Good news! Grammar will soon be obsolete, since it is racist.

“Under a so-called critical grammar pedagogy, “This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic’ English backgrounds at a disadvantage,” the email states.

“Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

[twitter]https://twitter.com/leonydusjohnson/status/1285663089434734592?s=21[/twitter

(07-22-2020 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good news! Grammar will soon be obsolete, since it is racist.

“Under a so-called critical grammar pedagogy, “This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic’ English backgrounds at a disadvantage,” the email states.

“Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

[twitter]https://twitter.com/leonydusjohnson/status/1285663089434734592?s=21[/twitter

As Professor Henry Higgins laments in My Fair Lady:
"There even are places where English completely disappears...
In America, they haven't used it for years!"

I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

I guess like Russian boogeymen, you guys can find systemic racism anywhere you want to find it. You cannot define it or explain it, but you sure can see it in the shadows.

Taking it from the other end, if electing Democrats and promoting black cops to top positions doesn't rid the system of racism, what is the left's proposal here? The standard more of the same? The only thing different from six months ago is defund/abolish the police.

I wonder why the chief, in his/her former position in IA, did not get rid of Chauvin? Was it because of he was systemically racist too?

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

So your answer is 'if we cannot note any proximate cause, nor any cause in fact, the issue is 'SYSTEMIC' (yell case in original). Sounds like fun when you cant name a causal effect from racism per se in the mix, that the fallback is 'systemic racism' as the generic catchall bugaboo.

Kind of fits in with the nugget that 'blacks are generally more unhealthy than whites even when controlling for socioeconomic levels' brought forth awhile back by 84. Just yell 'SYSTEMIC' (yell case in original) and all is good in the Matrix.

Can I use that excuse when I miss a big ol' momma sow when night hog hunting?

Another 'Mostly Peaceful' Leftie Protest: 49 Chicago Police Officers Injured

I wonder when that Superintendent of Police that posted that is going to get fired by the city for 'agitation'.

Go Team Protest, Fight, Fight, Fight! Yaaaaaay Team Protest!

I have an idea, lets do Fantasy League Protest. You get three named cities, valid from Thursday to Sunday.

6 points than the city you name has more than 8 cops get injured. 6 points for every multiple of 8 cops injured.

8 points for a city declaring an illegal assembly.
10 points for a resulting curfew.
15 points for a city declaring a riot.

4 points for a statue being pulled down.
9 points for a successful act of arson.

Double points for cities of less than 1 million.
Double points again for cities in states that went for Trump in the last election.

Triple point bonus for cities with Republican mayors.

Im gonna go with ---- Denver, Portland, and New York City.

Safe bets here, not going for the grand slam multiples.

Winner gets a free ninja bacalava hood ---  night black of course.

(07-22-2020 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

I guess like Russian boogeymen, you guys can find systemic racism anywhere you want to find it. You cannot define it or explain it, but you sure can see it in the shadows.

Here's a good definition from Wikipedia: Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organisation. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues.

Quote:Taking it from the other end, if electing Democrats and promoting black cops to top positions doesn't rid the system of racism, what is the left's proposal here? The standard more of the same? The only thing different from six months ago is defund/abolish the police.

I wonder why the chief, in his/her former position in IA, did not get rid of Chauvin? Was it because of he was systemically racist too?

Honestly, I see you ask questions like this all the time, and propose things (like the bolded) that just aren't true. Do you actually do a little research or reading before you type that?

For starters, I quickly found this:

Quote:In the wake of national protests following the death of George Floyd, House and Senate Democrats unveiled legislation on Monday that would bring about wide-ranging reforms to police departments across the country.

The Democratic proposal, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, has more than 200 sponsors and marks one of the most comprehensive efforts in modern times to overhaul the way police do their jobs.

It would prohibit the use of chokeholds, lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct, and ban no-knock warrants in drug-related cases. The plan would also create a national registry to track police misconduct."We can't settle for anything other than transformative structural change," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on Monday while flanked by the bill's authors gathered to introduce the legislation. "True justice can only be achieved with full, comprehensive action, that is what we are doing today. This is a first step; there is more to come."

