Tuesday, August 26, 2014

rule of law: bad apples? the whole rotten barrel depends on levying and enforcing a "poor peoples tax"!


WaPo | The structure of policing in these small St. Louis communities, as in many places in the United States, is innately combustible.

Officers rarely stay in the same police force for a long time, much less for an entire career. This means police and residents are typically strangers to one another — and not simply from different social, ethnic or racial backgrounds.

Ferguson is an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.

A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.

The civil unrest that followed the shooting of Michael Brown suggests a deeper problem with the city’s police department, said Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina professor of criminology who has studied police shootings for decades.

“In order for a police department to weather a storm like that, it has to have social capital. And this police department didn’t have social capital in that community,” he said.

29 comments:

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:


Yesterday we heard, once again, that BLACK VOTING is slated as the methodology to "Fight" for a better Ferguson. It will become the next East St Louis and Gary IN.


My direct question to you is: WHAT do you imagine will be the primary source of municipal revenues as people are talking about putting FAVORABLE POLITICIANS INTO POWER yet have no history at creating private sector jobs that pay payroll taxes and property taxes by the businesses?

CNu said...

Well my fine threadjacking friend - busily and energetically promoting a partisan agenda conspicuously obvious to the casual observer - if we're in basic agreement that the strong-arm "poor peoples tax" is not now and has never been an acceptable means of generating municipal revenues, we could talk. We are in basic agreement around that point, right?

Cause if we're not in basic agreement around that point, then I don't know that we have very much to talk about wrt what we tell more representative elected officials that we want them to do. Matter fact, since you're not in the solutions or forward-looking planning business, I'm forced to wonder why you even fixed your mouth to ask what must be a purely rhetorical question?

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:


You EXPECTED me to debate the issue that YOU brought forth - the revenue generating scheme via the court system.


What you failed to consider is that, in Metro-Atlanta, the past 20 years has produced a "Steady Steam" of "Fergusons":

* Riverdale, GA
* Lake City, GA
* Jonesboro, GA
* Fairburn, GA
and even the venerable "Stone Mountain GA"


Blacks start moving in.
Whites leave the city.
The influx of Blacks accelerates
The elected leadership is askew with the demographics.


CNu - do you know how many "White Police Chiefs" have been run out of office in these places due to:
1) Speed Traps to keep the city revenues in balance
2) The local activists getting on the radio and telling the masses to go into the courtroom of ____________ city and notice how there are mostly Black defendants and WHITE judges, court recorders and lawyers.
3) The first generation of "Black Activists" get voted into power and have an alliance because of their victory over a COMMON ENEMY
4) After Mission Accomplishment transpires we see "BLACK DEMOCRATIC FACTIONS" taking place, yet despite the "paper victory" the voting public notices that it feels no different when a Black court administrator loses your paperwork, causing you to spend the weekend in jail until the judge comes on Monday than when a WHITE PERSON proved to be similarly incompetent but was called a RACIST.


There is NOTHING about "Ferguson" that I have not seen played out in these other venues.


My post that you called "Partisan" and "Thread Jacking" was ONLY an attempt to get past the known TRANSACTIONALISM and compel people to focus on the PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.


This "Vote To Put People Who Respect Us Into Power" .

The only reason for my post, Sir, is to show you the well worn trench and to ask if there is any evidence of LESSONS LEARNED?


My general bias is ANTI-POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM. How is this "partisan"? I am NOT asking Black people to VOTE REPUBLICAN. I am giving empirical evidence that Political Opportunism is the primary scheme to DISARM THEM.

CNu said...

Wait, did you answer my basic question?if we're in basic agreement that the strong-arm "poor peoples tax" is not now and has never been an acceptable means of generating municipal revenues, we could talk. We are in basic agreement around that point, right?Cause if you did, I still managed to miss that answer.

I've been waffling about reposting that superb link that JK put up yesterday afternoon, showing that current greatest political-economic inequality coincides geographically with the old confederacy. My concern about derailing of the rule of law centers on what I will term the "capillary effect". i.e., in these little hamlets, dislocations between the system used to enforce the poor peoples tax, and reliance on that tax as a funding mechanism for policing is a vicious circle. Worse still, it's a vicious circle that has the potential to invoke arterial intervention when misapplied laws and deranged systems of "law and order" have been challenged and must be defended in higher courts or by the National Guard.

