As we work our way through another spate of police killings, don’t overlook this vital detail. Just one week after a Tulsa officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect, that officer has been booked into jail on felony charges.
One. Week.
How long do you think it would take for that officer to face any form of reprimand, much less a prosecution, if she were working in Chicago, New York or Baltimore? Answer: How long is never?
Police violence is likely to link up with poor public education as the thorniest issue the Clinton Administration will face. Police brutality can happen anywhere. However, it is only an endemic problem in places where local political figures are too weak to challenge public employee unions. In other words, it is a blue state problem that exposes a hemorrhaging rift inside the Democratic coalition.
From a post in January, Police brutality is a blue-state problem:
Southern states generally lack mandatory collective bargaining agreements and their public employee unions lack the political organization enjoyed by Northern peers. Southern states have plenty of racism, but the public will not tolerate extreme abuses. Much more importantly, the public possesses the power to hold police and other public workers accountable. Voters in Chicago or Baltimore may be less influenced by racism, but voters there have no leverage to hold police consistently or reliably accountable.
You’re looking at the most divisive issue of the 2020 Democratic primary season and there is no easy resolution in sight.
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
Trump courts the women’s vote:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/651452/trump-doubles-down-former-miss-universe-alicia-machado-gained-massive-amount-weight
Yeah, that’ll get them in your camp.
He’s also playing with fire if he brings up the Monica thing in the next debate. A thrice married adulterer with suspected sexist leanings blames a woman for getting cheated on?
That’s going to be an unmitigated disaster. I’m looking for Hillary to try to truck Trump into bringing it up, and I think he will.
If he shows up at the second debate, that is.
He will.
1mime, by “he will” do you mean he will show up at the debate, or that he will brings up the Monica affair? Or both?
He will show up and I believe he will be much stronger in his attacks using whatever rhetoric he thinks will insult and hurt her.
I half-watched the debate while doing some work last night, and I was a little out-of-sync with the rest of the world in terms of viewing it as an easy Hillary win. I thought she did fine, but I felt that Trump generally got away with bluster and fast talking without really being called out on it.
I assumed it would be viewed as a normal performance by Trump and a fine performance by Hillary, which would result in a draw.
From reading this morning, it seems that the world disagrees with me, and Hillary is viewed as the big winner.
So, given the history of polling after a debate, if Hillary doesn’t gain in the polling over the next week, I think it is going to be safe the assume that Trump is an un-killable candidate and nothing that would normally damage a candidate hurts him.
We have had a dozen, “well, this will be the thing that finally really hurts Trump” moments since the start of the year, and nothing actually seems to stop him. He’s the Jason Vorhees of presidential candidates.
Maybe this will be the time.
She had a more subtle performance. At first, I thought she looked like she was concentrating so hard in what she would say next that she missed any opportunity to rebut some of Trumps absurd statements. I thought that was a mistake. In the second half, her strategy became a little clearer: she would be the adult in the room, and barely respond to Trump, instead make her points on policy, and let the contrast of Trump speak for itself. Almost every answer was meandering and off message to the point of absurdity. Hed get asked about NATO, and he’d end up talking about Saudi Arabia, or asked about birtherism, and end up talking about Sid Blumenthal and Patti Solis Doyle (who, hilariously, was on the CNN panel and was able to state unequivocally in real time that what Trump had said she “admitted” about Clintons role in birtherism was completely made up. It was obvious she was truly befuddled).
Then after he rambles incoherently about something and ends up at a point that has nothing to do with the original question, Hillary comes in with something like “I’d like to go back to the original question, which was about…..”
It was very effective. She sounded in control, informed, and competent. She looked presidential and Trump did not, simple as that. She looked like she prepared and took it seriously, he looked like he spent 20 minutes yesterday afternoon cramming.
Certainly, the debate won’t convince any partisan. Trumps followers won’t care. But for the tens of millions who are just now seriously tuning in, or who are genuinely undecided, Trump did nothing to convince them he’s ready, and probably DID convince a nice chunk of them that he has no clue what he’s talking about.
I thought her answer abiut NATO and that America must be able to be counted on to keep its word was very effective.
I thought in addition to the general impression that he’s an incoherent mess, he made some very specific mistakes that could end up being very damaging, specifically him basically admitting he pays no taxes, and that that makes him “smart” because if he did, the government would “squander it”. I think the birther answer was terrible, especially the part where he said that he actually did everyone a SERVICE by casting unfounded suspicion in the first black president. And the stuff about blacks and Hispanics “living in hell” and that the way to heal racial division was “LAW AND ORDER!” is also a huge dud.
While Hillary was definitely unexciting, she came off as ready, as presidential, and she made no major mistakes.
I think the polls will move reasonably in HRC’s favor, but I don’t think she quite scored a knockout blow. I think she’ll move up no more then 5 points in the polls. But I think it will solidify that lead a lot. I.e. the overall bump may not be huge, but I think it will harden considerably. I think Trump might find himself with a very hard ceiling after this.
I agree with your assessment, Rob. I would like to add that making Rosie O’Donnell a topic in a Presidential debate hit a new low in political discourse.
“She had a more subtle performance. At first, I thought she looked like she was concentrating so hard in what she would say next that she missed any opportunity to rebut some of Trumps absurd statements. I thought that was a mistake. In the second half, her strategy became a little clearer: she would be the adult in the room, and barely respond to Trump, instead make her points on policy, and let the contrast of Trump speak for itself.”
That’s really her best course of action, as much as you and I would want to see her completely eviscerate that ignorant blowhard. There is this totally unfair and sexist double standard here that works against a woman who’s preceived as “too agressive” or “too ambitious”. Never mind that you need some of those atributes to do the job. People can be such idiots sometimes.
There are 2 more opportunities to allow Trump to finish hanging himself. Provided he doesn’t make up some lame excuse and chicken out. That would not surprise me at all.
Hillary achieved the goal of not only appearing the best informed, but the most steady of the two major candidates. This is round one. Just as Obama failed to win his first debate with Romney, I think we’ll see a different Trump for succeeding meets. Hillary at least now has time to study how to better respond to T’s more effective points (NAFTA, jobs) and bolster her own (organization/plans, foreign affairs). Emails will get more attention in succeeding meets.
I think that if T pulls out the Lewinsky, et al stuff, it’s old hat. Since H already lived through this, he won’t rattle her and won’t be telling her base anything new. Sadly, T’s base already has a low bar for him so they probably didn’t see last night as informed voters will. Per 538, it will take a number of days for the polls to reflect the sentiment of the nation and any change in trend lines.
Most people have made up their minds. The real target audience is the GOPe types who ought to be horrified by Trump’s thin skin and ignorance about practically everything, and the Sanders voters who ought to be worried about more trickle-down economics and the prospect of Trump’s SCOTUS picks. Have you people seen enough yet? Is THAT what you want in the Oval Office? An ignorant man-child whose only true talents are self-promotion and parasite-capitalism?
I didn’t watch or listen, but I’m reading the transcripts/ commentary. So that mofo was actually using speaking time for advertising his new hotel. I’m beyond being shocked at this point.
I’m no big fan of Salon, but this article helps explain why nothing Trump does or says will ever matter to his supporters: http://www.salon.com/2016/09/26/its-science-stupid-why-do-trump-supporters-believe-so-many-things-that-are-crazy-and-wrong/
Basically people “believe” nonsense because the belief helps define their identity as part of their chosen group, and because it elicits aggravation from another hated group.
They can be summed up in one newly coined word: “stigginit”. For right now they are a lost cause, and they need to be written off for this election. The best bet for the Dems is to persuade as many people as they can in those 2 groups I mentioned, while also making sure they have something to offer Hislanic and Black Anericans. If they can get the White House and the Senate, they need to work very hard in the next 2 years, and start some reforms that address the economic issues that fueled Trump’s rise. As for the racist portion of it, that will be more of “call us when you’re ready to live in the 21st Century”, otherwise continue to be marginalized.
As much as those of us who find Trump appalling would like to believe that his supporters are all racist, uneducated, irrational people, that is just not accurate in this sense. For so many voters, the poisoning process surrounding Hillary Clinton’s life “trumps” the worst aspects of DJT. Obviously, I don’t share that view, but know some very nice people (Republicans) who feel he is the lessor of the evil.
Further, in watching smart business people comment on CNBC this morning about each candidate, people who are obviously intelligent and concerned about our country, there are real issues they identify that make Trump appealing to the business class. Again, I don’t think one can separate business acumen from rational temperament and good judgement in this position of leadership, but they do raise valid concerns. Many spoke about the lack of focus on issues that are very important to our economy that did not get sufficient play last night. To them I say, host your own forum. The issues chosen by the moderator are also legitimate and their relative priority undoubtedly is not shared by all, but are important to many.
In one interview this morning, by former CEO of Medtronic, Bill George offered excellent points about the debate from a business perspective. The most significant, to me, were his thoughts about repatriation of taxable corporate income. He thinks American politicians need to find a way to encourage businesses to return these off-shored dollars but that there should be stipulations as to how this money can be used. IOW, don’t dump it into the general fund, but use it to address critical needs that help the people and the country by providing quality, market-relevant skills training, health care, and that address critical infrastructure needs of our country. It is important to recognize that Trump has presented real concerns – problems with job loss and impact of NAFTA, repatriation of funds, and the fragility of our economy vis a vis productivity and long term debt.
Hillary Clinton would be wise to frame future remarks and demonstrate that she understands these problems and how she will address them. The job of POTUS is so complex that it is a daunting task to speak to the many legitimate varied needs of our country. There are also equally important security and trade issues America faces as a member of a global society. You don’t get to “pick” which area you like best as president, you have to be competent and pragmatic about how to deal with all of them. Trump has areas of expertise but they are incredibly narrow and very personally driven. Clinton, I believe, is a better big picture candidate who will more safely and competently manage all of them. Those are our two choices and I am with HER.
.
“Further, in watching smart business people comment on CNBC this morning about each candidate, people who are obviously intelligent and concerned about our country, there are real issues they identify that make Trump appealing to the business class. Again, I don’t think one can separate business acumen from rational temperament and good judgement in this position of leadership, but they do raise valid concerns.”
But what is Trump actually offering, detail-wise, other that Ryan’s tax cuts for the rich? Would these guys sign a business contract on something with no more substance than “I’m great at making deals”? I’m betting no, but it’s ok to turn the government over to someone with no plan? It’s not enough just to mention someone’s concerns.
Trump has an economic plan on his website. He predicts that the entitlements he protects and expands (Medicare and the new Parental leave program) will be paid for by increases in new business activity stimulated by his 15% tax rate. I don’t believe in trickle down economics and I sure don’t believe in Trump’s “phantom” economics.
The point I was making is that Trump is giving “voice” to legitimate areas of need and Clinton would be well advised to study their legitimacy. He spoke with passion about those out of work people in OH, W.VA, PA….and there are real needs there. Of course, you and I both know that this is a pitch to his base, but it’s selling and these people do need help. That’s the thing Clinton needs to be aware of and she didn’t seize upon Trump’s remarks with statements of her own that showed she understands these problems and is committed to addressing them.
I read somewhere this week that there is not a single CEO or CFO on the Fortune 500 list that has endorsed Trump. That sounds good for Hillary until you read that only 19 have endorsed her…more, but not a wholesale welcome. However, there are smart business leaders who are speaking out, such as Bill George, with practical and important suggestions and they don’t feel either candidate is focused sufficiently on these things.
As for the comparison between Paul Ryan’s economic plan and Trump’s, Ryan is a policy wonk and his plan will have details that Trump will never offer. That’s because Trump is trying to have the best of both worlds – attract support from the business sector for his “business” skills, while not quantifying details (as you noted) that will give his critics something to score.
