepreneurial incentives to help in the environment. As I outline in an op-ed that appeared in Sunday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, using new technology to dramatically increase energy independence and reduce reliance on carbon isn't giving in to the left -- it's resisting the big government solutions that the left routinely imposes under the guise of protecting the environment and instead finding a more effective way forward to protect and renew the natural world.. . . .
link

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Poly: Not many cars burned in the Watts riots. Buildings instead. About 600 of them. Blocks and blocks of them. Seems only the white folks benefited much from the "Great Society Programs". I watched the flames and smoke from my hillside home. Looked like a war zone.

Yes, well if you don't like your neighborhood just burn it down. Which white folks are you referring to that benefited? Which hillside were you on?

quote:

Poorer whitefolks benefited Rutherford.

quote:

Fortunately, rioters at the time didn't have access to automobiles"In mass". Otherwise my hillside home over-looking the city may have gone up in flames instead. Many of the better homes were on the hills which surround Los Angeles.

quote:

Had the riots occurred today, it may well have gone up in flames.

Police and National Guard troops were unable to quell it; just contain it to a limited area covering about a square mile. Had it occurred today, that wouldn't necessarily be so.(This was in the 60's)

quote:

Rioters did have grievances other than poverty.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:

quote:

Poorer whitefolks benefited Rutherford.

And so are you saying that poor white folks lived in Watts, or that they owned the buildings that burnt down?

quote:

Fortunately, rioters at the time didn't have access to automobiles"In mass". Otherwise my hillside home over-looking the city may have gone up in flames instead. Many of the better homes were on the hills which surround Los Angeles.

I am sure there were plenty of cars/vehicles if they so desired. Again which hills are you talking about?

quote:

Had the riots occurred today, it may well have gone up in flames.

Police and National Guard troops were unable to quell it; just contain it to a limited area covering about a square mile. Had it occurred today, that wouldn't necessarily be so.(This was in the 60's)

It did happen today! Or do you remember the Rodney King verdict? It was (from my memory) all the way down to Long Beach and then Carson, San Pedro, and up to Ladera Heights, Baldwin Hills and Culver City (Foxhills).

quote:

Rioters did have grievances other than poverty.

Yes, they did. Like merchants that burnt their stores down. Nothing like being repressed by being forced to have your business located in a poor neighborhood.

And of course which businesses were targeted (LA Riots)? Korean owned and managed-mostly immigrants.

Afterwards I got to drive through Florence and Normandy. And at least one "victim" had to stop me with his New Green Mercedes Benz to tell me I had no right to honk when he was blocking traffic.

quote:

You are comparing apples to oranges again.

quote:

1. Poor whites didn't riot. They were benefiting from social programs. They didn't live in black neighborhoods. Watts was nearly 100% black.

quote:

4. The Rodney King riot didn't occurr in the 60's. Don't confuse one event with another. The Rodney King riots by comparrison was a small fireworks show.

quote:

In the Korean American community, the riots are known as Sah-I-Gu, Korean for "4/29," or April 29.[2]

quote:

