On Monday night, the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri freed Officer Darren Wilson from the possibility of indictment over his shooting of 18-year-old black man Michael Brown. The prosecutor before the grand jury, Robert McCulloch, explained why the indictment had been rejected: the evidence, both physical and eyewitness, supported Wilson’s case that he had acted in self-defense.
McCulloch added pointed criticism of the media that drove the case in the first place, ripping the “insatiable appetite” of social media and “non-stop rumors” driven by it. The initial accounts pushed by social media, McCulloch said, were “filled with speculation and little, if any, solid or accurate evidence.” But he saved his harshest criticism for the media machine itself: “The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything, to talk about, followed closely behind with the non-stop rumors on social media.” McCulloch finished by stating that evidence mattered, and that no one’s life should be decided based on “public outcry or for political expediency.”
The lecture was well-deserved.
Just as the media did during the George Zimmerman trial and in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin, the media attempted to cram the square peg of the Wilson-Brown shooting into the round hole of white police racism. That meant portraying Brown as the latest sainted racial victim; this time, rather than the Trayvon Martin narrative of hoodies, Skittles, and iced tea, the media hit upon the notion that Brown was a “gentle giant.” The Brown family, Al Sharpton, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, and other major media outlets ran with the story that Brown was a “gentle giant” who wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Then, it turned out that Brown had robbed a convenience store minutes before his altercation with Wilson.
Similarly, the media trotted out the story of Dorian Johnson, Brown’s friend, who said that Brown held his hands up in surrender after being shot in the back, and that Wilson executed Brown. The entire media ran with that one originally; the lie spawned an entire “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement. Of course, it later turned out that Johnson had helped Brown rob the store, and that all available autopsy evidence contradicted Johnson’s story.
But never mind: the media had somehow turned the true story of Michael Brown – the story of a 6’5”, 289-lb. 18-year-old strong-arm-robbing a convenience store, confronting a police officer and attempting to take his gun, running away, turning back to charge that officer, and being shot multiple times – into the story of Emmett Till. Never mind that there was not a single shred of evidence suggesting that Wilson targeted Brown based on race; never mind that Brown matched the description of the robbery suspect because he was the robbery suspect; never mind that Brown attacked an officer twice. No, this was a pre-ordained narrative for the media: white racist police officer strikes down young black unarmed man. The result of that overwrought and outright false media-generated controversy: extended riots in Ferguson.
The story beat the facts. So the media ran with the story.
So did President Obama. In 2013, Obama told America that Trayvon Martin could have been his son; in this case, Obama told the United Nations that riots in Ferguson represented America’s nasty racial legacy.
As the grand jury verdict neared release, the media built up the story. We were warned of riots if Wilson escaped indictment; Erin Burnett of CNN said that such a verdict would be the “nuclear option.” Nancy Grace of Court TV helpfully added that Michael Brown’s height did not “mean he was a violent teen.” And the Brown family attorney, Benjamin Crump, openly stated that the grand jury was corrupt, long before the verdict.
Predictably enough, the Michael Brown case fell apart the moment it hit the legal system. It turns out, as Robert McCulloch said, that evidence still trumps media hype in the legal system – at least sometimes.
Now the media, humiliated yet again, riot. Ezra Klein of Vox.com asked, with the legal insight of a mentally malfunctioning goldfish, whether Michael Brown had an advocate in the grand jury hearing (the answer: that’s not how grand juries work). Fellow non-lawyer Chris Hayes of MSNBC lamented that the grand jury procedure was “so far removed from normal criminal procedure it’s unrecognizable.” The New York Daily News considered this obscene first mock-up headline: “Killer Cop Goes Free.”
With the media breathlessly covering the riots they helped to stoke in Ferguson, rioters set the city aflame. Shots were fired; protesters threw batteries, rocks and bottles; stores were looted. The media feigned head-shaking rue. Meanwhile, President Obama explained that Americans who ignored all the evidence to convict Wilson were reacting in “understandable” fashion – because, as always, evidence means nothing the left when in conflict with feelings and perception of victimhood.
Truthfully, the angry and sullen reactions of those who wanted Wilson tried are understandable. They’re understandable because most Americans live in the evidence-free narrative created by malicious media liars, and the politicians they enable. They live in the evidence-free world of the political left, which maintains that America remains deeply racist, that every white cop is Bull Connor, and that every black man shot by police is a Selma marcher. So long as they live in that world, racial reconciliation will remain a dream, and racial polarization will remain a tool of the political and media elite to sell papers, raise cash, and drive votes.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/11/24/Media-narrative-implodes-Michael-Brown
This artical speaks A LOT to why we have the racial divisivness that exists in America today and, being honest with themselves.... the left knows it. From youth that are raised and taught by people who have learned a victim mantality to a segment of the white population who are so self loathing that nothing less than the extinction of the white race, including their own family memebers is an unspoken goal. Of course their are still white racists and they clearly show themselves in both word and deed but not all people who come into conflict with a black is a racist any more that a man that finds himself in an argument with a woman or a gay is a serial abuser or a homophobe.