So, if we're in basic agreement that the poor peoples tax extracted via misapplied crime and punishment should be repealed, then we can talk about more favorable and sustainable funding mechanisms that can and should be instituted to take the place of this theft and appropriation via law/law enforcement.

Constructive_Feedback said...

SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION HERE:


"Should the legal system be used for pure-REVENUE GENERATION" ?
********************NO


My challenge is to ask "Why are you assuming that this is unique to 'The Poor'?
**** Traffic Light Cameras - REVENUE
**** Don't Lock Up "The Banksters" - get MULTI-BILLION settlements from them. The US Treasury gets a revenue stream and the balance sheets of the 'Too Big To Fail" banks suffer a momentary blip by the GOVERNMENTO-CAPTIALISTIC relationship is maintained - as it is most efficient to retain this "Two Step" as they focus on their preferred EXTERNAL targets (other nations).


[quote]showing that current greatest political-economic inequality coincides geographically with the old confederacy. [/quote]


This is a MISREPRESENTATION that only an IDEOLOGICAL bigot can conjure.

THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE in (organic) productivity outcomes between Black people in the North or Black people in the South. PERIOD!!!!


Greater population densities, on occasion - more abundant state welfare programs - explain any material differences.


If you look at the "poorest zipcodes in America" you will see a rather equal distribution between North and South.


Brother CNu - isn't the more INSIGHTFUL question that you should ask, besides doing a "Civil War Reenactment" is: "IDENTIFY THE EVIDENCE OF THE UPWARD THRUST RECEIVED BY BLACK PEOPLE AFTER HAVING ADOPTING THE 'SOCIAL JUSTICE STRUGGLE MOTION' MODEL AND INVESTING THE BLACK COMMUNITY VALUABLES AND DEVELOPMENT HOPES INTO NATIONALIZED POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM"?


My measure of "Black Development" is to identify that which is "carried with you" IF someone takes you from the Good Ole USA, plants you in Belize or "Chad" and you are asked to recreate the standard of living that you grew accustomed to in America."

BigDonOne said...

OTOH, one might obey the traffic laws, avoid altercation-prone venues (e.g., clubs, rap concerts), avoid petty hustles, stay sober, not buy/sell illegal drugs, and avoid other conduct which can attract contacts with the police (hanging out in areas where that stuff goes down). Then one is not likely to have a problem.......in a civilized society. This whole issue is only a serious issue among groups who intrinsically/historically cannot behave themselves....

DD said...

My you menacious man you.

I think he has a slight point. I was dinged recently by the city of San Rafael for no registration sticker three times over a week (all the same meter maid). I provided proof of insurance on their online corporate ticket site, they denied since I didn't show the actual registration. Now I pay the fine before I appeal. I pay the (now late due to fighting) $550 and send proof of the sticker (a photo of it on my car). They deny, say no proof provided, and no secondary appeal. I'm out $550 for something totally bogus.

But I'm just pissed. I can pay my food bill, car bill, mortgage, etc. Same tax, same concept; it's just not devastating due to my income.

It doesn't have to be overtly racist to be effectively racist (though St. Louis is a poor example if you want to prove it's not racially motivated).

Constructive_Feedback said...

ST LOUIS - Wikipedia:

The Democratic Party has dominated St. Louis city politics for decades. The city has not had a Republican mayor since 1949 and the last time a Republican was elected to another city-wide office was in the 1970s. As of 2006, 27 of the city's 28 Aldermen are Democrats. Forty-five individuals have held the office of mayor of St. Louis, four of whom—William Carr Lane, John Fletcher Darby, John Wimer, and John How—served non-consecutive terms

Despite having a public school system that is failing its Black majority - you have to show more proof that ST LOUIS IS RACIST - it enjoys a "Democratic sweep" and is no doubt proud to have a Black man in the White House.

Corrupt or incompetent? Maybe but they are not racists as the Tea Party is. Dear sir.

ken said...

I think I will have to disagree. This a property rights matter. Creating incentives that for entities to take private property only for suspicion can never be good. Every program on every level has incentives that change behavior. We can't have incentives present that encourages law enforcement to acquire private property, that's too much power.

http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/07/civil-asset-forfeiture

BigDonOne said...

This is from Newsalert http://nalert.blogspot.com/
Al Sharpton Talks Tough To Blacks In Ferguson
TPM reports on Al Sharpton's talk to blacks in Ferguson:
Blackness was never surrendering our pursuit of excellence. It was when it was against the law to go to some schools, we built black colleges and learned anyhow. When we couldn't go downtown to church we built our own AME church, and our church of God and Christ. We never surrendered, we never gave up, and now we get to the 21st century, we get to where we got some positions of power. And you decide it ain't black no more to be successful. Now you wanna be a nigga and call your woman a ho, you lost where you come from.