Unlike the more common relatively cool, dry and pleasant summer days in
Los Angeles, Wednesday, August 11, 1965 was the exact opposite. The temperature
reached the 100 degrees marker, and the people of Southern California and Watts
moved to their porches hoping to catch some sort of cool breeze. The time was just
after 7:00 p.m. and California Highway motorcycle officer Lee Minikus, a white male,
was on duty on 122nd Street. The Street was located just south of the city limits in an
area of predominately African Americans. Minikus was stopped by an African
American motorist. The motorists informed Minikus that a few moments earlier he
noticed “an automobile being driven recklessly” (p.33). Minikus immediately perused
the automobile and stopped the car six blocks away on 116th and Avalon, only two
blocks from the driver’s home, for speeding. Minikus recalls “I pursued the car
northbound on Avalon from approximately 122nd, where I started my clock. I clocked
the defendant going approximately 50 miles-an-hour in a 35-mile-an-hour zone”
(Cohen & Murphy, 1966, p.27). The stop immediately peaked interest from the
people sitting on their porches trying to seek relief from the heat. The driver of the
car was a 21 year old African American man named Marquette Frye. The passenger
was his 22 year old brother Ronald Frye who had just been released from the U.S.
Air Force a few days earlier. The two boys were driving their mothers car and
Marquette would later admit they were coming from the home of two young women,
where they had enjoyed a “few drinks of vodka and orange juice” (Crump, 1966,
p.33). Minikus assisted Marquette Frye out of the car where they proceeded to talk in
what was witnessed to be a friendly almost joking manner. Frye later stated “The
officer that stopped me was as polite as an officer of the law can be. I mean, the
reason that most people started gathering around was because I was joking with the
officer- I mean, we was getting along, getting along” (Cohen & Murphy, 1966, p.30).
Minikus proceeded to administer a sobriety test. Frye subsequently failed the
sobriety test, and Minikus informed him that he was under arrest on the charge of
drunk driving. However, Frye was not placed in handcuffs at the time. Minikus noted
that “despite his announcement of the arrest of Marquette Frye’s he remained a very
happy-go-lucky drunk” (Crump, 1966, p.30). Officer Minikus then radioed for a
patrol car to take the young men to jail. He also called his partner and a tow truck to
impound Frye’s car. This procedure was routine for handling drunk driving suspects
and up until this point happened almost daily in Los Angeles. Approximately between
twenty-five to thirty spectators had gathering near the scene from their porches and
lawns to witness the ordeal at this point.
Ronald Frye, the passenger of the car, wanted to remove the vehicle from the
scene himself. When Minikus informed Ronald that he could not do so, he quickly ran
to his residence two blocks away. He summonsed his mother to the scene so she
could remove the vehicle. By the time Ronald and his mother arrived back at the
scene, Minikus’ partner had arrived, the patrol car had arrived and the tow truck had
arrived. The crowd of on looking persons had grown to approximately two hundred
and fifty to three hundred people. Frye’s mother, forty-nine year old Rena Frye,
arrived on the scene. She immediately went to he son Marquette and reprimanded
him for his drinking. The conversation was remembered to go something like:
Mrs. Frye: “Something’s wrong with you. Are you drunk?”
Marquette: “Mama, I’m not drunk.”
Mrs. Frye: “You’ve been drinking- I can smell it on your
breath.
You know you shouldn’t drive when you’ve been drinking. You
better go with the officers. You’re not acting normal, you’re not
acting right. Get away from me (Cohen & Murphy, 1966, p.33).
Marquette Frye quickly became enraged by his mother disapproval and that is
when the trouble began. He suddenly began struggling with police officers and
pushed past his mother towards the crowd. Frye was quoted as saying; “You’re not
going to take me to jail! You’re going to have to take me the hard way” (Crump,
1966, p.35). When police tried to apprehend Frye he shouted, “Don’t touch me you
white mother-fu*ker. I’ll kill you” (Cohen & Murphy, 1966, p.34). By this time the
number of people was growing more and more rapidly. The Highway Patrolmen
became alarmed and called for more backup, Minikus drew his revolver. Frye jumped
in front of Minikus and shouted “Go ahead. Kill me!” (Crump, 1966, p.35). Mrs. Rena
Frye had become very angry with the situation. An intense struggle broke out
between the Frye brothers, their mother and the police officers. There was a struggle
between Minikus and Marquette Frye. Frye was hit over the head with Minikus’ baton
and received a cut above the eye. The struggle temporarily weakened Frye and
Minikus was able to place him in handcuffs. “I took him by the neck and brought him
to the patrol car and threw him across the front seat, face down and handcuffed him”
(Cohen & Murphy, 1966, p.37). Ronald was holding onto one of Frye’s legs, as their
mother jumped on the back of an officer. Office Lewis remembers, “I went over there
and pulled Ronald aside and then as I grabbed the mother by the arm, I noticed
Minikus’ shirt was torn and she was on the back of Officer Wilson” (p.37). Officer
Fonville witnessed Mrs. Frye attack Officer Wilson. He recalls his struggle with Mrs.
Frye; “I grabbed her. I grabbed her by the arms from behind. Both arms … in the
area of the elbow. Mrs. Frye fought back, until he bent her over the hood of the
patrol car. She kept yelling ‘help me, help me.’” (p.37). Officers were able to arrest
all three of the Frye’s.

quote:

The remaining officers were leaving the scene when someone from the
crowd spit at them. The arrest of an African American female and male were made
reasoning they had “been inciting the crowd to violence when the officer was
arresting her” (Commissioners Report, 1965).

quote:

By 8:15 white people driving through the area were stopped and
beaten.