Chuck Nessa

America unleashed

376 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Coda said:

One of the best reforms possible would be to eliminate the clout of the union and make it easy to fire someone.   Remove the pension and move to a standard 401K like the rest of us.   Do this across all government.   I bet the rest would fix itself quickly.  Did you know governments budget overtime for police.  That's just crazy and shows poor planning at all levels.  

Eliminate the unions! That's an idea I can get behind, but you stopped at government as if the UAW, teamsters, AFL-CIO and others have no clout/power or pensions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan Gould said:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w27324.pdf

Abstract:

This paper provides the first empirical examination of the impact of federal and state "Pattern-or Practice" investigations on crime and policing. For investigations that were not preceded by "viral" incidents of deadly force, investigations, on average, led to a statistically significant reduction in homicides and total crime. In stark contrast, all investigations that were preceded by "viral" incidents of deadly force have led to a large and statistically significant increase in homicides and total crime. We estimate that these investigations caused almost 900 excess homicides and almost 34,000 excess felonies. The leading hypothesis for why these investigations increase homicides and total crime is an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by almost 90% in the month after the investigation was announced. In Riverside CA, interactions decreased 54%. In St. Louis, self-initiated police activities declined by 46%. Other theories we test such as changes in community trust or the aggressiveness of consent decrees associated with investigations -- all contradict the data in important ways.

More here:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/harvard-professors-research-defunding-the-police-could-cost-thousands-of-black-lives/

(BTW his empirical study of officer-involved shootings a few years ago found that whites were more likely to be shot, but African-Americans were more likely to be subject to non-lethal force.)

And, it ought not to matter but the Harvard prof is black. I bring that up because last week some lefty journalist simply retweeted the results of someone else's study which verified that in 1968, peaceful protest increased democrat vote share, and violent protest decreased it. The result? He was found to be a racist and summarily fired. But that's really a whole nother post as "cancel" culture has gotten a hold of this situation and taken many, many scalps to date.

Apparently all kinds of problems with this "study", which isn't a peer-reviewed study at all, but a working paper.  

And not that this ought to matter either, but Harvard suspended Fryer for two years in 2019 after multiple sexual harassment allegations.  

1 hour ago, catesta said:

Eliminate the unions! That's an idea I can get behind, but you stopped at government as if the UAW, teamsters, AFL-CIO and others have no clout/power or pensions.

 

Yes, because unions are so powerful and evil!  And they are the true problem in America today, not the extreme shift in wealth over the past 40 years that has gone to a very small and very rich number of Americans, while the rest of us have seen wage stagnation. :rolleyes:

Fresh proof that strong unions help reduce income inequality

Unions have been taking it on the chin, legally speaking and otherwise, since I was a kid.  Ironically enough, IMO police unions have remained so strong in large part because they're the one union that conservatives *can* get behind.  Politically speaking, look at who the NYPD union's in bed with.  As somebody who continues to strongly support unions in general, and thinks they're needed more than ever as a counterweight to big business, I'm not in favor of simply busting up police unions, and I doubt it could be done all that easily anyway.  But there are other ways for municipalities and state/fed govt to negate their ability to block reforms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghost of miles said:

  But there seem to be a fair # of titles that fall into a gray area when it comes to copyright/legitimacy and the rules of this board.

Indeed there are. If you will point out such examples and would like to call them into question, I'll be happy to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

Keep in mind that this is an international forum, so different countries have different laws. It's proven both impossible and ill-advised to moderate discussions of such items based on laws that do not apply to the global membership.

My objection to so much of that shit is neither legal nor remunerative, it's just that, what, you want to pay money for something you could just as easily get for free?

1 hour ago, catesta said:

Eliminate the unions!

Uh, yeah. fuck that idea.

And fuck disbanding the police.

In both cases, severe reform and reimagining are needed, but in both cases, people need protections, and that's where they should be able to get them in an honest and good-faith manner. Because who's gonna make sure you don't get screwed, your employer? You local thug? Who, exactly.

Or is there no legitimate collective, it's just nobody looks after nobody but themselves and do until others before they do unto you?

Uh, yeah. fuck that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we are going to provide governmental health care (as many countries do, especially in Europe) and a government guaranteed wage, we need the unions (not the kinds of unions Jim alluded to) more than we’ve probably needed them since the 1930s to protect people from corporations.  I’m hoping they make a comeback and with this generation I’m hopeful they will.

A few months ago Jim went ballistic (maybe too strong a term) about the boomers and my first thought when he said that, “well, there goes Jim again,” but he was right, our generation has messed things up big time and I’m hoping the generation that is trying to put things right in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

Apparently all kinds of problems with this "study", which isn't a peer-reviewed study at all, but a working paper.  

And not that this ought to matter either, but Harvard suspended Fryer for two years in 2019 after multiple sexual harassment allegations.  

