Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: House Sit In Is Political Theater On Both Sides

Neither political party is even trying to understand the root causes of violence and how to prevent it even though there is good research available to them if they want to look at it.

Reasonable gun control would be part of it if they implemented it but it almost certainly wouldn't be the most important part. Unfortunately the legislation they're making the most noise about, the "No Fly No Buy Bill," is almost useless and may even violate peoples rights, although they may not be the rights the Republicans are concerned about.

Paul Ryan is right this sit-in really is a "Publicity Stunt," but he has done his part to make this seem somewhat legitimate and he's involved in more than his own share of publicity stunts.By holding a vote to pass legislation to revoke consumer protections from financial institution that provide deceptive information without disclosing their conflict of interests he actually makes their "Publicity Stunt" seem almost legitimate to those that don't pay enough attention

This is the same guy who washed clean dishes for a photo opportunity during the 2012 election even though he should have known the media might tell the public that was exactly what he was doing, which they did.

I just went through a lot of this in Media Suppresses Causes Of Orlando And Texas Shootings Again where I explained that there is plenty of research to show what the contributing causes of violence are and the most effective way to prevent them. Some of the most important contributing causes to violence including mass shootings don't even involve gun control, although reasonable gun control could prevent a murder from turning into a mass murder.

Unfortunately most of these aren't even discussed in traditional media or political establishment.

There is some evidence already that this shooter had a history of domestic violence which almost certainly resulted from the way he was raised possibly in a family where this was common. If this isn't the case, or if he wasn't raised in other dysfunctional ways, it would be almost unprecedented based on research into other violent murderers.

There should also be doubts about how ISIS might have inspired this attack considering the contradictory versions presented by the media; however there is plenty of evidence to indicate that past foreign policy has incited blow-back and attacks like the Boston Bombing San Bernidino may have been at least partially inspired by this, although the shooters or bombers weren't entirely rational.

The no-fly list that the "No Fly No Buy Bill" that set off this sit in is part of the racial profiling that may do more to incite retaliation than it does to prevent it and so is the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki who preached about abuses by the United States Government against Muslims for years before being killed in a drone strike. His son was also killed in a drone strike; neither of them were charged with a crime or given access to due process; and not surprisingly Muslims were outraged by this.

The majority of the public who rely on the traditional media for information were probably given a far different explanation about his assassination portraying him as a "radical" inciting terror, amusing people paid attention at all. Alternative media including Democracy Now, the Nation, the Intercept, and Jeremy Scahill's book, "Dirty Wars," provide a far more detailed and well sourced explanation about his assassination and it clearly seems to be far more about criticizing the United states Government and their bombing of Muslim countries or supporting governments that oppress their own citizens that is used to anger potential "terrorists."

Anwar al-Awlaki had plenty of legitimate grievances but the US government wasn't willing to acknowledge them. Representatives of the US government routinely express outrage when "terrorists" kill out citizens, and rightly so; but when they drop bombs on citizens around the world killing many more or support tyrants that do much worse they consider it "collateral damage," if they have to discuss it at all.

The people in the United States that think they're getting the full story from their own government or media might not see the problem with this however people in the Muslim world understand something incredibly simple.

They don't like it when we bomb them anymore than we like it when they bomb us.

People who keep up with alternative media outlets that do a better job reporting the news, including please activists, and well informed Muslims can see how incredibly obvious the double stand is.

The people authorizing the sales of weapons to tyrants and approving the wars based on lies either don't see this or don't care; including the people participating in the sit in and Paul Ryan. Regrettably this includes the so-called "civil-rights icon" John Lewis. the media has presented John Lewis as one of the most progressive politicians out there along with Elizabeth Warren who is portrayed as a great "consumer advocate" but it appears as if neither of them or many if any other members of congress are doing as much as they could and should to address many of the root causes of violence.

Most of the people involved in this sit-in that is supposed to look like a grassroots effort to disrupt business as usual put their support behind Hillary Clinton who is highly incompetent when it comes to her foreign policy experience which has incited and enormous amount of unnecessary violence as i explained in several articles including Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster She is also far from progressive as she tries to portray herself and involved in epidemic levels of fraud including many that might directly or indirectly contribute to violence.

As I explained in numerous previous posts, including the one about the Orlando shooting, about the most important contributing causes of violence the most important way to stop long term violence is almost certainly to prevent child abuse and corporal punishment which teaches children to deal with their problems with violence at an early age. There is an enormous amount of research, including some in the links below, to confirm this; and an educational effort by the mass media and political establishment could teach the public about this and enable the government to do more to prevent child abuse.

Additional contributing causes could be prevented if more was done to improve education, reduce income inequality and poverty, often by exposing and preventing white collar crime, educating the public about how gambling contributes to crime and how the odds are rigged, stop fighting wars based on lies and training veterans and police officers to blindly follow orders and react with violence and many other things including reasonable gun control. There is an enormous amount of research available to show how many of these social factors contribute to more violence and how they could be prevented but unfortunately the Congress seems to be more interested in posturing and convincing the majority of the public that they're at least trying to do something about it than actually doing something that works. Even if the Democrats couldn't get help from the Republicans they could do much more to invite much more qualified academics like James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Barbara Coloroso, Philip Greven and many more good academics to help them explain to the public how early abuse leads to escalating violence later in life; and their are other academics that could teach about other contributing causes as well, who they could give an opportunity to get their point across.

Instead they continue with publicity stunts and stir up people's emotions to support their efforts even though they routinely accomplish little or nothing.

They even manage to get a few subtle ads for major corporations who also happen to donate to campaigns. they made a point of saying that someone was going out to target to buy sleeping bags as if they really needed them to hold their protests. And Elizabeth Warren was widely credited with bringing the Dunkin Donuts; although they didn't say how much Dunkin Donuts paid for that great advertising or if it was done using the wink and nod method.

Real grassroots protesters don't find it necessary to go on buying sprees when they carry out their protests. However Congressmen seem much more accustomed to luxury and can't be expected to rough it too much. this includes John Lewis who hasn't participated in a real sit in in decades and even tried to suppress a Black Lives Matter protest against Hillary Clinton previously as I explained in Gloria Steinem Joins Reformers Selling Out; I guess grassroots efforts are only supposed to protest when they have permission from "civil rights icons," although well informed activists will never fall for that.

Unlike real grassroots activists the Congressional members, including the so-called progressives, were able to go home to a life of luxury.

Is it really any wonder that a growing percentage of the better educated people start to believe they're selling out.

In many cases addressing the contributing causes often impacts the profits of their campaign contributors. A couple of the simpler examples is when gambling leaves people desperate and they turn violent it still enriches corporations investing in it; or when insurgence companies make an enormous amount of money by deceiving the public in increases poverty and income inequality which contributes to more violence. Some of these contributing causes take time to understand but there not so complicated that average people can't understand them.

Unfortunately neither the media nor the political establishment gives the public the education and information they need to make important decisions; this is only available to those who seek it on their own, often through alternative media outlets or non-fiction books not promoted by traditional media.

As I said in the previous article about the Orlando shooting Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein both do a much better job supporting policies that would help reduce violent crime; however in most cases they support them for different reasons and don't do as much as they could to educate the public about how they could also help reduce violence. Improving education and reducing economic inequality, among other things, are worth doing on their own but they also reduce the contributing causes of violent crime and more can be done to educate the public about it.