Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [4]

[halfwise]

What Eldo and I have been trying to say is that a large fraction of the protesters (I assume the peaceful ones) have been using Ferguson as a rallying point to bring light to problems in police/minority relations.

My problem with that is a white cop placed in a minority area is expected to uphold the law. Not hold the minorities hand and give him cookies or babysit. Every grown man or woman from the age of 12 should know right and wrong. Regardless of skin color ....The minorities actions dictate most of the time how the officer reacts. (I have two good friends in Atlanta GA police department right now, both white, both in low income minority neighborhoods and neither has a racist bone in their body) but on a daily basis they are forced to chase suspects who refuse to stop, have altercations where the person thinks the can steam roll over the officer and get away. Bust people who can't afford to pay their bills but can buy drugs. Many signs of NOT obeying the law. I'm not saying its the majority of people but they see it day in and day out how these people are taught to disrespect authority, I hear about it with kids as young as 3rd grade.

Instead of these minorities promoting disrespect, or blame, or racial barriers. why not start promoting, follow the law, don't steal, do what an officer of the law tells you to, stand up and be held accountable for your own actions. Stop blaming everyone else for your actions, or your situation. If you don't like it change it. Its that simple where there is a will there is a way. And i say that living in the deep south where racism runs high on BOTH sides. And sometimes NOT the side you would think it is coming from

Oh, I'm right there with you. This particular form of black youth culture (which has often grown into the adult culture) appeared after civil rights. Before that people were mad but they knew showing it would get them killed. Takes great strength of character to swallow that anger. Now many show it but need to move past it rather than just lashing out at the system that surrounds them. The blacks of the civil rights era had (still have) a great nobility about them, and it hurts them to see what part of the younger generation have fallen to (only a fraction, fortunately - but it's a fraction that gets noticed). I used to teach school, and I can say that the black kids coming from a strong family situation are the sweetest kids around, with a deep respect for authority.

But how do you teach right and wrong when you are a single mother or father working two jobs as your kids run with the bad elements? It's a tough cycle to break. The police understand all this and are generally trying to help the situation. So we come to the question: what are the protesters protesting?

I think there are two groups. There are those who will probably always be in trouble with the law and are looking to get back at it: these are the rioters. But there's also a group who have no reason to have run-ins with the police, but because they get lumped with the first group they find themselves being treated with suspicion, and suspicion can escalate to dangerous situations. Nearly every black man will have personal stories about this, very few white men do.

Chris Rock says that black people are more prejudiced than white people because they hate both white and black people. They get just as nervous to be followed by a black man as any white man would. I have to agree with you Sin, that until blacks are not longer afraid of other blacks they will always have problems with the police: it mainly comes from the actions within their communities. But fixing the problem will not be as simple as teaching kids to respect the law: there has to be a strong family to do that...and that often comes down to finances. It's a legacy thing.

[Orwell]

In places its a white problem too -- disaffected youth. Minorities who cause problems all out of proportion to their numbers. A hard problem to deal with unless their is money for genuine sustainable programs to help them out of their disaffection. Solid families tend to have a lesser number of disaffected children. But don't ever suggest separation-at-the-first-hint-of-conflict-between-partners is one of the major underlying factors in a high proportion of kids becoming disaffected.

[Mrs Figg]

maybe this is a load of poppycock, but strangely I think we are a victim of our own success as a consumer society. In ye olden days the underclasses, (of either race, White or Black) under the working class, just pretty much died in slums or the poor house, but today due to drug selling and organized gangs the underclass has disposable money, and/ or a sense of entitlement and avarice. Just look at the animal behaviour during the black friday sales, people stampeding over each other for a bargain, its a sign of the times. uneducated untermentions with a thirst for consumer goods equals riots and crime. Doesnt matter what race you are, its the mentality that makes people less than civilized.

[Orwell]

I guess one of the biggest problems in successful consumer societies is we have forgotten the joys of simpler things, like family, friends and community living and the need to have more, do more and be more (status-wise). Alain de Bottom's book 'Status Anxiety' suddenly comes to mind. And another book, "Affluenza"  I think it's called from memory, can't remember author's name - it's in a box somewhere. Basically, there is too much going on, and relationships between people are too superficial, what with running around making it (and on the make) while discarding relationships the first second they become at all complicated. Poppycock? Straight off the brain? Probably.

[Eldorion]

Long-term crime rates are a fascinating subject about which I don't know enough, but the gist of the matter is that there is significantly less crime now than there was in centuries past in both America and Western Europe.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

[Orwell]

Less crime or the removal of a lot of ridiculous laws over time, I wonder? What crimes are we talking about here?

[Eldorion]

In the case of the essay I linked to, the analysis is primarily about homicide rates, with the idea that they provide a rough approximation for understanding trends in violent crime in general, while being easier to try to and measure and compare over long historical periods.

[Eldorion]

You can read a similar but much more detailed study of the same long-term decline in Europe here:

https://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites/soci.ucalgary.ca.brannigan/files/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

[Orwell]

In the case of the essay I linked to, the analysis is primarily about homicide rates, with the idea that they provide a rough approximation for understanding trends in violent crime in general, while being easier to try to and measure and compare over long historical periods.

There are other wrongful killing offences not technically called 'homicide' in law - are they included as 'homicide'?