I want Hillary to win but I also want a hard, deep look at our nations’ needs – social, economic and security. This may not be the election or the president to accomplish this task, but if Clinton wins and she is to try to build support for some of her strong proposals – (raising minimum wage, expanding health care coverage, offering affordable higher ed, helping women and children with pre-school and paid family and maternity leave, equal pay for equal work, retraining of workers in obsolete job sectors, re-building the nation’s infrastructure – to name a few), she will have to enlist the business sector AND the public to take on more expense and the wealthy to pay higher taxes.
When your goal requires funding and you don’t control the House (and quite possibly the Senate), the only other option is to build support in the business community and with the people of America. They must be convinced that these programs are worthy and will benefit all of them in some way – which I clearly think they will.
Anyone got any comments on who “won” the debate tonight? I think Hillary did pretty pretty good today.
All I can say is I got home late, turned on the live feed on YouTube (obligatory “What a world!” comment) and watched the last ten minutes, where what looked like a worn out and irritated Trump tried to create a new campaign meme with ‘stamina’ that Hillary relished taking down.
Other than that, I don’t know what people see in debates. My social network feeds pretty much say the same things about the candidates post-debate as they did pre.
You might feel differently if you had watched the entire debate.
People best remember the beginnings and ends of movies. This one ended with Trump stuttering something about how Clinton and Rosie O’Donnell are mean to him. In pragmatist technocratic Formdib world, Clinton wins that one. In the really real world where 538 has Trump 45% chance of winning heading into the debate, a blubbering manchild could read as ‘strength’ or something to, somebody, I don’t know, I’m not them, I don’t know how they got him this far.
Also I hate to do this, but I need to pull the Millennial card and point out that the Rosie O’Donnell and Howard Stern aren’t majorly relevant pop figures anymore.
The Rosie O’Donnell card was not for the audience – irrespective of age- it was to needle Trump. It didn’t matter if you knew her or not – Trump did and he was forced to acknowledge his “less then presidential” remarks over years about this woman….When you run for president, “words matter”….no matter when you’ve used them.
And, for the record, I disagree about only the beginning and end of a debate being important. Staying power is important to a Pres’ job and T’s inability to sit still, focus and think deeply on any subject that doesn’t involve himself is germane.
Besides, you’ve had a year or so of education on this blog which has prepped your intellect very thoroughly….YOU probably didn’t need to watch the whole debate, but millions of other people who (somehow) haven’t decided who to vote for – did.
Well what was interesting about the Rosie O’Donnell moment is that Clinton said he called ‘women’ those things, and then HE proffered up this specific thing, which means his answer to “This guy does not treat women well” is “I’M STILL VINDICTIVE AGAINST THAT MEAN WOMAN WHO MADE ME SAD TWO DECADES AGO.”
Has there ever been any doubt that he has changed?
I think it was a campaign direction reset just like the conventions were. People were reminded of ugly boorish sexist Trump. And close to 100 million people watched the debate. I feel that Hillary’s lead will grow from here on.
Much to the consternation of the media that had this debate hyped like a flaming cage match suspended over Niagara Falls, Clinton walked away with this one by a country mile.
To be sure, there was not a single partisan on either side that would be swayed by this debate. Tonight was for those college-educated whites, suburban women who have voted Republican in the past, moderate and Republican-leaning Independents that are turned off by Trump and haven’t been sold on Clinton or are leaning towards a third-party candidate.
Trump came off as nothing short of belligerent, constantly interrupting Clinton with nonsensical, bullshit answers that showcased both his lack of temperament (not to borrow one of Clinton’s favorite words, but it’s the truth) and his nauseating narcissism. There was nothing tonight was going to appeal to those voters. Focus groups on CNN and even freakin’ Frank Luntz’s own group had this debate going overwhelmingly to Clinton.
Also, nice little bit of trivia. Clinton was the top-searched candidate via Google in all 50 states after the debate.
She did, pedneuro. She was prepared and it showed. The split screen really illustrated Trump’s narcissism and juvenile behavior and, of course, he wasn’t prepared. What was with all the sniffing? Could it be that the Don is “not well” (-;
Heh yeah he did get the ‘sniffles’, y’know what I mean.
Now, now, maybe Trump’s sniffles are a symptom of walking pneumonia (-; It happens to the “best” of us, you know!
I think we know where his “stamina” comes from now, Pednuro
Roba, by your sentence, “I think we know where his “stamina” comes from now, Pednuro”, do you mean what I think you mean? wink wink.
No question in my mind Hillary did the best! But I am a Hillary fan. i know bunch of Trump followers. they are all low information people. none with an education above high school. None have any intellectual curiosity. And i can say with no doubt they will all think trump won the debate!
Just announced – Bloomberg TV will fact check live during tonight’s debate. Check your channel listing if this is important to you. With Direct TV, that is channel 353..
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/presidential-debate-fact-check-real-time-bloomberg
OT (except it’s ALL about politics), the guy who does “Between Two Ferns” Zack Galifianakis,
is a participant in a new documentary to be presented on EPIX (online), entitled: “America Divided”. Galifianakis is producing his segment on gerrymandering, scheduled to air this Friday, Sept. 30. View EPIX on Youtube or whatever medium you can online.
https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-zach-galifianakis-wants-you-to-know-how-bad-gerrymandering-has-gotten/
Here’s more on the other segments in the series.
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/19/america-divided-documentary-epix-shonda-rhimes-common-norman-lear
The Weekly Sift led me here.
http://news.sky.com/story/scots-police-teach-us-cops-how-to-avoid-gun-use-10151069
I’d settle for all police officers wearing body cameras (that are always on) and requiring dash cams to always be on.
Here’s today’s post from The Weekly Sift. There is a double standard in how police treat the races. Excellent video comments by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks on how America’s Bill of Rights is actually a “Bill of Whites”. The Sift post recaps many shootings and the circumstances under which they occurred, focusing on why they ended with shooting instead of being “talked down” as many white armed people are (Clive Bundy et al?)….If you think black people don’t notice this distinction, you really, really aren’t paying attention.
My hope for tonight’s debate is that Hillary Clinton can demonstrate her superior knowledge, skills, and judgement for those who are still trying to decide how to cast their votes. I have no such expectation for DJ Trump because I simply don’t think he has the capacity to rise above a certain point. I do suspect he will be on his best behavior as he knows this is critical in order to “appear” presidential. I do hope both candidates conduct themselves with civility and seriousness so that all of our young people and the world who are watching can see a substantive, dignified debate from the two major presidential candidates from the leader of the free world.
Here’s a wonderful comment to today’s Weekly Sift by Anonymous about the two major presidential candidates that is so apropos I had to copy for you.
Anonymous:
“Here’s the way I see the two candidates in tonight’s debate, using a high school analogy..
Hillary Clinton is the smart girl with glasses that sat in the front of the class and always had the answer when no one else did. She wasn’t elected prom queen, but she was voted to be in charge of the floats, because then everyone knew they’d get done. She wasn’t elected homecoming queen, but she was voted head of the yearbook committee because everyone knew she’d make it a great yearbook.
Donald Trump was the big mouthed guy who always pushed his way to the front seat of the bus so he could pinch the girls as they went by while broadcasting his opinion of their physical appearance. No one ever asked him to be in charge of anything or voted him prom king, but he did collect a sniggering group of sycophants who liked to hear him say the things they never dared to. Kind of like the Biff character in the movie Back to the Future.
I sincerely hope the smart girl comes out ahead tonight and exposes the big mouth for the bully he truly is.”
Well, there was a shooting near my office in Houston this morning — Weslayan at Bissonet. I work right down the freeway, near Greenway Plaza. I hear there were 7 injured, and the shooter was killed by police.
They’re saying the shooter was a disgruntled lawyer.
“… a disgruntled lawyer.”
Meh.
“… in a Nazi uniform.”
Wait, what?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/multiple-injuries-reported-shooting-houston-shopping-mall-article-1.2806725
I don’t know what to say except I’m happy you’re safe. You know where I stand on gun violence.
I guess shootings are so commonplace now that there really is nothing further to say.
And that the term ‘disgruntled lawyer’ is scary in its own way.
Glad you’re ok Tutt. Also apparently the shooter was in a nazi uniform?
I had not heard about the Nazi uniform.
But the shooter was apparently of Indian heritage (from India).
Glad you weren’t caught up in that. I used to live in that neighborhood and I shopped at that Randall’s frequently. I e-mailed a friend who lives near there now and fortunately she also wasn’t there.
For all the freaking out that goes on about foreign terrorists, I’m far more concerned about home-grown people going postal. And I am several orders of magnitude more worried about the fools who text while driving than people like this loser.
I shop there fairly often. It’s fortunate that the shootings occurred early in the morning when most stores were closed. It could have been worse.
The SPECS has or had the best veggie burger in town.
I live not far from there and occasionally shop in that strip center, and am in the one across the street, which has a Specs (a very good wine/liquor store, fornon-Texas people), far more often. Heard about it while walking my kids to school. The six victims are alive, one in critical condition. Shooter is dead.
On 60 Minutes tonight, the King Abdullah II of Jordan was interviewed. What an interesting man! I was struck by struggle this little country (the size of Indiana) has endured to take in as many Syrian refugees as they have. They finally had to close their borders as they were beyond saturation in terms of feeding, housing, unemployment, educating (there are 160K Syrian children in their schools) meeting health needs, etc. Then I thought about Texas – which is quite a lot larger than IN (and Jordan) and whose governor and others in leadership are threatening to not take any more refugees in. Bear in mind that TX has received $96Million to help settle these people….but the Governor feels the refugees are threats. When you compare the efforts of Jordan and its people, accepting over 1.5 million Syrian refugees, and President Obama offering sanctuary to 180,000 refugees, in a country the size of America and a wealthy country – doesn’t this seem incredibly small to shelter a relatively small number of these refugees? Almost 5 million people have fled Syria – and the fight goes on. There has to be a special place for people like Assad in the next world.
BTW, it was noted in the interview that King Abdullah drives his own car! Not only that, but he converted the Generals building into a high tech school because he said young people should have a chance to share in a better future.
America represents so many fine values but I fear we are losing our sense of humanity.
Mime,
I concur totally. The US should be taking in a lot more refugees. Since the early 20th Century we seem to have forgotten the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. I’m sure that you are aware of the Jewish refugee ship in 1940, which the US refused to accept the refugees and the ship had to return to Germany. A large percentage of the refugees ultimately perished in the Holocaust. But you know the politics as well as anyone. Fortunately, my state is among those are are willing to take the Syrian refugees and even here there is some (limited) political backlash. The GOP candidate for Governor is criticizing our sitting Governor for accepting refugees. Fortunately, he has very little chance of winning.
Yes, WA state has much going for it…mostly, an enlightened populace. Yes, I have been interested in that part of the history leading up to and during WWII especially as it relates to the struggle Jewish people faced. I watched a documentary this week on PBS, “Defying the Nazis”, that profiled the frantic efforts of many people to help Jewish refugees flee Hitler-controlled countries. I could not help but note the irrational fear and hate many Americans demonstrated for the Jewish people, even knowing how bad the war was in Europe. It was much like today in the attitude of repugnance for those who had been deemed inferior and an unwillingness to help lift them up. Here’s a link to the documentary that you can stream online. It’s about 1 hr 20 min. Ken Burns put it together and anything he does is excellent.
The Sharps (Unitarians) are the focus of the refugee relief effort and their story needs to be heard. Amazing profiles in courage and decency at great personal sacrifice and risk.
Fun fact about King Abdullah: before he became King, he was an extra in a Star Trek TNG episode!
Heads of state being Star Trek fans is a very good thing.
King Abdullah is one head of state that I think most regular people could sit down with and have a fun and thoughtful conversation. How fortunate for his people and for the refugees that his country has provided safe care for so unselfishly. Jordan has taken over 1.5 million Syrian refugees, and the US despite a rigorous screening process, is balking over taking 180K – despite our size and wealth….but, I repeat myself.
This is interesting police reform that strikes me as a no-brainer and could be passed on the federal level if we had a functioning Congress.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/end-needless-interaction-with-cops-during-traffic-stops/490412/
For the science geeks among us….a welcome and interesting distraction….
