NYTimes | The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Thursday delivered an unusually
frank speech about the relationship between the police and black
people, saying that officers who work in neighborhoods where blacks
commit crimes at higher rates develop a cynicism that shades their
attitudes about race.
He said that officers — whether they are white or any other race — who are confronted with white men on one side of the street and black men on the other do not view them the same way. The officers develop a mental shortcut that “becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights” because of the number of black suspects they have arrested.
“We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve,” Mr. Comey said in the speech, at Georgetown University.
While officers should be closely scrutinized, he said, they are “not the root cause of problems in our hardest-hit neighborhoods,” where blacks grow up “in environments lacking role models, adequate education and decent employment.”
“They lack all sorts of opportunities that most of us take for granted,” Mr. Comey said.
Mr. Comey’s speech was unprecedented for an F.B.I. director.
He said that officers — whether they are white or any other race — who are confronted with white men on one side of the street and black men on the other do not view them the same way. The officers develop a mental shortcut that “becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights” because of the number of black suspects they have arrested.
“We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve,” Mr. Comey said in the speech, at Georgetown University.
While officers should be closely scrutinized, he said, they are “not the root cause of problems in our hardest-hit neighborhoods,” where blacks grow up “in environments lacking role models, adequate education and decent employment.”
“They lack all sorts of opportunities that most of us take for granted,” Mr. Comey said.
Mr. Comey’s speech was unprecedented for an F.B.I. director.
23 comments:
I thought you were full of crap about Brookings/Obammandian direction but this seems like a pretty clear movement thatta way. Now, why no similar moves from the DOJ/AG office? Holder wasn't game?
umm..., you do know who Comey reports to, right?
So why is it occurring at the FBI level but not the AG level?
If by genetically deficient behavior norms, we must conclude that you're referring to the violent bully cops who felt it necessary to body slam the elderly indian man, either because they're violent bullies, or, too moronic to distinguish between an elderly indian man and their typical elderly black or mexican targets of opportunity and abuse.
As for the reader comments at the blaze, pull your head out and try to stay focused on the data driven social network analysis methods that will soon be replacing idiotic stop and frisk and moronic racial profiling. Was your sending me that American Thinker article and accident? Kind of like a labrador retriever turning up on the back porch with a dead possum as a gift?
BD is talking about the broader genetic characteristics that cause an entire population group to engage in FTO-deficient behaviors that produce the fully-justified biases, however problematic. Here's another take on Comey's speech---> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/feb/12/fbi-director-race-relations-policing-speech-georgetown
C'mon CNu, when have you ever heard of an Asian-American being body-slammed to the ground...?? Rarely if ever happens. Sure, there are Asian criminals, but they are 160-smart enough not to stupidly do it out in the open.....
lol, strictly a mutt with a dead rodent in its mouth...,
Seems like maybe the nutcases are being marginalized again, and the normal humans are sticking their noses out of their holes. It's not just this, people I know have been taking their ideology a little less seriously.
It could be your Jesuits. But I think even the election of this new Pope is a sign of some kind of thawing.
Where is Benedict at? First Jesuit pope is a watershed event. So many unprecedented changes and events, catalyzed - or so it seems to me - by the Jesuits at long last getting tired and fed up with dangerous stupidity. We're not only talking about direct staff of the Society of Jesus, rather, we're talking about the hundreds of thousands under their direct leadership and sway. On top of that, we're talking about the combined heft of a 474 year old, globe-spanning institution comprised of the smartest and best that the Roman Catholic church has to offer.
Where else you going to find men of unimpeachable character and integrity with the highly cultivated placements and leadership skills to cause this degree of institutional movement?
The protestant evangelicals and dominionists had a good 40 year run and fubar'd everything they put their hands to. It was long overdue time for grown folks to stand down these buffoons and take firm grasp of the tiller.
(shhh! keep your voice down man!)
Obviously there's a huge difference between the hardcore make-up-your-own-Bible crowd and the mainstream protestant denominations. (Or at least what's mainstream up here on the Tundra.)
Not that the Bible is the world's best compass needle ...
...
Well, shit ... maybe we better review what's actually available before I say that.
N-1...
Why'd they take so long? I threw in the towel on the church a long time ago.