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871625856...egislation

And then there is the fact that the "defund police" movement is trying to actually combat the structural issues, as you mentioned. Have you read about what some of the goals are of defunding the police? A lot of the proposals are offering radical changes in how we currently view policing by changing how funds are allocated OR by dismantling the department all together (a la Camden). For example:

- Minneapolis City Council voted to disband the police department, which could go up for a vote in November
- LA shifted $150 MM out of its budget and redirect it elsewhere
- Other California cities, Baltimore, and Prince George's County (to name a few) either have, or have pledged, to do the same

So how is that more of the same?

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

The discussion about whether or not they are 'progressive' is another one of your rabbit trails. You know, you don't have to have an opinion about everything that I say. I've presented circumstantial evidence that leads me to believe that they were 'left of Hillary' in 2016. I have set that as the bar for being 'progressive' in my mind. If you choose to believe that they are actually only moderate democrats and that the bar should be placed elsewhere, it makes no difference. The point is that they went in a big way (2:1) for the 'more left' of the two presidential options available to them from the left in the primary.

Now to the real discussion....
So this guy killed George Floyd because the system is inherently racist? That you can't train him to not hold an unarmed and handcuffed guy being arrested for passing a bad check down by a knee in his neck for a prolonged period when many other options are readily available because of 'the system'? You can't train cops not to kill people who are struggling to breathe?

If that's really the case, then you're saying that the enforcement of laws is inherently racist... and can't be fixed other than to ignore laws and to attack those who seek to enforce it.... because the death of a black man who had no reason to be dead is what happened there after 13+ years of specifically trying to fix it, and ignoring laws is the solution being offered today.

And you wonder why criminals co-opt your position and why generally law abiding citizens don't support them, other than being forced into accepting this rather nebulous, 'it's the system'
comment?

So who does a good job with this? Who has a system that isn't 'racist'?

In the UK, BAME people make up 14% of the population and 25% of the prison population... so not them...

Germany, often lauded for having an incarceration rate 1/10th ours... not surprisingly makes it difficult to find 'incarceration rate by race'... and instead they focus rather heavily on 'foreigners'... which is amusing to me because I keep getting told that we in the US are nationalists and Germany isn't... Well yeah... they started about 70 years ago by ridding the nation of almost everyone else, and now they focus on 'foreigners'. I guess some things never change, no matter what we're told.

I'm laughing as I read... The 'guest workers from the 50's and 60's' (lol... as if those would be Africans, Jews and the like so soon after WW2) showed no increase in crime rates... studies in the 70's and 80's revealed that new foreigners had approximately double the crime rate. I'm sure it's not as simple as I'm making it, but this is exactly what they're saying.

Maybe the reason the incarceration rate there is so much lower is that they break so many fewer laws... because 'native' Germans remember that disobeying government means you get killed or worse??

SOmebody please help me... Germany Incarceration Rate by Race returns 3.7mm hits, but I can't find one actually delivering 'Germany Incarceration Rate by Race'. US incarceration rate by race returns 8.5mm results... and the first few pages all deliver exactly that answer... often just in the 'summary'.... and when I go to wiki and ask for incarceration in Germany, I'm given Incarceration in the US instead.

If it weren't such a serious issue, this would be funny.

Now I'm looking at the EU... they have 'alternative prisons' for foreigners with administrative crimes... I guess those are illegal immigrants being held 'in cages'.... and they have a much larger probation system. I've heard, but it's anecdotal... that you have to be pretty bad to go to prison, but that their prisons are FAR worse than what we find acceptable here. Maybe we need to make fewer prisons, but make those prisons much less comfortable.

Seriously, that might actually have some basis... That's pretty much what that guy in AZ tried... and the left sued him and won/ran him off/scared others off.

The incarceration rate in England and Wales is 148 per 100,000... but according to Marcelo Aebi of the U of Lausanne... without these alternative facilities, their incarceration rate would be 474 per 100,000. The US would still be higher at 730, but that's a big difference... and they still incarcerate far more minorities than anglos.



Lad, to your 'more of the same' question....
Those facts don't tell you anything about what is being done with the money.... or how those departments will operate on less money, or what will replace the now completely defunded police.

My issue isn't that the solutions are necessarily the same... Its that the solutions haven't remotely been vetter or tested or in most cases, even articulated... and 'what Democrats in Minneapolis, LA, Other California Cities, Baltimore, PG county (to name a few)' are proposing.... ALL are run by Democrats and ALL could have been doing these things all along. Once again, other than wanting to see something work or at least show a little bit of promise before agreeing to completely change our way of addressing crime in the US... how are 'Republicans' the problem?