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/13/green-universe-a-vision/?
Let us read a story about a man who has dedicated his life to advancing his race. Representative John Lewis’ remarks at the opening of the new African American Museum in Washington, DC.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/john-lewis-spent-15-years-fighting-for-the-museum–now-the-dream-is-realized/2016/09/14/eeb0ca10-64bb-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?tid=a_inl
Interesting reading about how income inequality has been devastating to black people and follows them throughout their lives. All of these stories relate to this post….because people who can’t get jobs, have inferior educations, don’t have health care – too often end up as either victims or perpetrators of crime. The linkages are not subtle.
http://evonomics.com/protest-income-inequality-african-americans-john-komlos/
Unions get a bad rap from many conservatives, which I don’t think is fair criticism applied as broadly as it is. This story profiles working class people whose lives have improved due to broad economic changes, while noting how difficult it still is for many.
Note in the body of the article how a CA man finally found his chance when the local carpenter’s union “gave him a hand up”. It’s good to read balancing stories about the good that unions can and do in many other walks of life. I include in this statement, both public and private unions. Bad ones exist, barely, but there is some good work being done through unions with training and financial assistance such as the article points out happened for this man. A very positive article on a day filled with apprehension.
I really, really wish John Lewis had run for the Democratic Nomination. He’d make a great president, though he might be a bit too old to run now.
Sadly, Lewis is needed in the House where he serves as a checks and balance on the evil – and I literally mean that – work of the GOP controlled Oversight Committee. First with Darrell Issa, now with Jason Chaffetz. This is a witch hunt operation, purely used to embarrass and harrass people of the opposing party. It is shameful. Lewis has had to be the counterbalance many times to the chair’s flagrant partisanship.
He had seriously considered running for Senate, which I still think he would be great, but felt he was needed more in the House for all the reasons that are obvious under GOP control.
Sometimes the same numbers looked at in a different way can change perspective…especially for a stats challenged person such as myself. The Daily Mail has some graphs that illustrate the phenomenon of close national polling but with a direct comparison by demographic group between Romney and Trump. I think I get it. Clinton is modestly underperforming Obama in ’12 but Trump is REALLY underperforming Romney in ’12.
Even if this data is off by a chunk it does clarify (for this poor mind) that no matter how much redder you can make a red state red, you still only get 175-230 electoral votes for them….but tweak the white vote just a few points (they show up and either vote third party, skip the top of the ticket or don’t vote) can give you purple states like NC, or maybe in a stretch Georgia….Arizona in a real big stretch. And you all thought I was dumb…I just needed time to catch up. Serenity Now!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806794/Trump-s-numbers-white-voters-lag-Mitt-Romney-s-college-educated-white-women-flock-Hillary-Clinton.html
I certainly don’t think you’re “dumb”, Kenneth. How many of the “smart” professional political pundits would have predicted the scenario with Trump as the GOP candidate? Statistics are valuable when they can be applied under predictable, normed situations….This election hardly qualifies as normal.
Welcome to the club of the totally puzzled, deeply concerned, frequently wrong, political nerds….growing by leaps and bounds….
Hi Chris, re. your sentence above, “Police violence is likely to link up with poor public education as the thorniest issue the Clinton Administration will face”, do you think at this rate there WILL be a Clinton administration come next year? After a few days of what seemed like improving polling situation, a slew of bad polls seem to have driven her average lead down. Trump’s white non college educated male support is sky high and he seems to have a real path to the presidency. Thanks.
Trump needs to just flip PA and its all over.
Trump has about a much of a chance of winning PA as David Duke does of being a decent human being.
Spoiler Alert: Neither is going to happen.
When you’re looking at whether a Republican can be competitive in Pennsylvania, you really only need to look at the Philly suburbs to find your answer. President Obama won those suburbs by nine points in ’12 and he carried PA comfortably. Early August, Clinton was shown carrying those suburbs by a whopping 40 points, in no small part because of huge defections of college-educated whites.
Let’s be clear, Clinton does not have to do nearly that well to win the state and even if you cut it in half, that’s still more than double what Obama had when he won in ’12.
Trump is not going to win the Keystone State and it is not going to be close.
Ryan, you better hide your crystal ball as I’m coming for it on Nov. 9th!
Best to hold off on anymore add-ons for the bet, mime. I’m already due for a blue scarf and nice frame for Sophie’s picture; anymore and I’ll start to feel bad.
It will be sooo worth it, Ryan….
Every time I am feeling awful about I read Ryan’s posts and they make me feel better. :-p
pedneuro, this is for you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/26/obamas-campaign-guru-dont-fret-about-polls-clinton-is-winning-and-she-can-finish-the-job-tonight/?utm_term=.e0bbf9ad7c17&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
But are there enough White males without college educations? Trump polls horribly among Blacks, Hispanics, women, and college educated Whites.
I don’t know flypusher. Maybe there aren’t, but why are the polls so tight now?
I have been reading that Trump’s Hispanic support has now caught up to that of Romney. He won’t get black support, but we also don’t know if black voter turn out will be as robust as Trump’s energized white base. It’s agonizingly close.
1mime, re his Hispanic support levels equal to that of Romney, isn’t that akin to Jews voting for Hitler because that they thought his rhetoric didn’t really apply to them?
I have stopped trying to figure out “what” motivates people to support Trump. About the only recurrent theme is “Hillary is far worse”, with which point I cannot rationally agree so I fall right back to total inability to understand. I am sad for our nation and what lies ahead under a Trump presidency and a majority Republican Congress and SCOTUS. It is frightening to think what the far right political agenda will mean with no checks and balance.
On the Sunday talk shows many GOP pundits are now stressing that the election has effectively become a referendum on which direction the SCOTUS should go. The next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint at least two Justices, affecting jurisprudence for the next generation. Their reasoning is that conservatives should vote for Trump warts and all to prevent the Court from going left. Conversely, Dem pundits are telling progressives to vote for Hillary to prevent the Court from going right.
This has long been my main reason to vote for Hillary. We simply can’t afford another Scalia (or worse).
I’ll refer you back to about ten previous posts and comments on the matter. If someone was offering me a hundred million dollars to get Trump elected, I still couldn’t come up with a path for him. There are a lot of old bigots in this country, but the last two elections should have taught Republicans a critical lesson – there aren’t quite enough of them anymore, and they are concentrated in the wrong places.
This is all hype. This election is not nearly as close as 2012, it’s just a hell of a lot more frightening and embarrassing.
You do realize if you are “right” that I am on the hook for a pretty blue scarf for Sophie (Ryan’s dog)! It will be the happiest gift every (-;
This has been agonizing to experience……Still think the Senate is in play for Dems?
I am afraid now. If Hillary wins, I will buy you (Chris), 1mime and everyone who asks red, blue, green, whatever color scarves you’ll ask for.
If Hillary wins, and if somehow Dems take a majority of the Senate (a very long shot at this point, IMO), we will all break out the suds……in total, utter relief and gratefulness. No scarves needed except for tears of joy. I wouldn’t count those eggs until Nov. 8th….lots of time for a screw-up….
Chris, while I agree with your argument that the demographics make it very difficult for Trump to win. What I am wondering is why is this not being depicted in the prevailing polls? I mean there isn’t anything overtly negative in the news coverage as it relates to Hillary Clinton. Is that fact being that some of her support is soft support and these people, depending upon how they feel, positively or negatively, about Hillary, either do not answer polling questions or say they are undecided etc. I.e., is there some sort of a non-responder bias going on in the polls?
Chris will have to speak for himself, but you can consider this as a possibility – Clinton is down from her high, while maintaining about a 2 point lead – at best – while Trump has improved. This 538 explanation says it all….which I think we would all do well to keep in mind…Clinton is leading in all the states she needs for the electoral college win, but, not by much….Anyway, Nate Silver explains it best and here is his up to date assessment.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/
And, equally important – re-taking the Senate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/25/democratic-hopes-of-winning-senate-fade-as-trump-proves-less-toxic-for-republicans/?wpisrc=fl_powerpost
1mime this has been a rather depressing Sunday for me. 😟
I’m sad as well, Pedneuro, but trying to prepare myself for the possibility of a Trump win and not taking the Senate. Both are equally critical but I am certain America will survive, but it will not be easy for people like us.
Still, we should have more faith in Lifer’s predictions as he’s been on the money (except that like Everyone else, he didn’t think Trump would be the nominee…who would?). What I am doing is staying up to date on news, and reminding all people I know to register and/or vote. Worrying won’t do any good at this stage, but it’s hard not to worry for our country.
1mime yes I’m trying to have more faith in his predictions. I’d so much like for Chris to come back to this post on the 9th November and say to us, “I told you so”.
For you, Pedneuro. Enjoy. I purchased the book (Yuge: )and it is incredible how far back Trump’s aspirations to be president go. Trudeau has a wicked sense of humor. As for what he personally thinks of Trump? ” Biggest.Asshole.Ever.” This is an interview of Trudeau about his comic strips on Trump over years.
I’m trying to post something to make you smile, Pedneuro. Scroll through the Doonesbury Trump archives a bit…
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/
Thanks 1mime. I’d like to read this book 📚 but your link doesn’t show anything. Just a blank page.
1mime got it now. Your second link worked. Thanks.
I truly am a “hit or miss” kinda girl (-;
@1mime: >] “You do realize if you are “right” that I am on the hook for a pretty blue scarf for Sophie (Ryan’s dog)! It will be the happiest gift every (-;
This has been agonizing to experience……Still think the Senate is in play for Dems?”
Already got plans for a nice picture for my girl with her new scarf on. I may even get it framed. 🙂
Heck, Ryan, we take POTUS and Senate, and I’ll custom frame Sophie in her new blue scarf!
I am very suspicious of the polls in this electoral cycle. I noticed during the primaries that the polls were very inconsistent. For example, take the CA Democratic primary. Many of the polls predicted that it would be close. Yet when the results were in, HRC won comfortably.
Lifer explained what is happening in a post several weeks ago. Namely, the pollsters are taking the raw data, and then massaging it in accordance with their best predictions as to the participation of the various groups. This election is so unusual with all the bigotry, misogyny and racism that the pollsters have very little data on which to base their predictions, so their assumptions are incorrect. In the final analysis, I think the results will depend heavily on the turnout. The higher the turnout, the better HRC will do. I suspect Hispanics, Blacks, white college educated and many of the other minority groups will turn out heavily and overwhelm the white, blue color vote. I’ll give you an example from Washington state. Yakima County, which is one of the most conservative counties in the state and has a fairly sizable population, also has a 50% Hispanic population, up from 15% in 1990. There has been a huge surge in voter registration in the Hispanic community there. You can be sure that they will be voting for HRC. Of course I am aware that a large portion of that population cannot vote. A big increase in participation from a very low base is still a small number, but the trend is there and will become more significant in the future.
In conclusion, at this time I think HRC will wil win, but probably not with a landslide and the Senate will be extremely close.
Right now the polls are getting closer. Are people really this flakey and unstable or is this just a fluctuation of the data sampling error and handling method use to manipulate the data?
People really are this flakey and unstable. To which I’d add, this irresponsible. You’ve had an ongoing example of that right here on this blog….now, multiply that by millions of people who are putting their country last.
Unfortunately, none of the networks are going to live fact check the debates. Maybe someone here knows another source online?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/presidential-debate-fact-checking-228653
Read this tonight on the Weekly Sift and think it is important to this post.
Be certain to read the comment by Paul Hoffman, father of a police officer. When we can discuss this matter without the emotion surrounding a recent shooting, we listen to one another better.
1mime,
when you buy the blue scarf, I have 4 words for you…Joey Palucci’s Gift Emporium on Canal Street. Not far from Tribeca. Best Hermes knock offs in the city. Its not the kind of business you can google.
Do you think Sophie would approve? Or, would she want a blue scarf “made in America” (-;
I Just spoke with God….any questions?
Yeah – tell him what I think of her.