We've got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America! Rev. Al, you don't understand what they doin' to us. I understand. But I understand that nobody gonna help us if we don't help ourselves. Sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves won't solve our problems. Sitting around having ghetto pity parties rather than organizing and strategizing and putting our differences aside. Yes, we got young and old. Yes, we got things that we don't like about each other, but it's bigger than our egos. It's bigger than everybody. We need everybody because I'm gonna tell you, I don't care how much money you got, I don't care what position you hold. I don't care how much education you got. If we can't protect a child walking down the street in Ferguson, and protect him, and bring justice, all you got don't matter to nobody but you!

CNu said...

And here's the further rub, those who engage in these predatory practices tend to do so only against those least able to put up effective resistance - whether that's in the form of litigation or simple and direct self-defense. The reason the hood is overpoliced is because it's easy pickings. The reason the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever imagined in the hood, is because suburban perpetrators enjoy a presumption of being comparatively well-funded, comparatively well educated, lawyered up and even gunned up - as compared and contrasted with the easy pickings in the hood.

There are ample reasons - aside from optics and race politics - why the Feds and their state and county counterparts backed down from Cliven Bundy an'em in Nevada.

CNu said...

Wait, while I'm almost content to accept that a "hood, is a hood, is a hood" and wherever you find an MLK Blvd - you'll be looking at a set of problems standardized across geographies, this statement:THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE in (organic) productivity outcomes between Black people in the North or Black people in the South.
PERIOD!!!!

Greater population densities, on occasion - more abundant state welfare programs - explain any material differences.

If you look at the "poorest zipcodes in America" you will see a rather equal distribution between North and South.cries out for proof. You have evidence you can link in support of such a broad claim?


Last I looked, there are substantive differences between the accumulated wealth and accomplishments of "black" folks - as distinct from poor hood folks - that are clearly discernable by geography and by the length of time during which black folks have not been subject to Jim Crow and other modes of political-economic ostracism and privation.

CNu said...

Missouri is second only to West Virginia as far as confederate legacy segregation and predatory malpractice goes. But only a fool would look to urban mayoral elections of the past 40 years to gauge just how racist Missouri's urban centers are. If you want to know how racist Missouri's urban centers are, you look to the history of its public school districts and the white flight that was spawned by federally mandated school desegregation, period. http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr114sa2l.pdf

ken said...

I am with you that money incentives would have you go where you can make the easiest money. However.." The reason the hood is overpoliced is because it's easy pickings. The reason the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever imagined in the hood....."

I think the reason the police are where they are at is because that is where the crime is being reported. Go ahead and pull your own city up and check:

https://raidsonline.com/?rms=Minneapolis_Crime_Map&type=simple&address=Minneapolis%20MN



Try suburbs and try the urban and drag the map around, where the 911 calls are happening and where the crime is being reported has a lot to do where the police are going to show up.


As for Bundy, they did go after white Bundy, but then it started looking like it was going to be tough to enforce this law that was doing little harm for the amount of cost that was going to incur. Any escalation their would have been a bloody mess, and a political nightmare and a legacy for someone for years to come.

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:


I will accept as a "Given" that you are not one of the "Black Inferiorists" that I rail against.
THUS - I must ask you:

IF you look at the last 50 years of "Black Consciousness", "Political Activism", "Applied Educational Governance" (within the community) and the merger of "The Church"/"Civil Rights"/Political Opportunism.............CAN YOU TELL ME that you are comfortable in your belief that:


* The REMNANTS of the CONFEDERACY that still escape REGULATION by the cascading government authorities that flow up through the US Justice department has a SUPERIOR SUPPRESSIVE force against the "Americanized Negro"


than

* The ORCHESTRATED efforts of the "Black Racial Services" machine, the Media and "The Post Racial Progressive Fundamentalist Coalition"?


AT WHAT POINT IN TIME have you affixed in your scientific oriented mind by which you are prepared to admit that THE PRESENT NEFARIOUS RELATIONSHIPS that the Americanized Negro confines himself to is MORE DELIRIOUS than the OLD WHITE CONFEDERATE GHOSTS?

CNu said...