So we're trusting the people who haven't come close to solving this issue that THEY believe exists and have for decades... to suddenly stumble upon the answer... but we have to give them carte blanche and elect them to every level of government nationally before we can even start?

Hint... defunding the police in and of itself doesn't stop George Floyd from dying. It easily means that John Doe ALSO dies.

(07-22-2020 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

I guess like Russian boogeymen, you guys can find systemic racism anywhere you want to find it. You cannot define it or explain it, but you sure can see it in the shadows.

Here's a good definition from Wikipedia: Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organisation. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues.

Quote:Taking it from the other end, if electing Democrats and promoting black cops to top positions doesn't rid the system of racism, what is the left's proposal here? The standard more of the same? The only thing different from six months ago is defund/abolish the police.

I wonder why the chief, in his/her former position in IA, did not get rid of Chauvin? Was it because of he was systemically racist too?

Honestly, I see you ask questions like this all the time, and propose things (like the bolded) that just aren't true. Do you actually do a little research or reading before you type that?

For starters, I quickly found this:

Quote:In the wake of national protests following the death of George Floyd, House and Senate Democrats unveiled legislation on Monday that would bring about wide-ranging reforms to police departments across the country.

The Democratic proposal, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, has more than 200 sponsors and marks one of the most comprehensive efforts in modern times to overhaul the way police do their jobs.

It would prohibit the use of chokeholds, lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct, and ban no-knock warrants in drug-related cases. The plan would also create a national registry to track police misconduct."We can't settle for anything other than transformative structural change," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on Monday while flanked by the bill's authors gathered to introduce the legislation. "True justice can only be achieved with full, comprehensive action, that is what we are doing today. This is a first step; there is more to come."

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871625856...egislation

And then there is the fact that the "defund police" movement is trying to actually combat the structural issues, as you mentioned. Have you read about what some of the goals are of defunding the police? A lot of the proposals are offering radical changes in how we currently view policing by changing how funds are allocated OR by dismantling the department all together (a la Camden). For example:

- Minneapolis City Council voted to disband the police department, which could go up for a vote in November
- LA shifted $150 MM out of its budget and redirect it elsewhere
- Other California cities, Baltimore, and Prince George's County (to name a few) either have, or have pledged, to do the same

So how is that more of the same?

Further evidence of change - Minnesota just passed the “Police Accountability Act.”

Quote: The bill is comprised of three different acts. The Reclaiming Community Oversight Act includes measures such as:

Prohibition on “warrior training”
A ban on chokeholds
Arbitration reform
Requiring the duty to intercede
Data collection and regulatory reform
Reforms to the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board
The creation of a new advisory council with citizen voices
The Reforming Accountability Act includes investigatory reform measures and reforms to the use of force.

The Reimaging Public Safety Act contains solutions such as mental health and autism training, public safety peer counseling debriefing, and extension of training funds for the POST Board until 2024.

https://spokesman-recorder.com/2020/07/2...lity-bill/

Will any of the measures create meaning and substantial changes? Only time will tell. But it seems pretty clear that the movement sparked by Floyd’s death has started to have actual impacts with regard to legislation and policing.

(07-22-2020 05:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it seems pretty clear that the movement sparked by Floyd’s death has started to have actual impacts with regard to ... policing.

I would unabashedly say that the 600% increase in NYC police retirement applications from this time last year *undoubtedly* will have actual impacts with regard to policing.

I will say the wave of gang violence and lawlessness that has washed over Chicago and Minneapolis is also undoubtedly an actual impact to policing initiated by the movement sparked by Floyd's death.

On that point, you and I are in absolute agreement.

(07-22-2020 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have you read about what some of the goals are of defunding the police?

From the name, presumably one of the goals is saving money. No?

Which of you lefties is going to sign up for this online presentation?

https://realeventmedia.com/ae

Short description: The Truth About CRIME, RACE AND POLICING, by Heather McDonald, Sponsored by the Center for the American Experiment.

Remember, she is the author of the WSJ piece that had yall yelping a bit about four weeks back.

