The Dakota Access Pipeline ATTACKS Peaceful Protesters



When my father, Wayne L. Vick, who was working for Northern Telephone struck the deal with the Blackfeet tribe in Browning, Montana, to plow fiber optics through sacred Native American grounds, he was smart about it. 

It took 2 years of negotiations -- many of the times he went to meet with tribal leaders they *never showed* due to being on "Indian Time" and using it as a way to dissuade my father from negotiations. Granted, it was frustrating for him, but it was their land. Their rules. 

He jumped through all their hoops for 2 years, but he always respected their customs, their culture, and their practices. And once they were satisfied he was doing the right thing by giving their tribe high-speed Internet and communications so they could set up a community college, they finally agreed to let him (and his big telecommunications company) plow the allotted fiber.

He never once sent attack dogs after anyone.

The stuff happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline and them attacking peaceful protestors is beyond messed up. The fact that police haven't stepped in to disrupt the violent attacks of unarmed civilians is beyond disgraceful.



See more articles about this at:

https://www.google.co.jp/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=attack%20dogs%20attack%20natives


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t
Read more

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Jesus—not a mythicist
Read more