We'll see. Wilson could still face federal charges and civil charges from the family.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Zimmerman only got off because the prosecutor tried to get to big of a bite of the pie. Had they gone for lesser charges he would be in jail today instead of running the streets proving what an idiot we with a little sense always saw he was.
Wilson was doing his job and the grand jury probably got it right. That doesn't excuse the vigilantism that occurred in Florida.
“George Zimmerman only got off because the prosecutor tried to get to big of a bite of the pie”
DeleteStill out for blood huh Rick. While it might be right to lay the ‘too big of a bite’ label squarely on the shoulders of the prosecutor, I would suggest that even the most focused prosecutor couldn’t help but feel the pressure…. All the way up the civil rights later to the President himself. With of course the media chanting in chorus, while giving the thumbs down … ‘kill him.. kill him’.
Of course there is a problem with police conduct… Blacks have been pointing this out for decades. Only recently with no knock warrants and stop and frisk have whites felt this unbridled power up close and personal. It would be excellent if this incident started a real dialog about police powers and the function of the state … but no doubt it will just be one more arrow in the quiver of race baiting liberals who would rather keep America divided then get to the root cause of our racial problems… most of which emanates from government policy and overreach.
Thank you TS for providing a completely right biased article. It's got the usual prognostication of white person who understands that all race issues are the problem of handouts, as well as the usual crack that everyone lives liberal TV land and is therefore ignorant. Maybe William should read this and reconsider my comment about stupid American voters. All that said, the article raises some solid points.
ReplyDeleteI felt from the beginning that outfits like MSNBC were outright tampering with the process and seeking to smear the officer. Make no mistake, the police were doing the exact same thing with the details they were releasing to the public about the kid. The cop may or may not have been a racist, the kid may or may not have been a full time thug. Neither have any importance if the shooting is justified. I saw Chris Hayes lament last night that the officer had weeks to get his testimony straight and had the advantage of see all other testimony first. I say to Chris Hayes, thank your cohorts for that. IMO, this process took way too long, it was not conducted very cleanly and it was not explained that well. The police EXPECTED riots and seemingly did very little to try and prevent them. To their credit, I guess, at least by the time I went to bed, I didn't see them engaging in combat and tear gas bombing of the crowds. Curious to release this information at night time.
To the typical right wing version of race relations, it is not hard to look up the statistics of arrest, conviction and incarceration of blacks versus whites. White people who do not live in a city, let alone know any people of color who have not had a pristine background have no clue about African Americans go through. You acknowledge this some TS, and I give you credit for that and I also hope that an event like this could spawn real reform. Your retreat to the obvious well worn comfort of the idea that everything is the fault of government is to be expected of course. Maybe traveling to Ferguson and handing out copies of Adam Smith and the Federalist papers will get the black people there to fly right and quit looking for Uncle Sugar to save them.
Of course two wrongs don’t make a right but two points.
Delete1. Any boss (Not just police officials) worth their salt will defend an employee and company in the face of unsubstantiated claims. That was true in the Zimmerman case and also in Ferguson.
2. Long before justifying comment of these cases occurred, comments all the way up to the US president were voiced without any evidence to support them.
Had the media not gone after the police department in the Zimmerman case, pictures of the back of Zimmerman’s head wouldn’t have been released… they would have been presented as evidence gathered in the case to a court. The minute that media convicted the police department of wrong doing, the chief had ever right and responsibility to defend his department and officer’s if he felt that they acted appropriately. This is no less the case in Ferguson. Defence of the officer in public occurred long after social and main stream media had convicted both the officer and the department for a cover-up.
As far as the cop having weeks to ‘get his story straight’… Max, come on… the pictures of the officers face were taken that night and the x-rays were taken the next day. The fact that the first two shots that were fire were inside the car was known that night and many witnesses saw browns upper torso in the car… that night. As far as the cop seeing the evidence against him… well perhaps we should just suspend the constitution for that little ‘privilege’.