“She” already knows………
Could you ask Him for an example of a member of NP which is not in P?
Heh. Impressive! I am ‘completely’ amazed at the comments I see on this blog. They seem to have a diversity that grows exponentially with the complexity of the topic. It’s more than simply ‘hard’ to know what to expect! A travelling salesman would be likely less surprised. 😉
BTW: An old university pal of mine got his PhD in OR. We messed with this a bunch in the 70’s. To this day his license plate reads, “P NEQ NP”.
Fifty may be the only other person on this site who knows what NP and P stand for. I looked it up and the definition doesn’t help me understand your cryptic comment. A little help for those of us who aren’t into higher level math, EJ (-;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_(complexity)
@1mime:
I’ll do my best to explain.
There is a type of maths problem called NP. Some of these problems are part of a subset called P. If we know that a problem is in P, then there are some nice easy ways to solve it. However, if we don’t know whether or not it’s in P then we have to use the normal NP methods instead, which are much slower. Many problems would take longer to solve than the age of the universe using NP methods, but could be solved in hours or seconds if we knew that they were in P.
(Just suspecting that they’re in P isn’t enough, and we can’t just try it and see what happens. We have to be absolutely certain.)
Cryptography is an example of such a problem. It is difficult to break modern computer codes, because we have based them on problems which are in NP (mathematicians call these “NP-complete.”) If a code were based on a problem in P, it would be very insecure because P problems are easy to solve.
Every so often, mathematicians discover that a particular NP problem (or entire family of problems) has in fact been in P all along, and we just didn’t know it. This means that we can suddenly solve that problem much more easily.
Some people suspect that all NP problems might actually be in P, and we just don’t know it yet. If this was true then we would know that we could never make a secure code, and so none of us could have online banking ever again.
Alternatively, if we found even one problem which is in NP but is not in P, then it would mean that the two are not the same. This would mean that unbreakable codes exist, but would also mean that everyone would be able to use them and so the NSA would suddenly be powerless.
Does P equal NP? Nobody knows. Lots of people have opinions. I think it probably does. Fifty’s university friend thinks it doesn’t. Maybe God has an opinion too.
Thanks, EJ. I knew I was wise to stop at Trigonometry (-;
A fun fact of which I know you are aware was the use of Navajo “code talkers” during WW2 to bypass the German code-breaking apparatus. What is funny, to me as a math-challenged person, is that the assumption evidently was (by the enemy) that the NP and P classifications (if that is a proper title) would be the foundation of any code used by the Allies. When, in fact, it was something as simple but out of the box unusual, that Indian language was utilized….Do you think that sometimes we make things harder than they need to be ?
The use of Navajo was clever. We were a wealthy and educated country, and so any language which had been written down would have had dictionaries and university professors who knew it. The Americans needed something entirely unknown, which means something so obscure and undocumented that no professor would know anything.
I’m told that one of the problems was that there were just not enough Navajo to ensure that every unit had one. That’s definitely one of the issues with any modern code: you need something obscure, but you also need it to be available to massive numbers of people, each in their own household.
That might be something that we need maths for.
Hello EJ! I live in New Mexico and had the privilege to sit next to the niece of one of Navajo Code Talkers at a dinner at a friend’s house. There is a good deal of well-justified pride by the Navajo people at their role in helping win the war, and there are a surprisingly large number of vets among the Navajo.
A couple years ago, we had some construction going on at our house and one of the guys noticed I had a German name and started speaking to me in German. To my embarrassment, his German was much better than mine. He had been stationed in Germany years ago and married a woman from the area.
EJ, you had asked about my background. I’ll try to be as brief as possible.
My father was born in East Prussia. His family owned a farm in the Masurian Lake District. When the war ended, they had no choice but to flee to the West. A neighbor told them that he had relatives that lived near Hamburg, and after a harrowing journey, my father’s family arrived and were given a place to live temporarily.
It was there that my father first met my mother and she was none too happy to see his family or him. She complained that she was sick and tired of all the refugees that had come to her home. Fortunately, she was only eleven at the time and was quickly overruled.
My father’s father and mother’s father developed a friendship that lasted over the years. Even after my father moved to the US, my grandfathers were still playing matchmaker and encouraged my father and mother to continue writing to each other.
My father went back to Germany on a visit and he and my mother married. She waited the required time before immigrating here and a year after she arrived in Ohio, I was born.
That’s a lovely story. Thank you for telling it, objv. The image of an eleven year old seeing her future husband and announcing that she’s sick of refugees is a wonderful one.
I had always thought that our diaspora was concentrated more in the Great Lakes area of the US rather than in New Mexico, but if your parents came out of Prussia then I suppose they might welcome the warmth!
The Charlotte-Mecklenberg Chief of Police will release the official law enforcement video of the shooting of Mr. Scott.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/24/video-keith-scott-shooting-charlotte-police
Chris thinks the main problem is police unions strong arming the politicians to avoid accountability
I am in favor of applying “Occam’s Razor” – there is no need to postulate unions strong arming anybody
The well known reluctance of the Admin function (HR) to actually do ANYTHING that actually involves work or any unpleasantness that they have to deal with themselves
(its OK to tell line management to “deal with it” – but not to help)
Is more than enough to account for a lack of prosecutions
Except that these HR people DO in fact take action, but only in jurisdictions where union power is more balanced.
Careful with that razor…
Do they?
Looking from abroad it seems that out of a 1000 deaths a year we have action taken on 2 or three occasions
Certainly not enough to see if there is any relationship to unions
I’m more and more in agreement with you that public sector union power impedes our ability to hold employees responsible, and that, especially for public safety officers (police, fire fighters, etc.) they need to be amended (although not entirely removed: they’re still entitled to worker protections just like any other employee, but accountability needs to be strengthened).
But I’d also be interested in seeing if your thesis holds true on *preventing* blue-on-black violence. While accountability after the fact is important, it’s not nearly important as preventing it in the first place.
Are you saying that red states are better at preventing these incidents as well? I’m not so sure. At this point, the vast majority of these incidents occur in democratic-controlled cities (not necessarily states: Ohio, NC, and OK, site of last weeks’ incidents, are all red states). But that’s because these incidents occur in areas with large African American populations, which will almost always means Democrats are in power. Plus, the vast majority of American cities are run by Democrats. It’s sort of like noting that rural mass shootings always occur in Republican areas.
I don’t really know if Republicans or Democrats are better at preventing this type of violence. Do you have evidence one way or another?
I have certainly seen first hand here in NYC the power of the police union to dominate the narrative. So, I appreciate the Blue State tinge to the problem. Eric Garner’s case is a classic. Death for selling loose cigarettes and resisting arrest (which he did), and how the union cowered the Mayor’s office into following union protocol resulting in no action whatsoever. That said I offer these two articles which expanded my view of the systemic parts of the problem with and without the public union contribution which I agree is a big part.
The culture of individual departments and sometimes even distinctions of behavior by precinct that are present and pose structural resistance to change within a work force that will eventually work with some of these bad actors but have little or no control of their assignments. (How good guys get sucker punched into protecting bad guys).
The first article is the non obligatory gathering of data by the FBI…was amazed this wasn’t already happening and some analysis of that volunteered data…the second is from the point of view of an African American Law enforcement trainer. There is also a reference to the National Coalition of Law Enforcement Officers which is a real organization of cops who understand this problem has to be addressed for everyone’s sake.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6051043/how-many-people-killed-police-statistics-homicide-official-black
and an anectodal viewpoint of a law enforcement trainer who is African American
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer
Sadly, the only new thing I learned from both of these excellent articles is about the organization, the National Coalition of Law Enforcement Officers for Justice, Reform and Accountability. Both of these articles should be required reading in all criminology classes, police academies, and for those who prosecute. Wearing cameras, (all the time!) and weeding out the 15% of bad cops, would be a great start. It’s encouraging to know better records are being kept, but one has to wonder, since this effort began in 2014, under a black President and black AG, whether it will be abandoned with a change in administration. The WaPo has been doing a lot of work to “tally” black deaths by police, so there is recognition outside the justice system that the records do not reflect the enormity of the inaccurate statistics.
Thanks Kenneth. I have saved these two articles so that I can read them again and share.
Sobering and sad. But good that some efforts are being made.
Ah, HR. Much like MISinformation reinvented itself as IT, personnel departments needed a new name, to ‘enhance their influence’ within the corporate organization. Such a warm, round-sounding label! “Human Resources”. So much better than ‘personnel’.
Let me ask you a question: Does anyone actually major in “HR” in university? Does any budding business student student, any top 10%-er, (or top 50%-er, for that matter), say to themselves when choosing a career path, “Hey! I’m gonna be an HR person!”? Of course they don’t. HR departments are groups of pseudo-professionals, without any particular skill-set, empowered by the ever-present threat of litigation, or fear of it, who – whenever they stick their noses into anything important, be it hiring, firing, or labor relations – simply screw it up, or cost the organization money. They write nice manuals, though.
So Duncan, I think, for the first time in a bit, we agree!
Most of the HR people I know studied law at university, but that’s because HR is still a very new field.
There are many universities teaching postgraduate qualifications in HR, and a few starting to teach it at an undergraduate level. I would be very surprised if, within a generation, it doesn’t become a field in which most professionals have the relevant education.
After reading Fifty’s post, I actually googled HR to see how the curricula is organized. It can be as simple as a technical certification in an business school, or it can be a full college major.
What was interesting to me was that most of the college degrees in HR have a strong business focus and many legal courses. Graduates will be required to know how to interface with lawyers, accountants and insurance which is becoming more technical all the time. They also serve the human side of the corporation, assisting employees with decisions related to their personal as well as professional needs. In short, HR is a viable career path.
Fifty has a “thing” for soft curricula (-;
EJ – Damn few HR people have post graduate degrees, and fewer with formal legal training, let alone law school. As for the future, it will be interesting to see how many top legal minds choose HR over M&A.
mime – Guilty as charged.
mime – It’s only a “viable career path” if one aspires to being nothing more than pure overhead.
I actually know people who have worked in HR for their entire careers. Very nice, bright people. BTW, one can expect starting pay around $30K up to $100K. HR is also heavily involved in screening job applicants, applicant recruiting, as well as evaluations in addition to all the other areas I listed above.
Fifty, I don’t know what I am going to do with you! Not everyone can be a scientist or astrophysicist! Everyone can contribute according to their abilities and workplace need.
Oh mime – you misunderstand. I’m sure the HR dweebs you knew were very nice. I have huge respect for anyone who works hard, whether in a lab, office, factory, or fast food kitchen. There are however some “professions” I don’t think much of. HR dweebs, telemarketers, radar and vice cops, psychoanalysts, and TV preachers come to mind. Now, I’m sure you know some ‘nice’ TV preachers too, but…
You know what a secular dweeb I am, fifty. However, I did enjoy listening to Billy Grahm and Peter Marshall as a young woman. Since these two men passed, I have not found people of their statue to inspire me. I know there are good men and women of faith out there but man there are a lot of weasels.
I know you respect people who work hard, you just don’t respect people who work at jobs you don’t respect. I will state it again (because you know how I am) – not everyone can aspire to sophisticated careers. I have known janitors and housekeepers for whom I have more respect and admiration than some of the stuffed shirts that hold big jobs. My philosophy is, whatever your job is, do it to the best of your ability and be proud of it.
I dunno, but I have a few degrees here or there, and I’m often brought in to fix all the HR shit caused by engineers who believe they know everything outside of engineering as well as they know things inside engineering.
I mean, how hard can HR be?
HT – As Harry Callahan always said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” That applies to everyone.
The silly way that we rank schools. Also an interesting paragraph:
“Experts on higher education have been predicting for years that the traditional four-year model is going to die, except at a handful of highly selective institutions. Maybe so.”
I was unaware of this but it sounds interesting.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/the-good-schools-the-bad-ones-and-the-ugly-ways-we-rank-them
Given the cost of higher ed, one would think this would compel students to graduate as quickly as possible. The problem is, to afford to go to college, many students have to work. This reduces the average number of hours per semester and extends the length of the completion process.