 

I see nothing in the Snopes piece that negates his findings. and it in fact ends with the notation that it WAS published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2018 so that's pretty amusing.  And working papers are still studies! 

You should have stopped at "not that this ought to matter either"

From what I can see the black economist is the youngest tenured professor at Harvard.  Bet he gets cancelled now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brad said:

...my first thought when he said that, “well, there goes Jim again,”...

Well yeah, there's always that!!! :g:g:g

But i will say this - who want unions destroyed? Predators.

and who wants police disbanded? Predators.

and who just wants shit to be right, to work the way it's supposed to work?

Everybody else. Every-fucking-body else.

People, study your history - OUR history. Know how we got here. Not the cheap emo slogans that come from all sides today, the reality of just who is willing to do what to whom and then look the other way about it. Life is supposed to be sacred, but damn is it cheap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Reece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

 

I see nothing in the Snopes piece that negates his findings. and it in fact ends with the notation that it WAS published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2018 so that's pretty amusing.  And working papers are still studies! 

You should have stopped at "not that this ought to matter either"

From what I can see the black economist is the youngest tenured professor at Harvard.  Bet he gets cancelled now.

You have a very different takeaway from the Snopes article than I do.  And if he gets "cancelled," it will be because he's evidently a sexual harasser.  But that's about as relevant to his study as your citing his ethnicity.  

Here's why I'm skeptical of Roland Fryer's study

Fryer's paper came to opposite conclusion as a paper last year because it used different data

I'm not an economist, crime expert, etc.  Just saying that your citing of this paper doesn't exactly close the case when it comes to U.S. law enforcement and the disproportionate shooting of African-Americans.  

12 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Well yeah, there's always that!!! :g:g:g

But i will say this - who want unions destroyed? Predators.

and who wants police disbanded? Predators.

and who just wants shit to be right, to work the way it's supposed to work?

Everybody else. Every-fucking-body else.

People, study your history - OUR history. Know how we got here. Not the cheap emo slogans that come from all sides today, the reality of just who is willing to do what to whom and then look the other way about it. Life is supposed to be sacred, but damn is it cheap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Reece

:tup :tup :tup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonstrators tried to pull the Jackson statue in Lafayette Park in DC but were eventually repulsed by police. This follows on the heels of statues of Washington and Grant being pulled down.  Although I have no issue with getting rid of Confederate statues, I’m not sure how I feel about Jackson. Washington and Grant? No, those shouldn’t be touched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2020 at 3:05 PM, JSngry said:

and who wants police disbanded? Predators.

No, this statement is just wrong.  People who want police disbanded are people who are tired of the police harassing and harming them for centuries literally just because of the color of their skin or their current economic condition.  Police exist to defend the property of the propertied classes.  We know that they aren't there to protect the property of the disenfranchised, as we can see by their predilection to throw away the few possessions that homeless people have.  We know that they aren't generally there to protect Blacks and other people of color.  We know that the prison system was enacted and grew as a way to help come up with new free labor after the end of slavery, leading to many thousands of Blacks being arrested and imprisoned for doing nothing wrong, or for doing trivial acts which cops would let whites get away with.

We also know that reforms don't work.  Many of the reforms currently being argued for already exist on paper and are ignored by the police and prosecutors in reality,  Chokeholds?  Already banned in New York for years before Eric Garner was killed with one.  Tear gas?  Police ordered to stop using it, and only two days later they used it again.  The problem is the entire culture of policing, the code of men in Blue, the history behind them, the society that props them up, and the continuing fear that many whites have of any people of color or of giving up any of their superior position.  One study showed that 40% of police are involved in domestic violence.  Policing attracts more than a few people who want to harm people and break the law and, as police, get to do it legally.  Policing also attracts people who want to do good, but far too many don't fit that, or get changed in their training.  That's why the police need to be defunded.  New systems would have to be built, including a crime investigation unit and traffic cops, and non-police units to follow up on domestic issues, trivial matters, people with mental or housing issues, and so forth.

But the vast majority of cops don't get to a crime as it happens to stop it; most murders and robberies are never solved; most rapes are not even investigated and cops far too often say and do things to traumatize the victims even more.  And, just to point out, resisting arrest is not a capital offense, and a cop should never shoot to kill when someone is running away.  Far too many seem to think that any black person who isn't crawling in front of them is about to attack and kill them, so they need to kill them first. What sort of fear are cops trained to have?

So anyway, lost of people who aren't predators have lots of good reasons to disband the police.  The notion that "if you didn't do anything wrong, the police wouldn't trouble you" is one only held by white people.  

Guess you now know where I stand on this.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I stand is that a society will always need a mechanism of protection against malevolent actors, of which there will always be, street thugs, con-men, jewel thieves, back alley blades, hedge fund managers, whatever, they WILL be there. And a society needs an organized mechanism to engage against them.