As far as the cops EXPECTING riots… why wouldn’t they? The media has been stirring that pot both in Ferguson and around the country for weeks. As far as how they reacted, well the ACLU had green beany capped observers there to make sure that when people torched businesses that their civil rights were not abridged. Perhaps the only way they would have gotten kudo’s from the left is if they just let the whole damn town burn.
“White people who do not live in a city, let alone know any people of color who have not had a pristine background have no clue about African Americans go through.”
No, it wasn’t the government that concentrated the black population in the inner cities…. It wasn’t the government that forced them to attend public schools that haven’t shown any improvement results since the federal government got involved and it wasn’t the government that imported millions of illegal immigrants to take the jobs available to them after that failed education. It was government policy that did all of those things… and they were liberal policies… guilt by association I’d say…. The problem with pushing your version of social justice in a society meant to chart its own course is that you have to live with the results… most democrats are in denial of their direct complicity in most of the problems that exist in the US today… it’s easier to blame a corporation then go to work for or blame it all on the people who have been fighting progressive government since it raised its ugly head as being bigots and racists.
The news that has stirred the racial pot is not the news that the cop was innocent… it was the reporting that said he was guilty without any evidence to support it. It wasn’t the calming voice of Capt. Ron Johnson but the presences of outsiders like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder and it wasn’t the police that predicted violence and advertised it…. It was Louis Farrakhan and his ilk.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but for good measure, you want to make sure I understand that the left wing media is still more wrong than anyone else. TS, here is a reality, no matter what a person's political leanings are, they can find a cable news program, or internet site to feed their leaning. I'm glad that after I acknowledged the tampering of outfits like MSNBC, you came back so school me some more and repeat what I said. I said clearly, it was Chris Hayes, not me, who was lamenting that the officer had weeks to get his story straight. My comment was that Chris Hayes can thank himself and his co horts for that.
DeleteI've said for a very long time TS, that the hyperpolarization of the media is a very bad thing. Back when the public actually had some trust in the media, objectivity existed. Today, most people metaphorically live in a cloud of their own flatulence when it comes to news. If you think Fox or Breitbart or Drudge are helping save America by providing a 180 degree bias from MSNBCs left bias, God bless.
This statement TS, is something I agree with quite a bit, "The problem with pushing your version of social justice in a society meant to chart its own course is that you have to live with the results… most democrats are in denial of their direct complicity in most of the problems that exist in the US today…"
I believe TS, that the vast majority of people in this country cannot see cause and effect relationships. You can certainly see a cause and effect relationship between bad outcomes and government..........and nothing else. Your points here about concentration of AA's in inner cities is correct and cities have been trying to undo this for a very long time. The government imported the illegal immigrants? Really? Sorry, that's crap. Without businesses employing them, and exploiting them to drive wages down, they would not keep coming. I dig the idea of a no rules society wherein everyone magically all pulls in the same direction and no one slacks, no one cheats, and everyone is as smart as Einstein because their parents chose the right charter school. This is no less of a Utopian idea.
No Max, two wrongs don’t make a right but the first to open the can of worms is the most wrong. .. Whether that is a left bias or right bias news piece… in these cases, it was the left. One thing I find interesting about the news and its perceived accuracy is the ratings… why is it that so many more people seem to listen to fox than all others stations combined. If the world(US) is as supportive of left leaning policies as you say, either people are just reading the right wing news for ammunition or whether they agree with the sentiment of the article or not, find that it at least presents the issues of the day where other news does not.
DeleteThere are indeed unintended consequences in a lot of areas other than the government but we are here to talk about American Politics and the way government effects life in the US. If you want to talk about pet dogs, I am likely to talk about the owners who raise them.
To my way of thinking much of what has gone wrong in America is that a large segment of Americans and indeed outside influence is determined to change America from a Republic to a Democracy… It was never meant to be a democracy and with good reason. The second which runs concurrently with democratization is losing sight of the basic premise of the constitution which was designed to be a restraint on federal power and not a permission slip for excess. I don’t see anywhere in the lexicon of the democrat where federal restraint is even a consideration. (Republicans, as I have said before, do the same thing when it suits them… which is why I identify with neither)
I focus on the government, particularly the federal, because its only real purpose WAS to protect this country from external influence (PROVIDE for the common defence)…. So yes it is the government that allowed illegal immigration to be an issue. Every time I cross the US border I must produce a passport because if I just try to walk past the immigration officer, I will be arrested for attempting to illegally enter the US even as a citizen. Is US business a major problem?.... you bet… Is there a law which prohibits business from hiring illegals… damn skippy. Now one of two things is happening here. Either business cannot affirm the status of a worker… a government problem to which government has written a law and provided no recourse or business has ignored the law… which is a failure of government to enforce the laws it has written. At the end of the day, an unenforced law, like a cheap lock is only good for honest people… Want security… get a bigger lock and put some teeth in the law. When laws are written and not enforce, we become a nation ruled by the whims of men and not by law... and we no longer know the rules of the game.