Until we remove the excessive profit motive for higher education (and technical training), longevity of attendance is not going away. What should be the focus is the quality of instruction being offered, preparation through market relevant curricula, and easier access for students who are prepared and wish to seek a college degree.
The standard for accuracy in ranking colleges is best assured by visiting the campus and doing personal research beyond slick advertisement ploys.
We all know our educational system needs a complete overhaul and the impetus for that is going to start hitting critical mass as the economy transforms and more and more jobs require a more sophisticated education.
There’s no getting around it. Education-wise, we waste an absolutely reprehensible amount of time teaching our students subjects that they’re never, ever going to use in their lifetime. We need a streamlined system of real, workable knowledge and skills training that everyone will need in their life, teaching those to our children and at the same time working to both identify and nurture their own respective talents.
Perhaps once kids hit roughly their middle-school ages, we should have something like a mini-jobs fair that would come to their respective school every few months, giving them the option of spending a few days or a week or so at whatever business they chose and seeing for themselves what it’s about. If they don’t like it, then they try something else at the next one.
I have actually seen that concept (middle school career day) at work, and kids love it. I agree it should be done annually at each grade level. I have read that Germany (and possibly other European countries) assess children at the middle school level, where they are offered two educational tracks – one skills-oriented, the other higher education (broadly speaking here). The recommendations are evidently respected by students and parents alike, and most elect to take the path that best suits their talents/intellect. Career planning starts early here.
Key to paring non-essential curricula from the education process is to do so in a way that doesn’t deprive students of exposure to a range of subjects and interests. Not all children grow up in environments that expose them to the wonderful array of choices life holds. Liberal arts is frowned upon by many academics, but is the choice of many very successful people. Most important, students need to be taught critical thinking skills, how to apply discipline in the application of knowledge, and to explore their creative talents. If this is done, students will enjoy the learning process, make better career choices, and apply that lesson to their work and beyond.
Online instruction will continue to expand, but I hope that it is only a part of one’s educational process. Interaction with other people broadens and challenges us in a way that self-driven knowledge acquisition cannot. Community colleges are a good example of a more market relevant, attenuated curricula for those who are interested in vocational/technical careers. The standard BA/BS degree path has become overly costly and does not seem to correlate with employment as well as community colleges, but is valuable if wisely utilized and necessary to many post-graduate career choices.
Ryan and 1mime – I have a different take on education. For me education should be more than a path to earning and slotting a young person into a job,vocation, career. I think a well rounded education will be more important as our notion of work changes. What is wrong with an educated fry cook if it works for him.
I get bugged when I hear “everybody shouldn’t get a college education”. This gets me on a couple of levels. One, imo we should educate everyone to their maximum ability. How do we take a coal miner that got a poor high school education and retrain him? Especially if we are training and retraining everybody else in the skill that was in great demand yesterday. Secondly, our “vocational” training sucks. I remember watching a video comparing our Vocational system with Japan’s. In Japan, there were rows and rows of young Japanese, in white coats, face masks, and white gloves, operating precision milling machines. Then they cut to the US vocational school. It showed seven guys changing the brakes on a Dodge Dart. The expectations were very different.
Finally, an education that lets you understand the world around you, makes you a happier you. a you that will be less likely to vote for a lying authoritarian.
So there’s your new phrase to live by, ” educate the shit out of everybody “.
We don’t disagree, unarmed. The problem is abilities and desires vary. Circumstances – economics – vary. The fact that our vocational/skills programs are so poor does not mean that they are not needed, but that we are failing our students by not offering a quality learning experience. In America, we privitize the heck out of everything – witness the Trump U, and recently ITT, and so many other fly by night financial scam educational programs. Why don’t we put enough money and equipment into public vocational programs to make them accessible and outstanding?
Every child who wants to go to college, prepares himself/herself, should be able to go to college, but it shouldn’t be the only option a student has.
I heard a roundtable discussion tonight on Bloomberg, featuring Frank Bruni (NYT), James Fallows (The Atlantic), and Dana Perino (Fox News). Reference was made by all of the excellent piece in the Oct. Atlantic Magazine, which story is linked below for your reading interest.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/
1mime, sorry this is completely OT but I couldn’t find the thread on Wells Fargo and wanted to make sure you saw the piece in the Guardian regarding a class action law suit brought by employees of Wells Fargo who were fired or demoted for not participating in the scam to create bogus accounts. 2.6 billion is the amount they are after. Kinda makes the fine look like chump change:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/24/wells-fargo-scandal-class-action-lawsuit-sales-quota
No, I had not, thanks! I wondered if this would happen. Employees were certainly given a green light by many in Congress (and in the media) to pursue wrongful termination….We’ll see where it goes…will probably settle to avoid more negative PR. Some executive level folks need to lose their jobs……
I imagine there are going to be some customer lawsuits as well…After all, their private information was utilized without their permission…I understand WF reimbursed all customers ($2.5M) that were charged fees/penalities) but that doesn’t answer issues of “fraud”. I think WF is looking at a mushrooming financial and legal debacle.
Grandstanding is sometimes called for.
Here’s a juicy tidbit….”the” Gennifer Flowers has accepted an invitation to sit front and center in the audience at Monday’s debate…..as Trump’s quid pro quo to the Clinton invitation to Mark Cuban…Supposedly, they will be seated next to eachother – or, that’s the Donald’s plan.
Keep your eyes on the moderator, Hillary!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/24/gennifer-flowers-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
One item I wished had gotten more play in the Senate Banking Committee is that other than reimbursing the customers for the fees, the customers CAN’T sue the bank. It turns out we all knowing or unknowingly sign away that right when we open an account and can only seek arbitration for grievances against the bank. No class action suits.
If suing isn’t an option, leaving, is. Show WF that they work FOR YOU, and not the other way around. Leave. ASAP. If this is the only option left to wronged customers, act now.
Maybe we should reflect on “who will lose” if we elect DJ Trump. This monologue is a compilation of reasons why this election is so important.
http://video.gq.com/watch/the-most-deplorable-thing-trump-has-done-yet
Well Ted Cruz finally gave in, albeit very quietly.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump-202637353.html
Whoops people already beat me to it below. Anyways Ted Cruz will just turn on Donald after he loses the election anyways, he has zero principals. I don’t think he can flip-flop this much and get away with it when he’s running as the “principles” candidate.
But, then, none of us thought Trump would be the GOP nominee or that if chosen, he would have any GOP support……
Whatever Ted Cruz has in his life, even his own wife and father’s honor, is evidently up for sale when the political winds blow hard enough.
It honestly would’ve been nice to have been wrong about this, but this is exactly what Mime and I called Cruz out on during the Republican National Convention. When it comes down to it, all Ted Cruz cares about is Ted Cruz.
I don’t see Cruz gaining from this though. Everything he had to gain from not endorsing Trump, which was gaining the admiration of the actual religious fundamentalists and the ability to have bragging rights after Trump loses, he’s just lost. Now everyone has a reason to hate him.
Do you think Cruz doesn’t know people hate him already? Do you really think he cares about anyone’s opinion of him other than his evangelical base? I am going to bet there’s more in this for Cruz than we are able to see…..He wouldn’t have rolled over without incentive, and he has never shown himself to be a GOP “team player”. Why start now? Did he miss being on covers?
@Griffin: Hard to tell what’s going on behind the scenes, but a Cruz likely did what he did because his numbers have tanked and there’s been talk swirling of fielding a primary challenge against him for 2018. Rick Perry is one name and if he decides to take a break from Dancing with the Stars (…really, I just don’t even), it could be an uphill battle for Cruz.
And think of it this way. Cruz’s whole schtick is that he’s against the establishment, defending ‘freedom’ and the like from the tyranny of Obama and Clinton. Problem is, he’s been too clever by half and Republicans can easily undercut that by arguing that he’s just another political opportunist who waged his servile puppy dog tail at whoever convenienced him at the time. That has the added benefit of being absolutely true.
Political ads that show him throwing his own wife and father under the bus practically make themselves.
“If Ted Cruz couldn’t even be trusted to defend his own family, how can he be trusted to defend you? Vote ***********”
I think Ted Cruz is sensing that his grasp on the religious fundamentalists was slipping away. Because the truth is many of those evangelists could care less about Christ’s teachings, and merely use it as a justification to implement their regressive social agenda (after all, Jesus was a socialist which means they should have been supporting Bernie if they truly wanted to follow Him :-).
Since Trump is offering that social agenda openly, there’s no need to cling to some religious justification they never really cared about anyway. So why should they support Cruz any more?
Here’s the thing: even if Trump loses, he is not going away. Given that 30-35% of Americans are tremendously devoted to him and loathe the current Republicans, he will do what he always does: figure out how to extract as much money from the rubes as possible. I suspect he’ll start some sort of media venture (potentially even a new cable channel that would steal most of Fox’s followers, which, IMHO, is why Fox is playing so nice with Trump these days: better to curry favor and offer him his own show after he loses, than piss him off and provoke him to starting a separate channel). It would play to his narcissism, allow him to usurp the kingmaker role from Fox, while probably making a ton of money to boot. Sarah Palin tried to do this and failed, but she’s no Donald Trump.
Given that Trump will be a fixture of Republican politics for the foreseeable future, and that the evangelicals that were devoted to Cruz are now devoted to Trump, Cruz is left without a base. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump endorses a primary challenge against him in 2018. Which means Cruz realizes he needs to swallow hard and become a Trump camp follower. I wouldn’t be surprised if he reaches Christie-esque levels of self-debasement and sycophancy over the next few months.
I continue to believe that Cruz’ “fall back” motive is to be named a member of the SC or AG of the US. We don’t know if there was a deal struck with Trump, but who would put it past either of them? I am not so sure that the evangelicals would abandon Cruz for Trump in a POTUS bid in 2020, should Cruz be planning (is there any doubt?) a return to the stage. He is such a weasel. In so many ways, he and Trump are alike, which is not a compliment for either.
OT, but Rob, you and I have discussed the EX-IM Bank opposition by some in the Republican Party – most significantly, on the Senate Banking Committee. It seems that once again, those who want to kill this bank are still working at doing so. This is one entity run by the government for purposes we’ve already discussed, that is actually making money for the taxpayer. Obviously, members of Congress with banking ties are not happy with that and are trying to end the bank. Always another tactic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/23/the-export-import-bank-cant-approve-big-deals-unless-congress-acts-whats-at-stake/?wpisrc=fl_powerpost
Sorry to burst your bubble, but one week isn’t long enough for the investigator to complete a case file to forward to the DA’s office. They’ve jumped the gun in this instance. The lead investigator hasn’t even completed his report and they’ve already filed charges against the officer.
This is a great way to Mosby your case. If the situation were reversed and the police charged someone with murder before the investigation was complete, there would be a 2-hour Netflix special on how rash and incomplete investigations jeopardize someone’s freedom.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/tulsa-da-files-manslaughter-charges-before-tpd-detective-files-report
And, that, rulezero, is why I think the murder1 charge is a sham. A photo op. As heinous as the video of Crutcher’s killing is, I agree there is a process for investigation that must be followed. The problem is the outcome is always the same – the police walk…even in the rare instance where charges are brought. Too many victims. Mostly black males. There is too much killing of black men by police. It cannot be a coincidence and it is not a congenital defect within the black race. Which leaves one to wonder: is it police tactics? I think it is – not all of the time but a lot of the time. De-escalation is way down the totem pole as an intervention to shooting.
I’m going to say this again: too many inexplicable deaths of unarmed black males by police tell me that there is a problem within policing. And, before you tell me that these people “could be armed”, please stop. There are too many cases where the black victims are unarmed. Too many. As Joy Reid of MSNBC stated last night: There is open carry in NC, it is legal – except for black people. Black people can’t carry guns and we all know why. It becomes an excuse to kill more black people.