So the church is a hierarchical business, right. As a business, it has to look at where its revenue sources are located. So long as cathadraxis from diocesan sources outweighed other institutional revenue sources, it would have been imprudent to interfere overly much with the golden goose. But the combination of widespread ecclesiastical child-rape and authoritarian delusions of control over womens reproductive prerogatives have wreaked havoc with taxes from the faithful. Many dioces are still in the process of reorganizing their finances after paying out huge settlements. They're selling off real-estate, closing and consolidating parishes, etc., etc., etc.,
It is a fact now that revenues from instiutional sources far outweigh cathadraxis. The society of Jesus operates many of the largest, oldest, and most prestigious of these institutions (educational) and has in consequence of that fact acquired the institutional clout and leverage to make structural and behavioural impositions on the larger church. AFAIC, it was all a matter of timing. As I witnessed the clear cut tension between a good and liberal-minded nun and a good and liberal-minded priest who were compelled to cleave to the most ridiculous aspects of church doctrine before the RCIA group in which I participated, I found it reassuring to be able to give voice to an intellectual hardline.
I also saw a twinkle in both their eyes as I said things that they dared not say in the presence of some of their more conservative parisheners within our parish. So now, that genie's out of the bottle with a vengeance and the right, proper, true, and smart elements within the ecclesiastical hierarchy are doing a long-overdue housecleaning, as well as, flexing ethical and christian policies and praxis as institutional baseline, rather than authoritarian conservatard superstition and judgementalism.
As a Christian, I considered this article to be the direction the Church should be going. It's certainly a challenge to the people in the pew and in leadership, and from the date it was written, it seems to still have relevance through generations.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1942/10/will-the-christian-church-survive/306720/
and the comments appended to that article are priceless....,
I thought that was strange, I expected to watch some deep discussion and all was talked about was WoW. I realize it was a mistake, but it could have been a nice little clip to have the preacher deliver that article as his sermon and have the pew member's conversation in the foyer in the sermon afterglow be all about World of Warcraft. Pretty sure many times, even at my church it's about how it ends up. A challenge gets levied from the pulpit, and noone has the comfort level to ask someone who heard the same thing..."what'd you think of that?"
The commenters don't respect it and don't have time to entertain it. Reading the essay annoyed the hell out of me. It was a waste of time.
Off the top, to me at least, Roman Catholicism and Shia Islam have much in common with one another. Both are centralized, hierarchical, and have endured for many centuries. The protestant experiment, and particularly the evangelical protestant experiment is a disorganized hot mess of competing bands of breath and britches brigands. Dominionism and Wahabism are indistiguishable from one another to me wrt their militarism, extremity of belief, requirements for stark anti-intellectual superstition, and competitive tendencies to violence.
They're de-evolutionary collective security clubs. Killer-apeism stripped to its bare essentials with few redeeming qualities.
My father was born a Baptist and became a Catholic. I spent several years myself carrying in the cross and ringing those bells. His take is that Protestantism is to be a child. If you "accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior,' you are now done, that's really the only requirement--repetition of the mantra. You're in the club, and no amount of bad behavior can kick you out, as long as you return to being a child every time and repeat the mantra.
Catholicism is based on works, and there are consequences for failure to act, in this life and the next. The club requires real tangible behaviors to remain a member.
Protestantism is a 13 year old refusing his chores because "he's a man," and you don't tell him what to do, God does.
If you can't beat'em, join'em....,
"Catholicism is based on works, and there are consequences for failure to act, in this life and the next."
If you are considering belief a works, yes. The first step to salvation for Catholics like Protestants is belief. The works mean nothing to being part of the communion without belief. And Catholics like Protestants consider the work of salvation for man to be a gift from God. And the work from man to be to believe and accept it. Of course because of our work of belief and acceptance of God's offer we should see evidence of obedience to Christ and good works. But the works are based on the belief with Catholics and Protestants. Its why in that old Atlantic article the guy spelled out 5 beliefs that should cause a different perspective and action.
Biblically speaking the Bible does not define belief as a work, for instance this link here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A27+-+4%3A8&version=NKJV
If you call faith "works" then you're just eliminating definitions and meanings from the discussion. It's like saying blue is a form of red.
Post a Comment