You can call them "police" or a "civic patrol" or whatever you want, but an organized society will have such a tool in place.

I am not at all in favor of disbanding or otherwise eliminating the "police" as an end unto itself. I am in favor of seriously fixing - redefining - the police. The current model of law enforcement (and note that "law enforcement" is a phrase that does not necessarily imply protection or service) is adequate in neither efficiency, purpose, or execution. We are not protected, we are not served, we are used as pawns in a racial/economic/class hustle that is part of a game that most of us are set up to never really win. At best, we get to not lose.

But you don't just "disband" the police unless you have something better (and lord knows there is something better) to go with. Otherwise...what have you got other than a complaint without a solution?

So if the plan is to disband and replace, sure, let's do that. But this"defund"/"disband" talk, yeah, ok, then what?

I've lived too long in a world of valid complaints turning into silly slogans accompanied by zero visions of what to do after. That's a perfect recipe for nothing to happen except more of the same, only worse. Because, they have a vision, they have a plan, they know how to execute. How the hell is a slogan going to beat that? If you take it apart and don't put something better in its place, they will be back.

Yuck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/16/2020 at 1:02 PM, catesta said:

Eliminate the unions! That's an idea I can get behind, but you stopped at government as if the UAW, teamsters, AFL-CIO and others have no clout/power or pensions.

 

So is it just non-union people who hate unions? I love my union. They are there to make sure I am being treated fairly. As someone who spent 15 years in the private sector without a union, knowing I can achieve my career goals by doing my job and not have silly office politics get in the way is incredible. This is from someone who has never had to contact my union for any reason work related. There are people that abuse the unions power but you get crappy people in all walks of life. I don't get the anger about unions unless you've never been fortunate enough to be represented by a good union. Long live IBEW! and my pension!

Edited by jcam_44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

So is it just non-union people who hate unions? I love my union. They are there to make sure I am being treated fairly. As someone who spent 15 years in the private sector without a union, knowing I can achieve my career goals by doing my job and not have silly office politics get in the way is incredible. This is from someone who has never had to contact my union for any reason work related. There are people that abuse the unions power but you get crappy people in all walks of life. I don't get the anger about unions unless you've never been fortunate enough to be represented by a good union. Long live IBEW! and my pension!

I have a nephew that is ILWU in CA, he works the mechanical side of things and seems to be doing well. I don't really hate unions, but I do have problems with some.

Do you still work in private sector?

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, catesta said:

I have a nephew that is ILWU in CA, he works the mechanical side of things and seems to be doing well. I don't really hate unions, but I do have problems with some.

Do you still work in private sector?

 

 
 

Nope. I get the bad rap unions have. I'm just always fascinated by how many people talk about unions (not you, in general) without ever being in one or knowing anything about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/06/24/madison-protesters-pull-down-forward-hans-christian-heg-statues-attack-senator-sculptures-in-lake/3247948001/

So now protesters in Wisconsin:

Pulled down the progressive "Forward" statue, beheaded and tossed into a lake a statue of a Union abolitionist who fought and died in the Civil War, and assaulted an openly gay, progressive state legislator when he took a picture.

So much for the summer of love. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this just iconoclasm for the sake of it, tear them down whoever they are, or am I missing something here? Report says the statue was also felled in 90s. Why a target twice?

The statue felling here seems to have abated here after Colston in Bristol and finally the agreed removal of Rhodes in Oxford.  Winston C still standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mjazzg said:

So is this just iconoclasm for the sake of it, tear them down whoever they are, or am I missing something here? Report says the statue was also felled in 90s. Why a target twice?

The statue felling here seems to have abated here after Colston in Bristol and finally the agreed removal of Rhodes in Oxford.  Winston C still standing.

Iconoclasm it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an interview last night with a young woman from Venezuela. Her words.....

"I don't think they're seeing past what's going to happen next because they're thinking these are just symbols of oppression," she noted. "But, I had a lot of friends [who] told me, 'Oh, it's just the Confederate statues.' And, I said, 'No, it's not going to be just the Confederate statues. Just wait and see.' This is a slippery slope."

"Founding Fathers are going to be attacked. Religious symbols are going to be attacked. And next, probably, museums." she predicted. "I mean, anything can be attacked if you just let it happen. If you just let the first ones come down, then [there are] no limits to what's next."

"It's an attempt to change the identity of the country. That's my opinion. And, that's what they did to us," she said. "Of course, it was different. At that point, they already had taken the government. But, at this point, they're trying to change the national identity and they're trying to destroy the system. And, if they get to the government, they'll do it. They certainly will do it."