Quote:At least three federal officers in Portland may not recover their vision after earlier this week demonstrators, who have shown up in crowds of over 1,000 for more than 50 consecutive nights, shined lasers in their eyes and threw fireworks at a federal courthouse, officials said.

The fireworks were commercial grade mortar launched pieces, mind you.

Quote:Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard “Kriss” Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 “rioters” surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.

Quote:The U.S. Marshals Service also reported communications jamming – the first reported instance since the riots have started -- which may have caused significant problems with their radio communications.

Quote:Cline also detailed how the names of federal officers would be removed from their uniforms and replaced with their badge numbers after approximately 38 law enforcement officers had been doxed.

linky

Quite the scorecard your side ran up over the weekend there, lefties. All in one location as well.

But hey, the Feds should just stay put inside their own courthouse according to one poster here.

(07-22-2020 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 02:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just looked at something about the death of George Floyd....
The primary cop implicated in his death has been a cop in Minneapolis since 2001. The chief of Police there has been in office for 3 years... and has been a cop there for 30. Prior to being appointed by the Democrat mayor of Minneapolis, he spent 10 years as the head of Internal Affairs, specifically charged with investigating officer misconduct. He was appointed to this position after he and 4 other African American members of the force sued and won a lawsuit against the force alleging bias against minority officers. They were awarded 740k, and yet he stayed on the force. That sort of screams commitment to me. Of all the people and places where 'bias' should have had time to be worked out, this should have been it. Although the state went slightly to Trump in the general (neither getting 50%), the primaries went much more to Bernie at 60+% (so highly progressive) and Rubio at like 32 with Trump around 20. 500k of the 1.5mm voters in the state are from the county including Minneapolis... from memory, it was like 60% for her... it wasn't a minor win... She took 6 of the largest 7 counties... Trump only taking one... that only had 75k voters. His next largest county he won was about 28k. This is NOT Trump country. Democrats OWN this county.,,, which is 3 times the next largest county in terms of voters.

So you have a known entity in the cop, whom the African-American chief of police had 10 years to vet through internal affairs and the potential to 'know' for 20... in a strongly progressive county lead by Democrats who appoint the chief and set the standards for them....

If ever there was an opportunity to eliminate bias, this was it.... and despite at least somewhat of a focus on it for at least 13 years, it failed... and somehow 'the racist right' is the problem here?

Here's the other things I find interesting...
The second officer indicted is Hmong... he has a spotty record. He became a cop in 2009 but was laid off from 2010-2012. 6 complaints have been filed against him... they settled one for 25k. Doesn't sound horrible, but doesn't sound good either.
The other two had been on the force for just a few weeks. The lead indicted officer was responsible for training one of them... who was African American. They sound like victims to be honest... IDK what their specific part was in the tragedy.

My point is that this was a case where everything you might suggest happen was in place, and progressive democrats controlled the local situation. What are they proposing now that they didn't have 100% opportunity to do in Minneapolis WITHOUT riots and vandalism?

Analysis instead of innuendo. Facts instead of supposition. What a novel approach.

So, lad/93, explain where we see the "systemic" racism?

I feel like this is a great example of how the issue is systemic - even with "progressive" Democrats (side note - do we have any idea if there were actually progressive Dems voted into positions of power in the area, or just how voters voted for Sanders?) we still see these issues because they aren't related to one part or the other, they are SYSTEMIC.

I guess like Russian boogeymen, you guys can find systemic racism anywhere you want to find it. You cannot define it or explain it, but you sure can see it in the shadows.

Here's a good definition from Wikipedia: Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organisation. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues.

Quote:Taking it from the other end, if electing Democrats and promoting black cops to top positions doesn't rid the system of racism, what is the left's proposal here? The standard more of the same? The only thing different from six months ago is defund/abolish the police.

I wonder why the chief, in his/her former position in IA, did not get rid of Chauvin? Was it because of he was systemically racist too?

Honestly, I see you ask questions like this all the time, and propose things (like the bolded) that just aren't true. Do you actually do a little research or reading before you type that?

For starters, I quickly found this:

Quote:In the wake of national protests following the death of George Floyd, House and Senate Democrats unveiled legislation on Monday that would bring about wide-ranging reforms to police departments across the country.