Rand Paul says you're full of caca http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/07/12/give-kids-a-second-chance-after-drug-crime/

This is what you used to throw back at me at Cobbs, all the time, every time, the issue of disparate criminal enforcement came up:excuse me, but large numbers of these people are locked up for crack.
when crack first hit the scene, the “black leaders” demanded harsher
penalties for crack than powder as it was “targeting the weak” and
“addictive at a single use”. If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson.

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."

I am sure I have changed with time, but because I happen to have an opinion somewhat closer to yours about the goings on in Ferguson should by no means make you believe we have now become clones of each other.

Although I noted black leaders did push for harsher sentences for crack, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal enforcement. My main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and sold. The chances of someone calling the police because someone is using or selling drugs from their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is much less than someone calling the police because someone is standing on the street corner trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or driver of a car to see if they are a potential customer.

The other aspect of my argument has been in your response to: " the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever imagined in the hood,"

You have added drug distribution, which if we talk in pounds might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before it makes its way to be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about the distribution system to know where the product is produced and distributed in mass before it hits the small dealer. But for use, it is reasonable to think more property crimes reported in poor areas, more violent crimes reported in poor areas, more out of wedlock children being raised in poor areas, but somehow less drug use, that was basically my argument.

It still looks like out of wedlock offspring statistically commit more property crime, commit violent crime, become school drop outs, and abuse drugs.

I think another aspect of my argument compared with yours, is yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was coming from of the perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of posts ago you talked about the quadrupling of the prison population without any discussion about the halving of the crime rate per capita. That's a lot of people effected also, and certainly more of these victims by proportion are persons of color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Personally myself, I would like to legalize all drugs, and at the same time have the government get out of the role of isolating people from natural consequences to their decisions. And that is a change from my stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but would like the help to come from someone they will have to be accountable to that will encourage a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to their circumstance.

Also I think we are paying for many invaluable doctor visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get before the visit.

I believe most of my mind about legalization has been solidified listening to Buckley argue the points for legalization.

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugswith-william-f-buckley/181/

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of
time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."

I am sure I have changed with time, but
because I happen to have an opinion somewhat closer to yours about the goings
on in Ferguson
should by no means make you believe we have now become clones of each other.

Although I noted black leaders did push for
harsher sentences for crack, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal
enforcement. My main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and
sold. The chances of someone calling the police because someone is using or
selling drugs from their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is
much less than someone calling the police because someone is standing on the
street corner trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or driver of a
car to see if they are a potential customer.

The other aspect of my argument has been in
your response to: " the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug
distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever
imagined in the hood,"

You have added drug distribution, which if
we talk in pounds might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before
it makes its way to be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about
the distribution system to know where the product is produced and distributed
in mass before it hits the small dealer. But for use, it is unreasonable to
think more property crimes reported in poor areas, more violent crimes reported
in poor areas, more out of wedlock children being raised in poor areas, but
somehow less drug use, that was basically my argument.

It still looks like out of wedlock offspring
statistically commit more property crime, commit violent crime, become school
drop outs, and abuse drugs.

I think another aspect of my argument
compared with yours, is yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was
coming from of the perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of
posts ago you talked about the quadrupling of the prison population without any
discussion about the halving of the crime rate per capita. That's a lot of
people effected also, and certainly more of these victims by proportion are
persons of color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Personally myself, I would like to legalize
all drugs, and at the same time have the government get out of the role of
isolating people from natural consequences to their decisions. And that is a
change from my stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but
would like the help to come from someone they will have to be accountable to
that will encourage a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to
their circumstance.

Also I think we are paying for many
invaluable doctor visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get
before the visit.

I believe most of my mind about legalization
has been solidified listening to Buckley argue the points for legalization.

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugswith-william-f-buckley/181/

BigDonOne said...

Effective policing... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/the-massachusetts-state-police-had-to-apologize-after-someone-noticed-this-bumper-sticker-on-their-cruiser/

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage
of time, I suspect
it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."



I am sure I have
changed with time, but because I happen to
have an opinion somewhat closer to yours about the goings on in Ferguson should by no means
make you believe we have now become clones of each other.



Although I noted
black leaders did push for harsher sentences
for crack, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal enforcement. My
main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and sold. The chances
of someone calling the police because someone is using or selling drugs from
their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is much less than
someone calling the police because someone is standing on the street corner
trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or driver of a car to see if they
are a potential customer.



