Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

If you genuinely think that an honest discussion of institutional racism in America can be had by ignoring almost all of the findings in the paper you brought to the table, explain why. ``I've said a lot of bipartisan things in the recent past'' isn't an explanation.

[Ghengis Jon]

Papers like the Harvard working paper are good for initiating conversation. It is not a basis of fact, as it is a 'working paper' not a peer reviewed document. The agenda is clear from page 1. The opening sentence is a quote from MLK,jr. Other than being placed in the document for inflammatory intent, what purpose does it serve? Read the one sentence description of the Brown incident in Ferguson - where is part about Brown reaching inside the patrol car attempting to wrest the shotgun from its dash lock before backing away? This is just on page one. As I read through the document, the author calls self reported, unconfirmed police statistics as 'empirical evidence'. If this document is an example of the quality of Harvard output, my how the mighty have fallen.

As I said above, it is a good conversation starter for real and obvious problems. But that paper has no weight of its own. The bias is clear from the beginning. It would have been much more helpful to present thorough facts that both sides of the issue can agree on as facts. That's the first step toward a solution. But then again, the intent might have been to just start conversations rather than look for solutions.

[iam416]

If you genuinely think that an honest discussion of institutional racism in America can be had by ignoring almost all of the findings in the paper you brought to the table, explain why.

For the life of me, I can't figure out where you get this. I really can't. That's why I keep asking you for quotes and it's obviously why you provide none.

I'll post this one more time then I'm done with you on this topic. You can have the last word with your snark, intentional misrepresentations of what I said and outright lies.

As it relates to the Harvard paper and BLM.

(1) The paper studied two types of conduct: use of lethal force and use of non-lethal force.

(2) The paper concluded there was no bias in use of lethal force. The paper concluded AAs were 20% more likely than whites to be subject to non-lethal force.

(3) BLM asserts, among other things that: (a) black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise; (b) there are named and unnamed wars on black people ongoing in this country; (c) Black poverty and genocide is state violence; and (d) black lives are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state. In particular, (a) is littered throughout it's purpose statement and other organizing principle statements. It is a fundamental premise of BLM.

(4) BLM rose to prominence in the wake of high-profile DEATHS of AAs, starting with Trayvon Martin and exploding with Michael Brown.

(5) The Harvard report directly refutes the assertion that AAs are targeted for lethal force. That directly contradicts 2(b) ("genocide"), 2(c) ("black lives savagely targeted by the State") and undercuts each of the other four assertions in paragraph 2.

(6) The findings on use of non-lethal force also undercut BLM assertions. 20%, while troubling and certainly worth addressing, does not suggest, IMO, "systematic and intentional" targeting, a named war on AAs; nor systematic and savage targeting of AAs.

(7) Combining the 20% non-lethal with 0% lethal only strengthens the statement in (6).

Conclusion: the Harvard study directly refutes an essential basis for BLM and significantly undercuts absolute core fundamental premises of BLM.

Apart from the Harvard study, it is my OPINION, as supported by the findings of the Harvard paper, that:

(1) The State is not committing genocide against AAs;

(2) The State is not intentionally and systematically targeting AAs;

(3) The State is not conducting named and unnamed wars against AA.

As a result, I believe that:

(1) BLM's rhetoric is not accurate;

(2) BLM's rhetoric is dishonest; and

(3) BLM's rhetoric and demagoguery impedes honest and responsible discourse on serious issues.

I have also read BLM's Platform. I fundamentally disagree with the bulk of that.

My conclusion -- I reject BLM as dishonest. I reject BLM as making it more difficult to have an honest conversation about important issues. I reject BLM because of its stated platform.

That said:

(1) BLM is activist group. They needed to shock and alarm to gain attention. They have our attention. If they now choose to act with some responsibility going forward I may change my mind on them. I've read some things that suggest they are inching toward a more grounded approach. I doubt I will ever agree with them, but it's certainly possible I won't consider them an impediment to progress.

(2) The Harvard study is important for a myriad of reasons. There are problems. The problems do need fixed. The problems, while bad, are not some sort of Jim Crow awful. That is to say, we're on the right track and the problems are within the range of "fixable" -- that's hugely encouraging. But, it requires acknowledgement of the problem and I'm all in on that. This is of no surprise to anyone who as read my posts.

(3) I think we need to seriously think about policing strategies and work with the communities most affected. As I said, we need to look at "Broken Windows" policing vs. "ACLU Policing" and everything in between. And ultimately we need direct community input. My visceral feeling is that the communities affected will ultimately side more toward "Broken Windows" policing. That will, of course, increase interactions with the police, so we need to figure out a sensible way to improve outcomes of those interactions. Or so it would seem.