The Democratic proposal, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, has more than 200 sponsors and marks one of the most comprehensive efforts in modern times to overhaul the way police do their jobs.

It would prohibit the use of chokeholds, lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct, and ban no-knock warrants in drug-related cases. The plan would also create a national registry to track police misconduct."We can't settle for anything other than transformative structural change," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on Monday while flanked by the bill's authors gathered to introduce the legislation. "True justice can only be achieved with full, comprehensive action, that is what we are doing today. This is a first step; there is more to come."

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871625856...egislation

And then there is the fact that the "defund police" movement is trying to actually combat the structural issues, as you mentioned. Have you read about what some of the goals are of defunding the police? A lot of the proposals are offering radical changes in how we currently view policing by changing how funds are allocated OR by dismantling the department all together (a la Camden). For example:

- Minneapolis City Council voted to disband the police department, which could go up for a vote in November
- LA shifted $150 MM out of its budget and redirect it elsewhere
- Other California cities, Baltimore, and Prince George's County (to name a few) either have, or have pledged, to do the same

So how is that more of the same?

How is it different? Same stuff I have been hearing for 60 years.

Same old stuff. Different details. and all less than six months old, which is what I said.. You even bolded the six months.


here is some systemic racism in action.

I don't see specific problems delineated with specific solutions suggested. Just cops are bad, so less is better.

I DO remember when the answer to systemic racism in policing was hirng more black officers and promoting them to top spots. According to you, we have done that and we STILL have systemic racism.

MY question is simple: What did that black officer in IA not get rid of that cop who killed Floyd. He had 10 years. And now the answer is to shift money to non-policing?

How do you see a 50% reduction in the Houston police force helping you? Even if the money is spent on marriage counseling and garden spaces?

My nephew, in Houston, was robbed a few days ago, at gunpoint. He was the subject of an attempted carjacking a couple of months ago. He lives in the Rice area. Shepard at Bissonet.

And the solution is defunding police or abolishing them? Good luck with that. You will need it, not I, even though I live in an area with lots of guns.

One more reason not to come to Houston for Rice events.

(07-22-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:At least three federal officers in Portland may not recover their vision after earlier this week demonstrators, who have shown up in crowds of over 1,000 for more than 50 consecutive nights, shined lasers in their eyes and threw fireworks at a federal courthouse, officials said.

The fireworks were commercial grade mortar launched pieces, mind you.

Quote:Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard “Kriss” Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 “rioters” surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.

Quote:The U.S. Marshals Service also reported communications jamming – the first reported instance since the riots have started -- which may have caused significant problems with their radio communications.

Quote:Cline also detailed how the names of federal officers would be removed from their uniforms and replaced with their badge numbers after approximately 38 law enforcement officers had been doxed.

linky

Quite the scorecard your side ran up over the weekend there, lefties. All in one location as well.

But hey, the Feds should just stay put inside their own courthouse according to one poster here.

Rioters are unquestionably going too far with some tactics. Remember when I criticized the fed’s methods because they were likely to escalate tensions? Looks like I wasn’t too far off on that criticism. And I seem to be right that, had they not decided to start rounding up individuals and specifically remained defensive around the building they were meant to protect, there’s a good chance this escalation wouldn’t have occurred.

You’re basically advocating for the actions that have led to this **** show, which is a bit odd.

I wonder also, are you also looking at injuries sustained by some of the protestors? What was the scorecard there? We know there’s at least one broken hand on an elderly navy vet.

While Portland had these protests ongoing for weeks, it has literally exploded since the Feds overstepped and basically antagonized the protestors.

(07-22-2020 05:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have you read about what some of the goals are of defunding the police?

From the name, presumably one of the goals is saving money. No?

The left does really need to work on branding - I think most of the proposals center around shifting the funds to other programs that would either support police and ease some of their burdens (think dedicated social workers to manage certain mental health issues) or tackle poverty issues.

(07-22-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder also, are you also looking at injuries sustained by some of the protestors? What was the scorecard there? We know there’s at least one broken hand on an elderly navy vet.

I am absolutely sure that if I stand alone in a street that the cops ordered clear, and ignore numerous calls to do that, in the midst and epicenter of a riot, that my chances of walking away without an injury plunge pretty dramatically and quickly, notwithstanding your pithy rhetorical aside above. Do you disagree?