 

On 6/23/2020 at 2:47 AM, Adam said:

No, this statement is just wrong.  People who want police disbanded are people who are tired of the police harassing and harming them for centuries literally just because of the color of their skin or their current economic condition.  Police exist to defend the property of the propertied classes.  We know that they aren't there to protect the property of the disenfranchised, as we can see by their predilection to throw away the few possessions that homeless people have.  We know that they aren't generally there to protect Blacks and other people of color.  We know that the prison system was enacted and grew as a way to help come up with new free labor after the end of slavery, leading to many thousands of Blacks being arrested and imprisoned for doing nothing wrong, or for doing trivial acts which cops would let whites get away with.

We also know that reforms don't work.  Many of the reforms currently being argued for already exist on paper and are ignored by the police and prosecutors in reality,  Chokeholds?  Already banned in New York for years before Eric Garner was killed with one.  Tear gas?  Police ordered to stop using it, and only two days later they used it again.  The problem is the entire culture of policing, the code of men in Blue, the history behind them, the society that props them up, and the continuing fear that many whites have of any people of color or of giving up any of their superior position.  One study showed that 40% of police are involved in domestic violence.  Policing attracts more than a few people who want to harm people and break the law and, as police, get to do it legally.  Policing also attracts people who want to do good, but far too many don't fit that, or get changed in their training.  That's why the police need to be defunded.  New systems would have to be built, including a crime investigation unit and traffic cops, and non-police units to follow up on domestic issues, trivial matters, people with mental or housing issues, and so forth.

But the vast majority of cops don't get to a crime as it happens to stop it; most murders and robberies are never solved; most rapes are not even investigated and cops far too often say and do things to traumatize the victims even more.  And, just to point out, resisting arrest is not a capital offense, and a cop should never shoot to kill when someone is running away.  Far too many seem to think that any black person who isn't crawling in front of them is about to attack and kill them, so they need to kill them first. What sort of fear are cops trained to have?

So anyway, lost of people who aren't predators have lots of good reasons to disband the police.  The notion that "if you didn't do anything wrong, the police wouldn't trouble you" is one only held by white people.  

Guess you now know where I stand on this.  :-)

So, is this a white vs. black thing, or is it about the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, catesta said:

I watched an interview last night with a young woman from Venezuela. Her words.....

"I don't think they're seeing past what's going to happen next because they're thinking these are just symbols of oppression," she noted. "But, I had a lot of friends [who] told me, 'Oh, it's just the Confederate statues.' And, I said, 'No, it's not going to be just the Confederate statues. Just wait and see.' This is a slippery slope."

"Founding Fathers are going to be attacked. Religious symbols are going to be attacked. And next, probably, museums." she predicted. "I mean, anything can be attacked if you just let it happen. If you just let the first ones come down, then [there are] no limits to what's next."

"It's an attempt to change the identity of the country. That's my opinion. And, that's what they did to us," she said. "Of course, it was different. At that point, they already had taken the government. But, at this point, they're trying to change the national identity and they're trying to destroy the system. And, if they get to the government, they'll do it. They certainly will do it."

 

A very reactionary take, complete with slippery slope fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, catesta said:

She's wrong?

She's fearmongering via use of slippery slope within a reactionary context. It's a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, presumptive stance in favor of the status quo. It's ridiculous to me, but hey, different strokes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dub Modal said:

She's fearmongering via use of slippery slope within a reactionary context. It's a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, presumptive stance in favor of the status quo. It's ridiculous to me, but hey, different strokes. 

That’s mostly my take too. There may be any number of grains of truth in what she suggests, but I do not concur with her larger point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love hearing "slippery slope" when it took about a day and a half to go from Confederate statues to statues of George Washington.

In the absence of the pandemic and the economic damage it has done - in other words, if the only important thing to happen was the horrific murder of George Floyd, and the economy was where it was in February, the only question would be the margin of Trump's re-election.  

The insanity of the left is the only thing that can keep him from being blown out under the current circumstances. Can it be tamped down a little bit? Time will tell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rooster_Ties said:

That’s mostly my take too. There may be any number of grains of truth in what she suggests, but I do not concur with her larger point.

Grains of truth is a stretch for me here though.

Founding fathers attacked - they're long dead, so we're talking about "attacks" on their current mythological context which frames them outside of the reality of their times. 

Religious symbols attacked - absolutely loaded, but similar to the statement above on the Founding Fathers of the US. 

Museums attacked - bizarre, but I think overall the effort here is to build fear over the toppling or re-framing of the core mythical beliefs and how they're presented as fact to uphold the status quo power structure. 

4 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

I love hearing "slippery slope" when it took about a day and a half to go from Confederate statues to statues of George Washington.

If you don't mind the slippery slope fallacy in her statement(s) and are fearful over statues being damaged and/or removed then you are her audience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Founding Fathers ! So much confusion between  0°F and 0 K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.