[Eldorion]

While I only briefly looked at the various links given in that blog, they all came from peer reviewed journals or other reputable professional sources, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the sociologists cited as sources know what the definition of homicide is.

[Orwell]

Assume? Sociologists!

[halfwise]

Yep, things have changed for the better, but that skews all the statistics. You'll always hear high school teachers complaining that the students aren't as good as they used to be, but then you realize a larger percentage of the population is going to high school, or are being required to take upper level classes.

I think the same thing has happened with crime: we think it's worse, but in fact we actually care enough now to report any murder.

[Pettytyrant101]

Question for UShobbits- what exactly is the point of Reverend Al Sharpton?

As far as I can tell his job is to wander the country until he finds something which might or might not be a race issue, then inserts a giant shit-stirring spoon into it whilst provoking God until a riot happens.

Why does anyone think he does any good in these situations, and why does he seem to have such a large following? And why does he seem to have the ear of the President? What am I missing? He just looks and sounds like a giant ego on legs to me.

[David H]

ah, good old Al!

Don't sell him short though Petty. He's a very savvy media operative, and he's very sincere about his mission.

He's an articulate showman who's willing to talk publicly with almost anybody (including Bill O'Riley on FOX ) about almost anything at any time, so when the media suddenly wants a voice to speak for the African American community, he's at the top of their list. He's guaranteed to give just the right amount of controversy to get maximum ratings without crossing the fundamental lines of civility.

He's also not afraid to risk his life for what he believes. Like him or hate him, you've gotta respect him.

Edit: A couple relevant quotes from Wikepedia:

Between the years 1973 and 1980 Sharpton served as James Brown's tour manager.

On January 12, 1991, Sharpton escaped serious injury when he was stabbed in the chest in the schoolyard at P.S. 205[107] by Michael Riccardi while Sharpton was preparing to lead a protest through Bensonhurst in Brooklyn, New York. The intoxicated attacker was apprehended by Sharpton's aides and handed over to police, who were present for the planned protest.

In 1992, Riccardi was convicted of first-degree assault. Sharpton asked the judge for leniency when sentencing Riccardi.[108] The judge sentenced Riccardi to five to 15 years in jail,[109] and he served ten years in prison[108] being released on parole on January 8, 2001.

Sharpton, although forgiving his attacker and pleading for leniency on his behalf, filed suit against New York City alleging that the many police present had failed to protect him from his attacker. In December 2003, he finally reached a $200,000 settlement with the city just as jury selection was about to start.

[halfwise]

The black church in America is sacredly flamboyant theater, and breeds personalities no other culture can really match. In saying this I'm not denigrating it at all; I consider gospel music to be one of the greatest strands of American art. If you go to a true black church service you'll find the piano player never stops: he's providing a constant improvisational undercurrent to every word spoken, morphing seamlessly into the choir and congregational numbers. It's an incredible performance. So the preacher has constant mood music feeding his own performance, better than anything you hear backing speeches in the movies. It builds the emotion, creating the famous speaking style that comes out of Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, and Martin Luther King, and countless others less well known.

Some of the churches get infiltrated by tourism....and no wonder, it's one of the best shows on earth. But if you can find a church that has the spirit but hasn't been discovered by the tourists, you will have an experience that sticks with you forever. And the congregation gets that every week!

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes thats all very well and good, but it doesn't answer the basic question, what exactly is Al Sharpton for? What is it he is supposed to be doing that he gets so much attention and influence?
Far as I can tell he is just a big ole shit stirrer and shameless self promoter. Why isn't he just ignored?

[Mrs Figg]

you of all people should know what function a shit stirrer has in a community. he's a crabbit spreader.

*Eowyncough*

[David H]

Why isn't he just ignored?

...when the media suddenly wants a voice to speak for the African American community, he's at the top of their list. He's guaranteed to give just the right amount of controversy to get maximum ratings...

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes but he is plainly also quite dangerous.

[Pettytyrant101]

he's a crabbit spreader.- Figg

Thats not crabbit, its got no nobility. Nor is he always right, unlike me!

[halfwise]

Yes but he is plainly also quite dangerous.

Oh, I don't think even his followers really pay attention to him. They just follow him for the fireworks. But he's not the one advocating violence and property destruction, people do that on their own.

[David H]

Yes but he is plainly also quite dangerous.

And our media isn't?

[Pettytyrant101]

Where Sharpton and the media are concerned they appear to be one and the same thing.

[halfwise]

Saturday Night Live loves it some Al Sharpton:

https://screen.yahoo.com/snl/politics-nation-cold-open-085544107.html

But the talking head circuit can't turn down the wet-your-pants dream line-up of Al Sharpton versus Ann Coulter (and Geraldo Rivera to boot!) :

[Pettytyrant101]

When is torture not torture?

Well according to Republicans the wake of the intelligence report today, when you change the law so it snot called torture!!

Everyone else in the world sees it as torture- they used torture techniques recognized as such.
And according to the report all for nothing of consequence- although it did completely undermine any moral authority America had after 9/11- so well done there.

Cheney says its not torture- so how about kidnapping him and subjecting him to the techniques for a few months and see if he still thinks its not torture.

Somehow I doubt those responsible- Bush, Cheney will ever face any consequences for doing this.

But my favourite bit of this horrible incident is that they say its not torture but they called the places where it took place 'Black sites'- the clue I suspect is in the name.