Fundamentally the difference in many cases between you and I is that I look for the government to use its authority (force) to prevent one person or entity from harming another… period. If two people agree to something, as long as no one was deceived or forced and as long as the agreement doesn’t coerce or defraud others then the government has no place in the transaction. You on the other hand see the government as the decider of outcomes… that is… the government, in its supreme wisdom must make the determination if a citizen is even capable of making the decision for themselves… and it seems to taylor that determination to the least common denominator. I see the times when government is required for it to be at the most local level possible… you are more prone to place that law with the highest authority.
You don’t invasion the benefits as a republic under a common constitution for states’ rights to be of benefit…. I do, just as I believe that my next door neighbour might have a better idea for a business than I do.
DeleteYou are correct, most people in this country cannot see cause and effect and the mountain of laws that protect us from reason only make that process worse.
Modern compulsory attendance laws were first enacted in Massachusetts in 1853 followed by New York in 1854. By 1918, all states had compulsory education… not because the federal government said so, but because it was a good idea for civil society to educate its children… then states started borrowing educational ideas from each other, not because they were forced to but because it was a good idea… it was only when the federal government decided that it knew best did we climb on the slippery slope of single minded mediocrity… The US federal government might boast the highest paid workers in america but that doesn't mean a thing next to the garage mechanic that creates the next great innovation... if left alone to create it.
Not going to quibble significantly with your assessment TS. I can acknowledge several of your points in principle. Admittedly, I am not in favor of a system wherein the stupid cannot be endlessly fleeced and functionally enslaved for making bad decisions. At one time, we had a pretty decent restraint of our banking system, and you could not buy a house that was in excess of some multiple of your earning. We took that away in the name of capitalism and many people were talked into loans they could not afford. Set aside for a second the obvious reality that the CRA causes this (sarcasm) and just look at the outcome. That blowup effected me and millions of Americans who did not do something stupid. My desire is partly to protect someone from harming themselves and also to protect them from harming me. I believe those who founding fathers types believe there should be no restraint here whatsoever. If someone is stupid and gets fleeced, TFB. If they don't learn a lesson from that, double TFB. Believe it or not, I'm not without some empathy for this outlook. This is perhaps one difference.
DeleteThe other difference is that I believe you see the government as this monolithic beast that is completely independent of the people. I still believe in the concept that if people want to move beyond the thinking of the late 1700s, they have the right to do so. There are plenty of things that were not rights declared by the constitution. For the good of society, we chose to create them. I'm willing to let the country debate, find a majority and create a law. I think this is really the other major difference we have.
Ultimately, I believe that my well being has a real relationship with the well being of others. If everyone else could fail in such a way their failure did not affect me, that would be one thing. You could make an argument at every single level that some finger of government made someone fail. I don't really buy it. With or without government, not every truly smart individual gets to see their invention change the world. No one is stopping me right now from going to school to gain a new degree and improve my employability. I went to public school for awhile. I served in the military. neither of these things damaged my ability to think for myself.
DeleteThe reality, Not one person posting here was there. Probably no one has read the transcripts as there are so many it consumes a great deal of time.
Yet, everyone knows what happened.
Amazing.
Did you accidentally post this to the wrong thread cause...
DeleteLou... I don't see that anyone here has made any statements of fact with respect to what happened.... The article points out a considerable amount of shitstirring by the press before any facts were known (however it occurred) and 'news' sources that prognosticated the news as it would be after various grand jury scenarios. This in my opinion is worth of conversation since little that we seem to get in the news is particularly accurate. ... the conversation that Max and I have been having has little to do with Ferguson actually…
While you are correct in that there are a lot of documents to go through, I have read quite a few of the key interviews and read about some of the physical evidence… the process intrigues me as almost never do you get to see that actions and procedure of a grand jury in this kind of detail... What I do know is that what I have read leads me to believe that if the rest is similar the grand jury got it right....
Obviously Max, you didn't get the part about ENFORCING the LAWS with regard to force, fraud, deception and theft... But of course the fed and its 'symbiotic' relationship with the US government had nothing to do with easy money.... oh never mind… Happy Thanksgiving
DeleteIt is probably more appropriate for "Trust and cooperation between law enforcement and citizens are the keys to a stable society "
DeleteHowever it aplies across the board. Recently I was listening to the news waiting for the only worthwhile part, the weather and they had a segment on people peacefully rioting here. They were attempting to shut down the interstate and the police gassed the crowd. One person they were interviewing said they were minding their own business and wanted to shut down the freeway to make a statement. When asked about what he was protesting, he stated he was supporting the people in Ferguson. When asked if he disagreed with the grand jury he said he didn't know what they had said. The American way.