The other aspect of
my argument has been in your response to:
" the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and
consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever

imagined in the
hood,"



You have added drug
distribution, which if we talk in pounds
might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before it makes its way to
be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about

the distribution
system to know where the product is produced and distributed in mass before it
hits the small dealer. But for use, it is unreasonable to think more property
crimes reported in poor areas, more violent crimes reported in poor areas, more
out of wedlock children being raised in poor areas, but somehow less drug
use, that was basically my argument.



It still looks like
out of wedlock offspring statistically
commit more property crime, commit violent crime, become school drop outs, and
abuse drugs.



I think another
aspect of my argument compared with
yours, is yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was coming from of the
perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of posts ago you
talked about the quadrupling of the prison population without any discussion about
the halving of the crime rate per capita. That's a lot of people effected also,
and certainly more of these victims by proportion are persons of color. And that fact doesn't appear to be anything you ever nuance into your thoughts about incarceration.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg



Personally myself,
I would like to legalize all drugs, and at
the same time have the government get out of the role of isolating people
from natural consequences to their decisions. And that is a change from my
stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but would like the help
to come from someone they will have to be accountable to that will encourage
a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to their circumstance.



Also I think we are
paying for many invaluable doctor
visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get before the visit.


I believe most of
my mind about legalization has been solidified
listening to Buckley argue the points for legalization.



http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugswith-william-f-buckley/181/

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."

I am sure I have changed with time, but because I happen to have an opinion somewhat closer to yours about the goings on in Ferguson should by no means make you believe we have now become clones of each other.

Although I noted black leaders did push for harsher sentences for crack, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal enforcement. My main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and sold. The chances of someone calling the police because someone is using or selling drugs from their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is much less than someone calling the police because
someone is standing on the street corner trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or driver of a car to see if they are a potential customer.

The other aspect of my argument has been in your response to: " the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever imagined in the hood,"

You have added drug distribution, which if we talk in pounds might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before it makes its way to be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about
the distribution system to know where the product is produced and distributed in mass before it hits
the small dealer. But for use, it is unreasonable to think more property crimes reported in poor areas, more violent crimes reported in poor areas, more out of wedlock children being raised in poor areas, but somehow less drug use, that was basically my argument.

It still looks like out of wedlock offspring statistically commit more property crime, commit
violent crime, become school drop outs, and abuse drugs and are more likely to be poor.

I think another aspect of our argument is one of perspective, yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was coming from of the perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of posts ago you talked
about the quadrupling of the prison population without any discussion about the halving of the crime rate per capita. That's a lot of people effected also, and certainly more of these victims by proportion are persons of color. And that fact doesn't appear to be anything you ever nuance into your thoughts
about incarceration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Personally myself, I would like to legalize all drugs, and at the same time have the government get out of the role of isolating people from natural consequences to their decisions. And that is a change from my stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but would like the help to come from someone they will have to be accountable to that will encourage a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to their circumstance.

Also I think we are paying for many doctor visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get before the visit. which is a waste of time and money and doctor availability.

ken said...

why is my reply getting trapped?

BigDonOne said...

@CNu..."easy pickings in the hood."
In the burbiverse, dealers aren't sufficiently I-Q-7-5 stupid to stand on the street corner selling drugs to anyone who drives up. Anyhow, CNu overestimates availability of drugs in the burbs - otherwise burbites wouldn't have to go into the hood to buy. The latter behavior is well documented on COPs....... [to upscale white couple in Lexus -- Why were you just talking to those 'youths' on the corner? ans. Oh, we were just asking directions on way to visit friends...]

CNu said...

Rand Paul don't put up with no lip? I have no idea, but something you're trying to type is being rejected by the SPAM filter. Don't type that, and you'll be just fine. (obviously, if it let's BD's puddin-haid ravings through, it's not too highly selective)

ken said...

I don't know what word it is, but I think something is weird, a day or two ago, when I pointed out the argument was a states right argument, Vik had a post that said the discussion was about centric government and not what I was saying it was about something else about this wasn't place to discuss what I was discussing. When I responded to it, it flashed back at me, "you can't reply to a post that isn't active" I refreshed the page and Vik's comment was gone, I didn't see a word Vik used that should have been barred. Anyway I will see if the reply I tried yesterday works today.

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."

I am sure I have changed with time, but because I happen to have an opinion somewhat closer to yours about the goings on in Ferguson should by no means make you believe we have now become clones of each other.