That’s how I feel and I have tried to be understanding of the difficulties police officers face on a daily basis. That hasn’t changed. But, if I had been stalled in the middle of the road, I would have been offered help. Not shot.
“The police walk.”
Very well. What do you propose we do about being tried by a jury of your peers or opting for a bench trial? Do you want to get rid of jury trials for cops? Bench trials? That’s how we do things in our Republic. Do you want to change the use of force standard that the SCOTUS has provided us? Do you want police to be completely reactive and sit at the station like fire fighters do? Everyone seems to have a complaint but no one is offering any alternatives.
“There is open carry in NC”
Absolutely. Open carrying and holding a weapon in your hand is completely different. When police tell you to drop the weapon, you drop the weapon. You don’t ask to see someone’s carry permit if you suspect they’re armed and involved in criminal activity. I’ve had several instances where I’ve pulled my weapon on someone that had a gun in their car, which is legal in Georgia. That doesn’t mean I can’t point my weapon at them and demand they take their hand off of it when they reach for it. The ratio is about 60% white and 40% black. I always shake carry holders’ hands, thanking them for carrying, regardless of race or ethnicity.
There are a great many black permit holders in Georgia, though you don’t even need one to carry in your vehicle. I haven’t shot a single one yet. I do my traffic stop, go through my usual spiel, thank them, and send them on their way.
Deescalation is all well and good. I’ve taken 56 hours in crisis intervention and verbal judo, which has been quite helpful. Talking to people like they’re people tends to help as well.
Let me show you a different video. This video is one that’s been seen in numerous academy classes. This is Deputy Kyle Dinkheller, Laurens County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office being murdered on the side of the road.
Watch it. Watch it all the way until the end and listen to him beg for his life. Listen to his breathing at the end.
Deputy Dinkheller hesitated because he was reprimanded by his superiors about a month before for being too quick to draw his weapon and being too aggressive. He hesitated, tried giving the guy every benefit he could and ended up executed. This video is why we don’t allow people to get back into the vehicle once they’ve exited.
So, I’m going to ask you and everyone here a question: At what point in this video should Deputy Dinkheller have fired his weapon?
“The police walk.”
Yes, I want juries to do their job, and I want the charges to be appropriate so that they are able to impose an outcome that hasn’t been set up to fail. I have worked closely enough with a DA and prosecutors that I understand how the process works. At some point, RZ, as a police officer, you have to admit the process is heavily weighted in favor of police. The real question is, should it be weighted in anyone’s favor, or in favor of where the evidence leads? What I want are cases to be tried on their merits. If the facts support acquittal, and the process has been fair (charge is correct, instructions fair, jury balanced, counsel for deceased competent and prepared, witnesses prepared and honest), then the chips will fall where they may. Case after case, death after death, there are simply too many unarmed black men dying in police encounters, and the odds of the police being charged or if charged, convicted, too rare in proportion to the number of deaths.
You “thank” them for carrying? What an odd statement. What exactly do you mean by that?
I have seen the Dinkheller video before, and it is tragic. I am not denying that there are not bad black AND bad white people that police have to deal with. Mistakes take lives – on both sides. But, in too many, many cases, the black male is unarmed and they are shot without sufficient justification. That’s not just my opinion, it is well documented. If the basic point is that only a submissive, totally cooperative subject is likely to stay alive in police encounters, that, too, is not what is happening. I don’t want innocent people to die from stupidity or rash, undisciplined behavior – either black men or police. The odds right now are far greater for a policeman/woman to survive than a black man, or heaven help us, a black child or teen.
A crazy white man expressing obvious white privilege, sad to watch. My question for you is would that officer reacted different if the subject was black? I have read many news reports of white men with guns that have shot at the police and lived.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/8-white-people-who-pointed-guns-police-officers-and-managed-not-get-killed
http://usuncut.com/news/armed-white-man-arrested-alive-nc/
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/07/11/texas-white-man-just-got-shootout-cops-guess-ended/
There is a double standard.
Did not mean to sound callous, that video is hard to watch.
Thank You for your service rulezero, I know it has to be a very stressful job every time you pull some one over not knowing what to expect.
RZ…you are going to have to do better than that.
“Deputy Dinkheller hesitated because he was reprimanded by his superiors about a month before for being too quick to draw his weapon and being too aggressive. ”
You do not know that to be even remotely true. You have filled in the blank with the narrative you would like to hear.
To take your argument a bit further, we shouldn’t have commanders reprimanding officers for being too aggressive and pulling their weapon too quickly? That is kind of insane.
There are any number of instances in that video where the office would have been justified in shooting, but none of the videos we are seeing recently resemble the situation in the video above.
I mean, we can all play this game. Officer, at what point on the video would you have shot Tamir Rice? At what point would you have shot Crutcher in Tulsa?
Getting back to Charlotte….Wonderful historical piece on how race in Charlotte, NC evolved. At one point, things were different. Then, things changed.
https://thinkprogress.org/charlotte-rage-charlotte-roads-1ee83a4753a4?amp%3Butm_medium=email&%3Butm_campaign=tp-letters#.cg0t9x783
Mime,
have to agree. the guy was just having car trouble! I ran into a women, @ 30 years old, black, who was stopped by police for some traffic issue. She was licenced to carry and had an unloaded gun in the glove compartment which she told the police about. The cop called for backup and in minutes there were a total of three police cars at the scene.
If that had been a white guy, first, i doubt any more cars would have been called. and second, the NRA would have been all over the issue, harassing a guy who was lawfully carrying.
Sigh, yes. As a positive counterpoint to the tragedies of this past week, this story from WaPo and the director of the new Museum of African American History helps frame the struggles and story of so many people – all of us really – as we are “all” part of the African American history. There are dedication speeches, televised tours, etc on today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/09/23/lonnie-bunch-even-if-youre-white-the-story-of-slavery-is-still-your-story/?utm_term=.716cb9496467&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
Rulezero-
I say this with all due respect and sincere appreciation for the job that nearly 100% of police officers do day in and day out. But using that video to ‘train’ police officers is appalling. I’d call it more akin to ‘radicalizing’ and closer to the way that terrorists use videos of soldiers shooting children to foster grievance and feelings of revenge.
If that is what’s shown in Academy classes, you need to think hard about what is the true purpose of showing it to new recruits. It appears (and you say) the mistake made by the officer was allowing the guy to get back in his truck. If the video is used to analyze why that’s a mistake, what led to it, what could be done to recognize the threat earlier and/or prevent it, etc., then by all means use the video. But if that’s the sole intent, there’s no need to watch the whole thing. The mistake was made early, we see the guy come out with his rifle, and the teaching moment is complete.
So why make recruits watch the whole video? Because I suspect the point of the video is to teach new recruits that every civilian is a threat, giving them the benefit of the doubt will leave you begging for your life while breathing through a dozen bullet holes, and that civilian attempts to reprimand bad behavior will only lead to dead cops. That is not an educational video. That’s an indoctrination video. Based on your comments, I’m alarmed that this is the lesson you took from it. Please tell me it’s not, or we have a much larger problem than a few bad apples in the force.
Hi Rulezero
They have had a WEEK!!!
And the information is pretty open and shut
No Gun
No threat on video
Man dead on floor
It should only take a few minutes to decide to prosecute
The trial is the time for deliberation
If I was in charge I would be re-assessing the detective who has not completed his report inside a reasonable time – one day?
So rumor has it that Ted Cruz is going to cave, and support Trump. Damn Teddy, the one thing you did that I could actually respect, and it looks like you’re going to walk it back. But I am taking your convention advice and voting my conscience. HRC, flaws and all, is the best choice.
This would shock me. I assumed Cruz would hold out, and then when/if Trump loses, try to swoop in with an “I told you so, now follow me” position.
Surely his change of heart is not due to the newly tightening of the polls.
Cruz is evil, but he’s smart. If he is starting to believe Trump can win, then I’m going to double my worry that Trump could actually win.
Cruz – next AG or SCOTUS appointee?
FWIW, I have never stopped thinking Trump could win. Just too cautious, have seen too many funny things happen in politics. Have talked to too many nice Republicans (no that is not an oxymoron) that I respect who are supporting him principally because they think Clinton is worse (I disagree vehemently but, whatever) and that Trump will be controlled by the GOPe. For them, it’s all about denying HRC and SCOTUS. I guess they just can’t see beyond the election.
I don’t usually revel in snark, but Ted Cruz’s freshmen year room mate Craig Mezin (screenwriter) hates him and provides a comical but probable sequence of thoughts as to how Ted came to the decision to endorse…
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/23/ted-cruz-has-defeated-himself-cruzs-about-face-on-trump-as-explained-by-his-college-roommate-who-hates-him/
“Cruz is evil, but he’s smart. If he is starting to believe Trump can win, then I’m going to double my worry that Trump could actually win.”
Other things to consider, Cruz is going to be challenged in the primaries in 2018 (and the current polls aren’t in his favor), plus a narrow HRC victory would hurt him as some would love to use him as a scapegoat in a “we were stabbed in the back” narrative.
I was always of the opinion that he did the right thing (defying Trump) for much less than high-minded reasons. He miscalculated once- here’s hoping he gets a streak going.
Fly, I would love to see Cruz challenged, but haven’t heard any rumors – on either side. Have you got anything specific?
“Cruz is evil, but he’s smart. If he is starting to believe Trump can win, then I’m going to double my worry that Trump could actually win.”
Homer, Cruz is definitely no dummy, and in some ways, is very smart. But there’s different kinds of smart. I’d call Crux more like “shrewd” smart, but not, like, “visionary” smart, of the type you’re referring too.
If Cruz was actually THAT kind of smart and had his finger on the pulse of the nation, he wouldn’t be campaigning as a bomb throwing, uktra conservative, religious extremist. The fact that he thinks that’s a winning formula for a presidential run suggests to me that I’m not going to take his vision too seriously. That’s a losing archetype. That type of candidate will never be president again in an ever increasing secular nation.
I take this more as intense pressure from his donors, combined with tightening polls then anything else.
1mime, I’ve heard Rick Perry mentioned, and Michael McCaul.
Hmm, Perry makes sense. (Not that I care for “hair” but he doesn’t seem to know much else except politics (not even dance, evidently)…
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297511-cruz-endorses-trump
Just says something about how complete Trump’s takeover is. Cruz was the only important elected official in the Republican party refusing to endorse. #NeverTrump is down to a couple of Senators and governors in deep blue states, and two freshmen Senators, and none of them have any clout in the party.
It gets weirder.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/kim-kardashian-on-the-fence-on-voting-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/ar-BBwyn7W?li=AA2qN5v&ocid=spartanntp
Cruz Trump endorsement: It’s even worse, Fly. Learned in a TPM story this morning this sordid tidbit about the “principled” Ted Cruz:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-rented-donor-email-list-trump-campaign
Right – pontificate on how personally offended you are about attacks on your father and wife, then quietly sell your voter email list to the very man that you accuse of duplicitous behavior?
Who’s worse here?
I’ve been refraining from commenting in this blog for several days now, but this posting is sufficiently important that I’m going to comment.
Chris’ point is that the police forces need to be held accountable and that the procedures and policies that the police unions have negotiated as part of their contract have interfered with holding the police accountable. We have considerable experience with that in Seattle.
Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in the nation and has a strong pro-union ethic. Over the years the police unions have negotiated very strong contracts that require a lot of process to discipline a police officer. As an aside, the City even pays the salary of the police guild president. For many years there have been problems with the police overreacting, using unnecessary force and deadly force when it was not justified. There have been attempts to correct the problem by bringing in chiefs from outside, but the institutional resistance has always precluded reform. Officers were inevitably able to avoid any significant discipline.