I did set in on one grand jury and it was no where near this detailed in documentation, information or witnesses. Yes we could have indited a grapefruit.
One of the many disabling facets of that symbiotic relationship I mentioned
Deletehttp://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/our-inflated-thanksgiving
Can someone please try to explain (if an explanation is possible) how racism can now be defined according to a person’s political color? Reading the post from TS I have to agree with Max that TS APPEARS TO BE DISPLAYING A RIGHT WING BIAS. Does it not then follow that Max is carrying a Left wing mindset? Assuming I have some validity in the argument above, can the wider question of racism in your country be politically related? If racism in the US is more prevalent now that when the current Pres was elected, we have to review some current thinking as Obama could have been expected to have a settling effect on the underlying tensions simply by being elected.
ReplyDeleteWhat has not been revealed in mainstream media here in Australia is the make up of the Grand Jury. Is any record of race, creed or color available? Regarding the looting which occurred last night (your time) were the businesses looted and burnt owned by White or Black people? Finally, how can the people expect to receive unbiased information when so much of a Grand Jury hearing is held in private? How can this lead to acceptance of the findings by the grand jury?
I would add one final point here, I, in common with so many foreigners, and I am sure, many Americans am appalled at the number of Black youths who appear to be victims in police shootings. I would stress that this is not a criticism of your law enforcement people, simply an observation.
Cheers from Aussie
Here goes....
DeleteAt present King, I would say that there is a pretty clear division politically when it comes to race. From a purely observational standpoint, the demographics of conservatives/Republicans is overwhelmingly white. Set aside inferences for a minute and just consider the numbers. I tried to find something as middle of the road as possible and found this http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx from gallup. It doesn't tell the whole story, but I think it gives some context. One partly is heavily supported by whites and the other is more mixed. In terms of perception, I think you can start to understand where some of biased thinking and assumptions come from. This country is fascinated with perception far more than they are with substance.
I dont' believe that conservatives, as a group are inherently racist. Nor do I believe that conservatism preaches racism. Survival of the fittest perhaps, but outright racism, no. IMO, the nature of conservative thought stipulates that all should spend their lives in competition with others and when they win, they should be rewarded as much as possible. To be denied the use of a natural advantage is deemed unfair, and to see an "opponent" be given an advantage to help "level the playing field" is seen as a downright outrage. Since the 1960's and the passage of civil rights, liberal minded people have passed legislation intended to specifically help black people and in the mind of conservatives, (IMO) this is seen as outright reverse discrimination. So, I tend to think it's not just the color of skin that I think conservatives dislike. However, the social programs and black skin have now become inseparable in the minds of quite a few conservatives. Hence, IMO, it becomes hard to separate true disdain for social programs from disdain for the person benefiting from them.
Objectively King, you have made what I believe are unbiased observations. Black youth in this country endure an enormously disproportionate level of violence, incarceration and untimely death. Decade after decade, we seem to be unable to address it. The concrete and literally cement rigid view of many that social programs are keeping black people enslaved are not without some merit. The belief that Democrats enact them to get votes is stupid and anyone who believes this is a stupid asshole IMO. Yet, there as a strong belief this is the case. School quotas, hiring quotas, promotion quotas and so on have undoubtedly granted an unfair advantage to a small number of black people and for some, there is no acceptable level of help that should be given while there are others, on the left I suppose, who believe there can never enough assistance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRegarding your question about the grand jury, it was six white dudes, three white females, two black women, one black man. It takes nine votes to reach a decision. According to this CBS article, this makeup allegedly mirrors the general makeup of the county the shooting occurred in.
Deletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-case-racial-and-gender-makeup-of-grand-jury-revealed/
The operation of a grand jury is as you say private but in the interest of full disclosure they released the records for your reading pleasure.
Deletehttp://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Witness 12 is particularly interesting... 3 different interviews... 3 different stories...
No Max... not outright reverse discrimination although some of the failed progressive policies have, on occations created that outcome. The real problem with the do good policies is not the intent (I think) but the result. Whether liberals will admit it or not, the concequences of their policies have done much more harm than good. But then again, the die hard progressive doesn't really care how many people get trampled in the movement to create a utopian state....
I like that no bias reporting.... "Six white dudes!"....