Those aren't all of my thoughts, but it's good enough. Have at it. I'm done.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Good post Talent. I think groups like BLM are effective in raising the issue, but are incredibly detrimental in ADDRESSING issues. This is a good example, how much time have you and hack spent arguing about BLM and its legitimacy, when you both agree there is a problem.

[hack]

It does seem like there is a genuine misunderstanding here. I don't know how I can simplify it any further, I don't see how quotes are gonna help, and I'm a tad weary of being called a liar whilst patiently explaining what seems very obvious to me. I'm off tonight till Friday (climbing Mt. Elbert, in CO), but I'll take a look and fish out some quotes when I'm back. Maybe that helps.

[entropy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790824/Anthony-Weiner-carried-months-long-online-sexual-relationship-troubled-15-year-old-girl-telling-hard-asking-dress-school-girl-outfits-pressing-engage-rape-fantasies.html

Weiner had online sexual relationship with 15 yr girl


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[entropy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/?utm_content=buffer8275e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&adbsc=social_20160922_66115856&adbid=778760735346130944&adbpl=tw&adbpr=125698443

Rich work more... And the poor work less.... At least according to this study.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Da Geezer]

Good links Entropy. From the Atlantic article:

Elite men in the U.S. are the world’s chief workaholics. They work longer hours than poorer men in the U.S. and rich men in other advanced countries. In the last generation, they have reduced their leisure time by more than any other demographic. As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”

The really rich folks I know all view work as a creative process. Most view accumulating money as scorekeeping. Zuckerberg today committed $ 3 billion to establish a health research hub in San Francisco. Microsoft yesterday announced a commitment to cure cancer within 10 years (using nanotechnology to "hack" into the DNA of cancer cells). Good for them.

[Wild Hoss]

I tend to think its a little more complicated than the article suggests.

For one, I don't think your average hedge fund manager or Silicon Valley CEO would be putting in 60-70 hours a week if they were laying brick out in the sun instead of typing up emails in an air-conditioned office. Its also unlikely that a roofer is going to become "rich" no matter how many hours they work. What an individual does matters a great in this context.

The article also focuses on younger people, who almost by definition, goof off more than older ones. You don't find alot of 60-somethings at FACs or playing softball....they're working late to avoid their wives. :-D

I do like the point about video games though; they are corrosive. I am constantly battling to keep my son's usage to a manageable level, and encourage reading an other pursuits. He would play for 12 hours straight if allowed. Maybe more.

[iam416]

Meanwhile, in Charlotte, uncivil protest continues.

I don't know what happened in the shooting. I don't know if the officer was justified or reasonable in his use of force. I do know that racism did not motivate the shooting.

It wouldn't surprise me if AAs are once again destroying their own communities based on a very poor choice of a martyr.

Meanwhile, a Salon columnists ask "Why are cops OK with killing black people?" http://www.salon.com/2016/09/21/why-...t-fully-human/

He should read up on the Harvard study that mocks his question.

[Wild Hoss]

I saw the Charlotte video this morning...that one is puzzling. Three officers had a dead bead on the man as he walked back to his car; either he was whacked-out on something, or they dreadfully overreacted. No sane person is reaching through a car window to draw down in that situation.

Setting aide the racial aspect, and as I have said before, we have some troubling subtexts within the law enforcement culture IMO. We have an increasingly ?macho and militarized? aspect and another of paranoia which are intermingling, and not surprisingly, that nexus leads to unfortunate results. For one, its now apparently become accepted to shoot people when there is the perception of a threat/weapon, instead of evidence of one.

I don?t want officers being killed or wounded, but we can?t be shooting people dead for the act of reaching into a car.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I think there was another flaw in the article in that I don't think it took the underemployed into account. How many "poor" people would work additional hours if they were available?

[iam416]

I saw the Charlotte video this morning...that one is puzzling. Three officers had a dead bead on the man as he walked back to his car; either he was whacked-out on something, or they dreadfully overreacted. No sane person is reaching through a car window to draw down in that situation.

That sounds like the Tulsa debacle. I didn't realize they released the Charlotte video. My understanding is they hadn't. It's also my understanding that he did have a weapon. Whether it was drawn or not, I dunno.

My comment was more the fact that he was shot by an AA policeman so, you know, I'm not sure how racism plays into it. Incompetence is always a possibility. As I said, I have no clue what actually happened.

[Wild Hoss]

That could be...I just wandered past the TV, saw it, and they were talking about Charlotte.

[entropy]

hoss.. get pulled over for speeding and the cop comes to your car, spits out chew on the ground and creates a posture of domination all the while holding his gun. And as I sit in my care with my wife and 2 small kids, he's puffing his chest as if he's a bull waiting to challenge another for mating rights. Others have had similar experiences... escalation seems to be the new norm.