Although I noted black leaders did push for harsher sentences for crack, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal enforcement. My main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and sold. The chances of someone calling the police because someone is using or selling drugs from their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is much less than someone calling the police because someone is standing on the street corner trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or driver of a car to see if they are a potential customer.

The other aspect of my argument has been in your response to: " the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever
imagined in the hood,"

You have added drug distribution, which if we talk in pounds might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before it makes its way to be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about
the distribution system to know where the product is produced and distributed in mass before it hits the small dealer. But for use, it is unreasonable to think more property crimes reported in poor areas, more
violent crimes reported in poor areas, more out of wedlock children being raised in poor areas, but somehow less drug use, that was basically my argument.

It still looks like out of wedlock offspring statistically commit more property crime, commit violent crime, become school drop outs, and abuse drugs.

I think another aspect of my argument compared with yours, is yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was coming from of the perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of posts ago you talked about the quadrupling of the prison population without any discussion about the halving of the crime rate per capita. That's a lot of people effected also, and certainly more of these victims by proportion are persons of color. And that fact doesn't appear to be anything you ever nuance into your
thoughts about incarceration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Personally myself, I would like to legalize all drugs, and at the same time have the government get out of the role of isolating people from natural consequences to their decisions. And that is a change from my stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but would like the help to come from someone they will have to be accountable to that will encourage a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to their circumstance.

Also I think we are paying for many invaluable doctor visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get before the visit.

I think I owe a lot of my change in legalizing all drugs by listening to the arguments of Buckley. He has had many writings, but this was a pretty good summary, I think I linked you to something like this before;

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugswith-william-f-buckley/181/

Vic78 said...

I know what you're talking about. What I was saying in that comment was that the post was about people centric leadership and not really about elected officials.

As for your computer issues, I know what's up.

http://youtu.be/GvF4-C1EuJU

ken said...

"If you've changed your tune any at all with the passage of time, I suspect it's only for appearances sake in the light of Ferguson."

I am sure I have changed
with time, but because I happen to have an opinion somewhat closer to
yours about the goings on in Ferguson should by
no means make you believe we have now become clones of each other.

Although I noted black leaders did push for harsher sentences for crck, that wasn't my argument for disparate criminal enforcement. My main arguments were the manner in which the drugs were used and sold. The chances of someone calling the police because someone is using or selling drugs from their basement in a house in the suburbs or rural area is much less than someone calling the police because someone is standing on the street corner trying to make eye contact with every pedestrian or
driver of a car to see if they are a potential customer.

The other aspect of my argument has been in your response to: " the suburb is underpoliced, and where drug distribution and consumption for instance exponentially dwarfs anything ever
imagined in the hood,"

You have added drug distribution, which if we talk in pounds might be in bigger quantities in the rural and suburbs before it makes its way to be distributed in the streets. I don't know enough about
the distribution system to know where the product is produced and distributed in mass before it hits the small dealer. But for use, it is unreasonable to think more property crimes reported in poor areas, more
violent crimes reported in poor areas, more children in one parent homes being raised in poor areas, but somehow less drug use, that was basically my argument.

It still looks like offspring of one parent homes statistically commit more property crime, commit violent crime, become school drop outs, and abuse drugs.

I think another aspect of my argument compared with yours is: yours is arguing for the law breaker, while I was coming from of the perspective of the victim. For instance, back a couple of posts ago you talked about the quadrupling of the prison population without any discussion about the violent crime rate per capita being cut in half . That's a lot of people effected also, and certainly more of these victims by proportion are persons of color. That fact doesn't appear to be anything you ever nuance into your thoughts about incarceration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

Personally myself, I would like to legalize all drugs, and at the same time have the government get out of the role of isolating people from the natural consequences of their decisions. And that is a change from my stance earlier. I am not against charitably helping them, but would like the help to come from someone they will have to be accountable to that will encourage a different behavior then the behavior that brought them to their circumstance.

Also I think we are paying for many invaluable doctor visits just to get a prescription that we expected to get before the visit so having prescription drugs available without a doctor's visit would reduce cost.

I think I owe a lot of my change in legalizing all drugs by listening to the arguments of Buckley. He has had many writings, but this was a pretty good summary, I think I linked you to something
like this before;

http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/on-legalizing-drugswith-william-f-buckley/181/

ken said...

What do you think you had in your post that day that was in need of restraining? I don't think its a computer issue, otherwise this comment wouldn't make it. I just tried that comment again even tried changing words I thought (I know I have used before) might be filtered if all in the same post but it still got trapped.