Finally after some particularly egregious incidents the ACLU with support from some local groups sued. After considerable litigation, the US Department of Justice stepped in. The City agreed to a summary judgement and Seattle is now several years into a reform process overseen by the Department of Justice. The police chief was finally replaced by a new mayor after considerable political resistance and efforts by the police guild to preclude her confirmation. Currently considerable progress is being made in reducing the overuse of force and deadly force in particular, de-escalation of conflict, etc. That was partly due to a police guild president that was cooperative, but still supportive of the police. Nevertheless, a faction within the union was able to force the president to resign. Currently the big dispute is over procedures to ensure police accountability. Needless to say the Guild is still fighting attempts to change the culture. We probably still have several years remaining in the reform process and supervision by the Department of Justice. With our current mayor (hopefully he will be reelected next year) and the current police chief, good progress will continue in the reform process.
All this shows how difficult the reform process can be. Once there is a culture of limited accountability ingrained in a department, changing things is devilishly difficult. Nevertheless, strong unions and fair procedures are necessary, to ensure discipline procedures are justified and that police are adequately compensated. Recently the problem has been that there is too little accountability, so a culture of abuse towards minorities in particular has become ingrained in the police culture in many locations. So I believe, we need to be cautious about “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, but nevertheless the problem over powerful police unions needs to be tackled so that adequate accountability measures are in place. The current active role of the Department of Justice hopefully will be continued in the next administration. If HRC is elected, I expect her to continue it.
Chris’ point is well taken.
Not so fast, Chris. OK has responded appropriately (kudos to them), and SC also responded appropriately to two separate events that made national news. But Sandra Bland’s jailors weren’t even reprimanded in TX, Ferguson was outrageous, and the Republicans are firmly in control in NC. Conversely, the machinery worked appropriately with Rodney King and Freddie Gray – those perpetrators were let off by juries (and also the judge with Rodney King moving the case to a police suburb.) Also, unions can’t be blamed for Chicago – suppressing the tape was a political decision that went to the top with Rahm Emmanuel (note that NC looks like it’s doing the same and in that case it goes all the way up to the governor). In a subsequent Chicago shooting, there was appropriate action taken.
It’s fair to say the problem is with policing and that blue states don’t do better, but it’s not that red states do better, it’s more that it’s a local issue.
Charlotte has a Democratic mayor (almost always has, also) and a black Democrat as a police chief. That said, you can be pretty sure that the officers involved will face discipline within a few weeks, as have others in similar situations in both NC and SC. It’s a more complex case, so you can expect it to take more time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/21/the-charlotte-police-shooting-that-hasnt-gone-away/?utm_term=.bcb376f236a5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/11/former-north-charleston-officer-who-shot-walter-scott-indicted-on-federal-civil-rights-violation/?utm_term=.6ac649cadb96
The officer who arrested Sandra Bland was fired almost immediately then charged with perjury a few months later.
http://abc13.com/news/grand-jury-indicts-trooper-in-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/1148818/
That outcome in the Bland case is absolutely unthinkable in the northern city. Authorities are not even permitted to question an officer over an incident for the first couple of days.
The Guardian has conducted a study in concert with 538 (Nate Silver) about blue and red states housing affordability. I was surprised to learn that housing values/markets are much higher in blue states….which the article goes on to cite as contributing to erosion of Dem support in blue states. The relationship of housing affordability to the issue of policing in blue states, is interesting as it directly links poverty, neighborhood safety, and educational quality.
One statement in your post, Chris, that I disagree with is your premise that “Southern states have plenty of racism, but the public will not tolerate extreme abuses.” From reporting I follow from SPLC and through the work of the Equal Justice Initiative (AL). Possibly more detail in terms of “degree” would clarify your view, but here in TX, LA, and many gulf states, the public operates on a dual justice platform – one for white people, one for black. What am I missing?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/25/housing-price-trends-blue-red-states-presidential-election-chart
I don’t pay too much attention to TV ads in general, they tend to just reinforce what one already believes. This one is pretty devastating though.
I would imagine anyone with daughters/sisters and most women in general will have a pretty visceral reaction to this.
Setting aside all the overt appeals to white nationalists. Setting aside the utter lack of knowledge about global affairs. Setting aside the terrible temperament/thin skin ; Setting aside the strong appearance of bribing gov’t officials to drop fraud cases; Setting aside the scamming if millions of dollars from vets and single moms via Trump U; Setting aside the overall buffoonery of Trumps persona:
The man is simply a piece of shit. At some point, the presidency is about more then pure policies and politics. The president is the American representative on the world stage. The prototypical/ideal American at any one point in time. Is this the guy ppl want to represent them to the world? I think this ad will hurt.
Trump is all the worst aspects of the American character: insatiable greed, delusional vanity, willful ignorance, xenophobia, jingoism, and sheer assholishness in one grotesque and ugly package. He is the Ugliest American, and a national embarrassment.
In fairness, just about anything nasty you can accuse Trump of doing, Hillary can do better. (Yay for women?)
“A 70-year-old person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still d*cking bimbos at home (according to the NYP).”
See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/14/colin-powell-bombs-bill-hillary-and-trump.html
You do realize that “d****** bimbos” is something that Powell said, don’t you? Also that’s Bill’s behavior, not Hillary’s.
Why are you insulting everyone’s intelligence here with your absurd and demonstrably FALSE assertion that ANY bad attribute of HRC is anywhere CLOSE to Comrade Combover’s deplorable record?? Are you auditioning to be the next campaign manager should Conway grow a conscience?? I’ve heard far, far worse misogynistic quotes from Trump, quotes not fit to be aired on network TV. Anything you want to knock HRC for (lying, not trust worthy, etc), I can give you 100 fold with Donnie deadbeat, PLUS I can bring up his childish temperament, lack of qualifications, willful ignorance, and no consistent, coherent policy.
White-knighting Trump is futile and stupid. He is a horrid excuse for a human being, and you have chosen to support him.
I started to reply to Ob, then I figured, why?
A short list of some Trump lies:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/23/donald_trump_s_most_likely_debate_lies.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
Well 1mime, it’s not healthy to let bullshit pile up. Fortunately we have plenty of people willing to share the labor of shoveling it out of this place.
I know, and I have tried, but I am through trying to use a rational factual argument with Ob. It is an effort in frustration and it irritates me.
fly, ha, the sentiment was something I read on a Bernie Sanders T-shirt during the DNC. (I can’t take credit for originality here.)
As far as manure … I prefer horse manure or chicken poop in my garden. No need to shovel it out. It has it’s purposes. It’s true that the stuff cows produce is rather smelly. You’ll be interested to know that California is going to regulate methane-rich cow farts soon. (Not kidding.)
Now where was I? Oh, yes, I mean no defense of some of the things Trump has said, but you and most of the others are blind to some of the egregious things that Hillary has said and done.
Colin Powell claims to be a friend of Hillary and even he calls her greedy with unbridled ambition.
And sorry, Bill’s behavior IS an issue. As “first dude” or whatever he’s going to call himself, he will be living in the White House and Hillary has already said that he will be part of the administration and will be helping her make decisions.
Bill has a long history of infidelity and has been accused of being a sexual predator multiple times and even rape. Hillary should have done like Huma did with Weiner and separated from Bill long ago. He is also a national embarrassment.
Just curious. Fly and mime, are you okay with Bill’s behavior? Are you okay with the way Hillary has tried to smear some of Bill’s victims?
Objv, if you think I’m blind to ANY of the things you mentioned, you have not been paying attention at all. I have expressed critical opinions of Clinton and the choices she’s made numerous times on this blog. The bottom line is that Trump’s negatives far exceed hers, AND he’s not qualified, AND I don’t agree with his policy positions, and by policy positions I mean the ones he flip flops back to the most. She’s not the candidate I wanted, but by any objective standard, she’s the best choice. The fact that I must even expend elections to defend sane vs insane just shows how badly effed up our politics are.
Expend electrons. More electrons for autocorrect.
As for why hasn’t HRC divorced Bill, that’s her business, not mine, and not yours. Same for Huma. Marriage is a contract and sometimes people marry and stay married for reasons other than true love. It wouldn’t shock me if the Clinton marriage was more about power, but if she does the job properly, why the hell should I care? She’s the one who has to live with him, not me. For the record, I would not have voted for Bill again after how badly he handed that stupid scandal, but term limits make that moot.
I also wouldn’t be shocked if Melania Trump’s primary motivation was $, and I also don’t care about that.
Would I put up with a serial cheater or marry a disgusting jerk for $? Absolutely not, but why should I expect others to make my choices in matters personal?
And, are we really, really holding up D.J. Trump as a symbol of moral decency? Married 3 times, openly consorting with other women while married, has his own “rape” charge of a juvenile, and his business dealings have their own sordid reputation.
No, mime, I do not look to Trump as any kind of moral mentor.
He is more likely to nominate someone conservative to the SC. That’s the main reason I prefer him to Hillary. No guaranties, but I would rather not have another RBG making decisions.
“He is more likely to nominate someone conservative to the SC. That’s the main reason I prefer him to Hillary. No guaranties, but I would rather not have another RBG making decisions.”
That’s the ONLY pro-Trump reason you’ve given that ISN’T buttressed by logical fallacies (and even then you are taking a gamble).
Let’s be clear. Neither candidate has a clear record when it comes to treatment of women. If you want a visceral reaction, please read the following:
“The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being “appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County.” However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case “as a favor to him.”
What else has been written about it?
In 2008, during the height of her presidential primary campaign, Newsday published an in-depth story about Clinton’s involvement with the trial. Newsday argued that Clinton’s account in “Living History” left out “a significant aspect of her defense strategy – attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim.” She reportedly sent an affidavit during the trial requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university’s clinic, and without offering any source, alleged that the victim had often sought older men. The case, Newsday claimed, “offers a glimpse into the way Clinton deals with crisis. Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win.”
Why are we hearing about this again?
On Sunday evening, the conservative news site the Washington Free Beacon released audio which they had uncovered from the Clinton archives at the University of Arkansas. In the tapes, from over 30 years ago, Clinton describes how she was able to find a loophole in the system to discredit the evidence against her client. She is heard laughing as she describes the tactics she used to do so. The recordings prompted the victim of the trial to speak out for the first time in years.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/
objv, I found the audio of Hillary being interviewed and she did chuckle at on point but most of the “chuckling” was done by the interviewer. This audio didn’t seem too diabolical, so I went looking for the Newsday article. Didn’t look real hard but couldn’t find it online. BUT, wait, first google hit was a Snopes article. Which has parts of the Newsday article and the audio if you want to check them out. It also has footnotes if you want the truthcheck Snopes.
objv. You have to think through the whole Bill of Rights thing and come to grips with everyone, universally, getting all the rights guaranteed us. You know, speedy trial, representation, blah, blah. Even if their guilt is obvious to you or me.
Also, you have to be careful out there on the internet. There are bad people that will lie and try to manipulate you.
Hillary was a defense lawyer, doing her job. Everybody, even the scummiest of scumbags, is entitled to certain protections under the Constitution, notably the right to a trial, and the right to a legal defense.
I also wouldn’t fault a doctor for saving a serial killers life if they were brought in for a gunshot wound.
uaaua and Rob, Two points here are not in dispute.
1. Hillary was not assigned the case. She was dishonest there. She took it as a favor.
2. Hillary alleged, without any evidence, that a 12-year-old girl who had been raped by a 41-year-old man had often sought out older men. The allegation was false.
Incredible that you are not outraged.
Sorry, but the two points are in dispute. I copied and pasted from Snopes. I used to get really crazy stuff from my relatives. I started running them through Snopes and now I don’t get crazy emails from my relatives. Actually, I don’t get any email from my relatives.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
1) ” Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.
“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.
According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.
Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.
Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”
“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.””
2) “That affidavit doesn’t show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant “made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men”; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was “emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” and that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences.” Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense’s expense) to determine the validity of that information:”
Unarmed….I don’t get much email from my relatives either (-; You got a laugh from me on that!
I have read this snopes version, factcheck, yadayadayada….that’s why I chose not to respond to Ob. It is useless.
Nice try, though. Undoubtedly, there are others here who benefited.
uaaua, The Snopes article was specifically debunking an internet meme which contained several inaccuracies. That does not mean that the abcnews article that I referenced was wrong.