Six whites dudes is biased? Okay, I totally see the nefariousness of that.
DeleteBut then again, the die hard progressive doesn't really care how many people get trampled in the movement to create a utopian state....
Nothing biased in that objective statement eh? A discussion of whether social programs do more harm than good is reasonable. My guess, possibly wrong, is that someone like yourself simply disagrees with any program coming from the government intended to help a black person who has from birth, been at a disadvantage. Therefore, any program is wrong. Regardless of how intoxicated and self satisfied you are with your belief I long for a federally administered utopia, it's not what I'm looking for.
I consider myself a person who attempts to acknowledge reality. In the course of school work and personal interest, I've read a lot about the gaps in our society. We have a persistent gap in education, health, success and well being for those born into a lower socioeconomic status. This gap has widened considerably in my lifetime and black Americans have become entrenched in this demographic. In our legal system, African Americans suffer a seemingly enormous disparity in fairness. Some of this, of course, is very easy to sort out. If you come from privilege, if you have stability at home, if you have engaged parents, if you money and security, you have a very strong chance of having some success in life. It doesnt', however, explain all of it to me.
Rather than utopia, I seek to live in a world where people do have a chance to get ahead. Many conservatives claim that people like myself want equality of outcomes, which is to say I want everyone alternately lifted up or restrained to the point where no succeeds. This is just stupid. That said, creating something that approaches an equality opportunity becomes hard to do and many well meaning liberals have indeed contributed to a poverty mentality. I sharply disagree, however, with the inseparable baby and bathwater thinking of the right.
To the subject at hand:
DeleteOf course it was a ‘right wing’ article. . It would also be fair to say that the leading and misleading speculation and, in the run up to the release of the grand jury findings, actual prognostication of future news would put the ‘left wing’ media in the position of having to police itself… Yeah, it had to be a ‘right wing’ article…
Next:
Carrying the ‘dudes’ comment slightly farther…. White men are ‘dudes’… white women are ‘female’s and blacks are ‘men and women’…. Maybe not a bias… not intentionally anyway. Just curious sounding that’s all. Folks like myself that you would label ‘right wing’ have had subtleties of behaviour and language such as this pointed out to them all the time only rather than being called ‘biased’… it is generally harsher words like racist, bigot, homophobe and misogynist.
To carry on:
The problem here Max is that you have selective hearing. It goes with your painting those who don’t agree with you as black and white. I don’t think you have ever read where anyone on this forum has advocated that the citizens of a benevolent nation, particularly a wealthy one, turn their backs on the vulnerable and needy members of its society. Plenty of comments on how Great Society programs have been so poorly conceived and administered that they harm the people and society they are supposed to help. I don’t believe that you have ever read words from anyone on this forum that has advocated the destruction of compulsory primary and secondary education in the US. What you have heard is the fact that progressive policies are short sighted and steeped in the notion that only state manipulation can ‘fix’ a society.
With respect to education. The facts are clear. The department of education and central management of education and the control it brings has been a resounding failure with kills innovation and motivation in the class room… results show it. The left should actually question the fear that they have that state education would collapse if things like home schooling and vouchers were allowed to compete for students. If it can’t keep them, is it worthy of saving?
We go around and around about the negative effects of carelessly considered and implemented social policy created by the left, here is a case in point. The two most recent manipulations of government and against the will of the people no less. It is not meant to pick on this president… it is just the most recent example of unintended consequences of state manipulation of a society.
President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.
Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.
The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.
So now, poor people in general and blacks in specific not only find new state sanctioned competition from people who were illegally working last week but now government has created a tool that business can only see as a gift for the next three years thus putting even more pressure on black people… and if the left gets its way on minimum wage… guess who gets the raise.
There is no baby and bathwater mentality. It is a different way of looking at how a society functions. It looks at the vices and frailties of human existence and the government’s role as outlined by a constitution that was written as a restraint against federal government and not an omnibus permission slip to run every aspect of a citizen’s existence. And just to be clear.. a smaller federal is not NO government.
Well said
DeleteThat was pretty well said. In a way TS, it is black and white to say, "Go and find exact words where I said we should turn out back on the poor" It's not said that way of course, and as I said elsewhere, I don't believe the rich intend for the poor to get hammered any more than I believe liberals intend to enslave the wealthy. Admittedly, I am guilty of the same type of generalizing that you are, which to say we look at the result and work our way backwards into a description of the cause that squares with our general outlook. You claim no baby and bathwater mentality in your last para and then make a crack that the government does not have a permission slip to run every aspect of our life. I can throw in here to go and find where I advocate for full control of everyone's life. I don't say that, but you infer it. Your thinking, IMO, is much more cut and dried than I think you are willing to admit.
DeleteThe thing I don't understand about your ACA example is that the alleged amnesty is that I don't think it suddenly makes it lawful to employ illegal immigrants. Obama is choosing not to round up and target certain individuals for deportation, but those that employ them are still breaking the law.
No Max… its black and white to say “go and find the exact words” when I actually said “ find a comment that advocated”.... that would even include vague insinuations but I think you will find that I have made plenty of comment about a well-functioning charity network as well as free market and legal principles that has been dismantled by federal actions.
DeleteI don’t think that I have accused you of advocating for full control of everyone’s life but Max...the problem with half baking the law is that it is a slippery slope… Kind of like who gets caught in the definition of the word terrorist…. If you advocate for the government to have rights to intrude in the living room it’s only a matter of time before creating legislators use of ‘open plan’ finds its way into the bedroom closet. If you advocate for the government to control your healthcare then don’t be surprised if they attack what you eat, your occupation and your hobbies and perhaps the type of people you associate with.
I am still looking into the exact actions penned by Obama but this was originally reported by the Washington Times and The Hill 2 days ago and confirmed by ‘persons’ in DHS, receive a no comment from HSC and wasn’t denied by the President in Chicago. Apparently McCain flagged these same provisions in the Senate immigration bill when it came to light and put a bill forward to fix it but Senate democrats would not send the passed bill to the house…
Max and TS.My thanks as always for your replies which do indeed help in reaching some understanding. Further to the reply from TS the reference you have posted needs further reading before I can fully understand it. Max has kindly supplied the break up of the Grand Jury. I have a minor difficulty in understanding the reasoning that the compilation of the Jury reflects the demographic of the area. I guess the response from the public should be to ask about the demographic of the police and other law enforcement bodies. Are there 75 percent white employees? And what is the breakdown at the higher levels of the organizations.
ReplyDeleteMax makes the point that left leaning administrations are generally committed to producing a level playing field. TS on the other hand makes no claims but he does in most of his posts advocate wealth creation and retention of rewards gained through personal effort. I suppose, as with all debates we can find guidance in history. Genghis Khan, Marco Polo, Attila the Hun and Above all Great Britain in the late middle ages and up to the first world war were all examples of either rule by absolute right or by conquest.
Karl Marx, Lenin Stalin and Chairman Mao were all successful left wing leaders who followed the credo of take from the rich and give to the poor. I guess Robin Hood was the founder of Socialism if we take this simplistic view. Where Socialism failed(s) in my view is that the very concept requires central control. The ideals are against the interests of those that have; and very much in favor of those who have not. Central control therefore is inevitable; as is failure of the system.
There are examples in history where labor has been oppressed simply for the benefit of business owners, The Woolen Mills and Cotton factories in the UK together with the hand mining of coal in the same nation. Mill owners became rich and the workers not only were deprived of acceptable working conditions, they actually went backwards.
Of course, trusts and gifts from the successful business owners, particularly in the US are notable as centers of Philanthropy; the establishment of the University of Virginia by Jefferson is an example.
From the above hasty scrawl we can see that there can never be agreement between left and right; as long as a degree of self interest remains in society it will be ever thus. What then is needed? In some way a means must be found for the Black population to join the Whites so that each can share in reward for effort. No point in a Black man who cleans shoes remaining so employed. He needs to be given the opportunity to learn how to make the shoes. The middle class bank employee contributes added income for his bank so therefore the bank should pay part of the cost of training the black man to make shoes. Shareholders are not workers; they are living off the labor of others, taxes on what I like to call “Unearned Income” need to be raised. Here are just a few examples of what I can see wrong, not only with America, but the global political and economic scene today.
In writing the above I guess I have encapsulated views formed over a very long life. I have experienced poverty and hardship, a good living wage and then savings and wealth creation never envisioned when I stepped of the immigration ship in Sydney as a 16 year old way back in 1952. I suppose now I am a somewhat insipid supporter of capitalism, I am certainly a strong opponent of socialism in its pure form.
Cheers from Aussie
As I've said before King, you would be a moderate Republican at best in this country and with your comment on taxing "unearned income" you would not likely find a single conservative who would agree with you. I would disagree that there can never be agreement between left and right, I agree with Lou, yourself, TS and even William on quite a few things and at one time, we could get legislation that reflected compromise. We cannot anymore, and there multiple reasons for that. In a comment above, TS noted he believes in letting society determine for itself what outcomes it wants, and in general, I actually agree with this. Where I think he and disagree is that a conservative in this country believes government should forever be restricted from being used as a tool to try and circumvent the natural laws of man in order to falsely raise up an individual who has not shown enough effort and resourcefulness to climb on his own. I don't think that conservatives here WANT to see massive inequality, but I think most are willing to tolerate pretty large gaps as just an unfortunate but necessary outcome that needs to be tolerated in the name of freedom.