First of all, in the recording made in the 1980s, Hillary said that a prosecutor had called and asked “Would I do it as a favor to him…”
http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/
The Snopes information relies on Hillary Clinton’s autobiography which was written in 2003 and backed up by the prosecutor in 2008.
Which would be more accurate? A tape recording made a few years after the rape or claims in an autobiography meant to burnish her record decades later? Who knows? Honesty was never a strong point for Hillary.
2. Hillary alleged, without any evidence, that a 12-year-old girl who had been raped by a 41-year-old man had often sought out older men. The allegation was false.
I decided to go back to the original court documents (page 34) to check the record. Hillary did NOT give any evidence to prove the claim that the girl had sought out older men in the past. It was part of her request for a psychiatric evaluation and made before the girl was to see a psychiatrist.
The victim strongly denies Hillary’s assertion that she sought out older men. See the article below. In any case it should not matter. For crying out loud, she was only twelve and spent five days in a coma afterward from the beating that accompanied the rape.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
Well, mime, bless your heart. You must have missed me while I was in California!
Never feel that you have answer any of my comments. I know that your mind is made up, and like my mother-in-law, there is nothing I can do to change it. 🙂
That is not an oversight on my part.
objv – I don’t think you are strengthening your point, that Hillary is as toxic for women as Donald. Your links and other points really don’t show what you think. Not to someone like me. Someone that doesn’t already have hatred for Hillary burnt into the neurons of my brain. I really did not know anything about this case before, but now when I see it referred to, I’ll dismiss it and the person mentioning it. In the worse case, Hillary did what she was required to do by law, that is defend someone as best she could.
But before we leave the subject, you mention a 5 day coma. And I see she says she was in a 5 day coma in a recent interview. Yet there is no mention of any physical injury in the charges, no charges for assault. The police took her to the doctor. No mention of hospital. To be in a coma, wouldn’t that be caused by serious visible physical trauma? She was raped on the 10th. The filing is dated the 14th and it was filed on the 15th. Where does the 5 day coma fit in?
I don’t have much time this morning, unarmed, I was able to go back to the legal documents.
The man was charged with rape in the first degree. That charge would include any physical injuries the girl suffered. .
For example: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.040
The trial was set for July 21 originally and was changed at least twice. The final date mentioned was November 3.
The court made its judgement on Nov 4 to a lessened charge of unlawful foundling of a child under the age of 14.
I do believe that even the worst criminals are entitled to a good lawyer, but I also believe that the victim has a right to have the truth told about her.
Can we at least agree that the statements made about the girl’s alleged propensity for seeking out older men should not have ever been mentioned in court documents?
I have three wonderful, sweet nieces between the ages of 10 and 14. The thought of them having to go through a trial like this while a lawyer was trying to smear them makes me sick to my stomach.
objv – have had a chance to look at the legal documents you posted here, concerning whether the victim was in a five day coma? The 4th page has the prosecutor’s investigators account of what happened. So, the victim was not in a coma, obviously she had to be talk to the investigator. So, in your opinion, is it possible that the victim is lying now? If that’s so, does that make it more likely that a psychological exam may have been needed at the time?
The only reason I continue with this subject is that i truly wonder how you formed your opinion of Hillary.
One complaint that keeps coming up when an officer IS fired or charged with a crime over the shooting of a suspect is that it must have been because the authorities caved in to public pressure, as if it’s nothing more than mob justice.
For too long, Tutta, mob justice was the only way there was any justice for black people killed by police. This didn’t begin with Rodney King (L.A.) but this may be the first time our country reacted so uniformly against police brutality. Why? It was videoed. What a difference technology has made in policing the police.
Well, for too long, Blacks themselves were the victims of mob justice, aka “lynchings,” so mob justice is not necessarily a good thing.
I can see that we need a definition of terms. “Mob justice” – in my mind, means crowds gathering, protesting loudly, inviting media coverage, challenging authority. It does not mean that mob justice should ever result in personal injury or damage to surrounding property.
I failed to limit my use of “mob justice”.
Mob justice should be nothing more than public pressure on the authorities to properly investigate a killing and fire or prosecute accordingly, to get to the truth of the matter.
Agree – clarified in prior post. I was too broad in my application.
What also concerns me is what happens when there is insufficient public pressure in certain cases. The “mob” can be choosy and fickle about whom to raise cain over, and not all cases get the same level of media coverage. Do these victims fall through the cracks?
Justice should not be dependent on public pressure.
In reading The Weekly Sift today, “Tranquility or Justice”, Doug Muder offered a quote from Martin Luther King that beautifully articulates what I was trying to express about “mob justice”. Or, as MLK stated, “the language of the unheard”. So very true.
“It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
– Martin Luther King, “The Other America” (March 14, 1968)”
An interesting take from CNN.
“Rev. Ray Owens of Metropolitan Baptist Church, which held the vigil, opened the service by saying he was offering the church as “a space for safe, yet constructive expression of our righteous rage” in light of the shooting.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/tulsa-charlotte-shooting-protests/index.html
A big difference in the way the people reacted was due to a call for peace by black community leaders in Tulsa. The leaders there truly honored the legacy of Martin Luther King.
mime, thanks for the good advice on making a home handicapped friendly. My husband and I had a good trip to California and got a lot of work done at his mom’s house.
Obj….
“A big difference in the way the people reacted was due to a call for peace by black community leaders in Tulsa.”
Or maybe it was because the officer is Tulsa was pretty quickly brought up on charges.
Or, you know, maybe we should keep encouraging Black folks to “more appropriately” protest things in ways that do not offend White sensibilities.
There is probably at least a little accuracy in the sentiment that MLK’s carrot would not have been as effective without Malcolm’s stick.
‘Or, you know, maybe we should keep encouraging Black folks to “more appropriately” protest things in ways that do not offend White sensibilities.’
Given Kaepernick’s low approval ratings right now, I’m thinking that’s an impossible standard. Just saying a problem exists raises the defensive hackles with some people.
My unsolicited opinion on protesting: please don’t hurt people/ destroy property, and please don’t embellish the narratives- the bare facts in these cases are cause enough for protest.
Homer and fly. They’re not white (or black) sensibilities. They are human sensibilities. By taking the higher road, the African-Americans in Tulsa are displaying a superior way of reacting. I admire them for that.
Violence and looting reinforce the stereotypes we want to change.
The good people in the church and the other community leaders shame our country because they are repaying evil with good. It was the same with the church shooting involving Dylan Roof. The outpouring of grief from all political side was so great that the Confederate flag came down from government properties.
Obj…funny how we expect folks who’ve slugged through a couple centuries of some pretty crappy stuff to take the high road.
I think one could make a pretty compelling argument that if all the Black folks displayed “a superior way of reacting”, we wouldn’t be having these conversations because no one seems to care about Black issues until they start “fucking shit up” as the kids say.
If Ferguson doesn’t explode, if BLM didn’t march, if everyone just prayed for peace, no one would care just like no one cared for the decades before that.
So, for lily White folks who worry about reinforcing stereotypes, maybe you can see a “superior way of reacting”, but it certainly does seem like if no one screams, no one listens.
The outpouring of grief that accompanied Dylan Roof is not what brought down the confederate flag (and the folks you are voting for in this election will want to put that flag right back up), it was the “holy shit, I can’t believe we are still flying a confederate flag” reaction that got that flag down. It was an instance of darn liberals taking advantage of a bad situation to fix something that should have been fixed a few decades ago. It just took a bunch of Black folks getting shot by a confederate flag waving idiot for the GOP to agree to it.
Homer, I do not expect African-Americans to take the high road. I admire them for doing so.
The only cops charged lately for killing ppl in high profile cases would probably be the Baltimore ones, and hey were all found not guilty.
Plus, you cannot say that charging cops is “mob justice”. The very act of charging someone through the criminal justice system is, by definition, the exact opposite of mob justice.
“Public pressure” is the more appropriate term, and it does play a role in bringing about justice, but that can be good or bad.
I have to wonder about the Baltimore DA overlaying her hand. Many of the charges seemed unrealistic.
Some people accuse DA’s of bowing to public pressure by charging officers with unrealistic charges, knowing that the officers will most likely be found not guilty. But the DA can at least say they did their duty by charging them.
Chris, I wonder if you’re calling into the causation/correlation mistake.
Undoubtedly, police brutality happens in Dem “territory” I.e. medium and large cities.
But is it BECAUSE of Dem policies re: unions? Or is it just much more likely to happen in densely populated areas which, which naturally has more crimes (in total, not necessarily per capita), which tend to lean Dem, but for reasons that have nothing to do with police issues?
In other words, it is undeniable that police brutality tends to happen in cities. It is also undeniable that cities overhwleimngly elect Dems. But is the police brutality issue because of policies put in charge by the local gov’t? Or is it because these types of things are inevitably more likely to happen in cities, regardless of who is in charge?
I think it’s the latter. But even if not, it is not like Dem union policies are IBTENDED to shield corruot cops. It is an unintended consequences of having a general policy that strong unions are a good thing (which I agree with). To that end, no need to throw the baby out with the bath water and weaken ALL unions because one particular industry with unique powers uses those rules to protect scumbags.
And frankly, I don’t see how it’s purely a union thing. Yes, police unions that shield cops are a problem. But the ultimate authority rests with the state. If AG’s start prosecuting dirty cops using the same standard they use for civilians (cops basically need to be video taped from 5 different angles murdering someone to actually be charged), then things will change quick.
Unions can save a cops careers sometimes. They cant save them from the justice system if the justice system wants to prosecute them.
I’m very late to this thread, but I think you’re absolutely right about the denser population pretty much entirely explaining where most police brutality takes place. I’d also point out that police unions have historically been considerable outliers in political stance – they tend to be Republican. Heck, when Scott Walker launched into his brutal attack on public unions in Wisconsin, there was a very notable exception – the police (also firefighters). See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/the-gop-and-police-unions-a-love-story.html for some history and speculation on where that GOP-police relationship is likely to go. I think it pretty much negates the entire thesis of Chris’s post. The only union that gets away with murder is the most Republican union.
I had a debate in the HuffPo comments section a few days ago about this case.
I said that I would t be all that shocked if the Thin Blue Line failed to hold for a women, nearly as strong as it does for men.
It is encouraging to see the wheels of justice turning appropriately in this case. Call me a cynic, but I’m not so sure it would have been so fast for a male cop.
Well said. Thank you.
In central Florida we actually have weak unions and many authority figures are minorities. Police violence has been a mix bag at best here. But the public is getting more and more fed up. Body cameras and every citizen having a cell phone video system is giving bad cops no place to hide and protecting good cops. This is going to be I think a first order of business for a Hillary administration as while police violence falls more heavily on minorities any working class white has similar stories. As a white man who started out poor working class and worked himself up to upper middle class I am amaze at the naiveness of many middle class whites who have never been poor. But cameras everywhere are rapidly educating them.
So with the McDonald case in Chicago, is it that the shooting in the video is just too obviously unnecessary for even the usual police union shenanigans to work?
Plus there were months of small scale protests. And police very blatantly (and crudely) destroyed evidence. And frankly, there is some troubling suggestion that the cops were looking for a way to kill McDonald for (ahem) some other reasons. Fishy enough circumstances to result in a 1st degree murder charge. It was bad, really, really bad.
Oh, and it happened two years ago. No charges were filed for 18mos.
What do you think the odds of a murder1 conviction are? Even those of us seeing this from far away and with far less knowledge of the details think it stinks to high heaven, but murder1 has a very high bar (as it should). Would the jury have the option to consider other charges?
Also what are the chances of anyone higher up getting charged for covering up? The shooter and those who lied to cover him are the low hanging fruit.
I always felt that the murder 1 charge against Trayvon Martin’s killer was a set up from the beginning. IOW, a serious charge lets the DA off the hook, but presents a judge/jury with an impossible charge to prosecute. IOW, it was all for “show”. I wonder if this is the same in OK.