DeleteFor me, I've seen plenty of failure of government programs. Some from unintended consequences, others from open abuse. I continue to believe that with our trade policies, destruction of unions and insatiable appetite to consume cheap crap from China, we have deincentivized individuals to work hard. For every one fabulous success story of a hungry kid from a broken home rising to the top, there are hundreds to thousands of stories of people who will live in shitty poverty for the rest of their life even if they are willing to work hard. Of course, I also believe we have way too many people on government assistance now. Where I believe I differ from conservatives in this country is that I believe we can (and have in the past) create an environment wherein the vast majority of people can find a decent paying job, feed their families and incrementally keep creating intrinsic wealth to leave behind for future generations.
King every day as I go about my efforts to gain capital I take a risk for myself and my family that I will not be successful and therefore forfeit a portion of my property (money). If I am fortunate enough to be successful in my efforts and accumulate a surplus of property I have a right to utilize my property as I see fit, including investing (risking capital). By doing this I, if I decide to become a shareholder in a company you happen to work for, join with others to make your employment possible. If you and your co employees happen to be inefficient in your workplace my at risk property can be lost.
DeleteFor the risk I take In having faith in you and your coworkers I expect a return. This return, or unearned income as you term it, is not possible without my original accumulation of surplus property gained by getting up every morning and earning it.
Every additional percentage that you grant the government from my efforts gives me less incentive to get out of bed each morning.
This in a nutshell is what causes communist schemes to ultimately fail.
Marx, Mao, and Stalin were anything but "successful leaders." They each oversaw that greatest periods of slavery in the history mankind. I piss on their graves.
Karl Marx, Lenin Stalin and Chairman Mao were all successful left wing leaders who followed the credo of take from the rich and give to the poor....
Delete...wellll, I'm not so sure that it was literally take exclusively from the rich, nor do I believe that only the poor saw benefit... and the force used by the likes of Genghis Khan were anything but voluntary exchange..
Hey Max,
DeleteTaxes. I have no problem paying taxes until they are wasted. the endless studies to see how snails mate, what fat lesbians get fewer dates, etc. That's why I dislike all additional new taxes, on the wealthy, hidden taxes on everyone, capital gains taxes, etc. Just allows more waste. Make government responsible to the taxpayers, no more conferences, no more waste then I will be happy to pay more in taxes. Until then, no more new taxes.
Where was the media???
ReplyDeleteJermaine Jones’s family didl not share turkey and gravy with their son. On October 18, Jones, 29, stood with a few friends on a street in Berkeley, Mo., adjacent to Ferguson. Police say an unknown black male opened fire, killing Jones and wounding three other black men near him. (Strangely, Jones’s sister, Margaree Dixson, was shot fatally a half-mile away, just three hours earlier. In her case, too, police suspect yet another unidentified black man.)
“There’s too much violence going on,” Nicole Rice, Jones’s sister, told KTVI. “I can’t sleep. I can’t think. I can’t work. I can’t do anything wondering if my son will be a victim to the streets.”
Why has Jones’s death not unleashed riots and looting? Simple: Jones was killed by a fellow black man. Therefore, his death and his loved ones’ agony generate silence.
Meanwhile, 98 percent of black murders go virtually unremarked. Where are the angry crowds demanding justice for blacks such as these, who were wiped out in St. Louis by other blacks in recent memory?
Delete• Willie Earl Reed, 54, faces first-degree murder charges for taking a baseball bat and beating to death his girlfriend, Delores Hundley, 64, on March 24.
• Dominic Arrington, 38, allegedly stabbed to death April Fields on January 28. The 25-year-old business student just had dropped her daughter Skylar, 3, at her day-care center. Arrington had been on parole since 2004 for the 1995 killing of his then-girlfriend’s son, also age 3.
• Carnez Winslett, 36, was gunned down outside his birthday party on September 7, 2013. Police say Darnell Hollings, 21, shot ten bullets at Winslett and his guests. Winslett was wounded mortally. Three other black men were struck, but survived. Hollings also is among four men charged with non-fatally striking hot-dog vendor Edward Newa in the skull with a ball-peen hammer that they just had shoplifted from a Home Depot that August 21.
Where's the Media???