Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]I totally agree that the cops in the Garner case were out of line (IMO), but the cop in the Brown case was not.
If you haven’t seen this video, it shows why cops sometimes have to act in ways that many of us would think are over the top.
And another one showing what cops have to deal with, even during regular traffic stops (which happen to be when many officers are shot/assaulted/killed).
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyTVgYdUTgYAYBIPxQt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZAM4Rlo0S3l6S1Q5YV9CNkUxWDJMVHNBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzU2BHF1ZXJ5A3ZpZGVvIG9mIGNvcCBiZWluZyBzaG90IG1hbiBmdXIgY29hdCBkdXJpbmcgdHJhZmZpYyBzdG9wBHRfc3RtcAMxNDE4MTY2NzU4?p=video+of+cop+being+shot+man+fur+coat+during+traffic+stop&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
This is more in response to the claim that Officer Wilson shouldn’t have shot Michael Brown because he was unarmed.
Cops have to make split-second decisions that often have life-or-death consequences. In the vast majority of cases, cops have no idea if someone is armed or not.[/quote]
I agree with you in many ways. One difference, though, is that Officer Wilson intended that Michael Brown die (or be grievously harmed) whereas I do not believe the officers in the Eric Garner case intended, or had a reasonable belief that Eric Garner would die. Chokeholds are not a walk in the park (and I know they are not allowed by the NYPD), but I would say that the level of force used was less than with Michael Brown. It’s similar to the question of whether it’s worse to try to shoot someone and miss or to smack someone in the head who dies due to having an “egg-shell” skull.
Call me naive, but I’m not sure that either of these situations were racially motivated – I think there are a lot of power crazy police officers out there.[/quote]Agree about the level of force involved. Officer Wilson shot to kill Michael Brown, but he was not an innocent victim, not by a long shot. Since the physical evidence shows that he was still traveling *toward* officer Wilson even after being shot, I don’t blame Wilson at all for wanting to eliminate the threat entirely.
The Garner case was different, at least in my opinion, because Garner was *clearly* not acting in a threatening way toward the officers. While it’s foolish to ignore police commands, cops do occasionally get on a power trip and do probably harass people who don’t necessarily deserve it. There’s a fine line between doing the right thing by cops and following police commands vs. allowing them to ride roughshod over a person’s civil rights. Not entirely sure where that line should be.
And I also believe that race is not the issue in either of these cases. IMO, if you changed their race to white, but kept all other variables (size, behavior, etc.) the same, these cases would have ended the same way. The issues that need to be addressed are police brutality, reasonable force, and the need for strong civil rights protections.
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, you sound exactly like those AM talk show hosts on the right, except, you just replace liberal with conservative. I find it quite amusing actually that you vilify conservatives just like those AM talk show hosts vilify the liberal. I’m neither a liberal or a conservative, so I get a good chuckle watching both extremes vilify each other.[/quote]
I believe that our two-party system has been structured in a way that best enables the PTB to manipulate the masses. Party affiliations don’t mean much to me. I vote for (or against) individuals from either party, and am extremely conservative in some ways, while extremely liberal in others. I’m not vilifying anyone, just noting some differences that keep popping up over and over again.
FWIW, I can be extremely intolerant, too. Don’t get me started on criminals who prey on innocent people…I have zero empathy when it comes to people who do that.
ParticipantIt doesn’t matter whether or not the underlying conditions are sustainable? Of course, these conditions can last far longer than most skeptics would think imaginable, but I’d venture to guess that when the SHTF moment does occur, the duration and extent of the manipulations will be mirrored in the final aftermath, and then some.
ParticipantHere, Krugman notes what Paul McCulley was saying in 2002 (I had always enjoyed reading McCulley’s stuff back then…one of the few honest, astute economists at the time, along with Stephen Roach, who is also mentioned in this article):
“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan’s remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman’s crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.”
ParticipantIt didn’t crash because they unleashed the toxic mortgages when things started to slow down as a result of the recession.
————–
Residential Fixed Investment (RFI):
“Residential Construction
Real RFI typically turns down about 11 months
before the business cycle peak, as rising interest
rates (Figure 2) slow the pace of housing starts and
new home sales. In similar fashion, the growth of
real RFI was weakening significantly prior to the
2001 recession. Hence, one potential cause of the
2001 recession may have been a shock to the resi-
dential housing sector. Table 4 shows that forecasters
generally were surprised by the magnitude of the
decline in housing construction in 2000. By the
fourth quarter of 2000, the cumulative forecast error
for real RFI was a little more than 4 percentage
points.
The unexpected decline in housing investment
prior to the March 2001 business cycle peak may
have resulted from rising interest rates. Conventional
mortgage interest rates rose from about 6.75 percent
in December 1998 to about 8.5 percent in April 2000;
over the same period, the 12-month percent change
in the core PCE chain-type price index rose only
from 1.6 percent to 1.9 percent. The rise in nominal
and real interest rates corresponded with a more
restrictive monetary policy: From June 1999 to May
2000, the FOMC increased its intended federal funds
target from 4.75 percent to 6.50 percent.
17”[page 31 of this report]
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/09/Kliesen.pdf
ParticipantYou need to be more empathetic, brian. While you call yourself a liberal, you seem to have much more in common with conservatives than liberals. Perhaps you’re socially liberal, but even if you are, you’re just barely socially liberal. You’re not exactly tolerant.
Participant[quote=bobby][quote=spdrun]If you think about it, it wasn’t such a hot year for NY-area real estate. Nor SFBA property. ;)[/quote]
SFBA went CRAZY this year. It was 10-30% 1 year gain in most areas.
I bought a primary residence but now looking for a rental. It had been insane. Holding off until things turn downward a little (hopefully)I think he meant in ~2001, when the .com/stock market crashed.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Like I suggested to Brian, some of you need to spend an evening in a ‘ride a long’ with local cops. It’s free, and will open your eyes. Enough of the knee jerk reaction to cops techniques. Go ahead, try yourself to negotiate with a crazy person. Live and learn. We live with lots of crazy.[/quote]
Exactly. It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Hobie]Like I suggested to Brian, some of you need to spend an evening in a ‘ride a long’ with local cops. It’s free, and will open your eyes. Enough of the knee jerk reaction to cops techniques. Go ahead, try yourself to negotiate with a crazy person. Live and learn. We live with lots of crazy.[/quote]
it’s the price we pay for the 2nd am. And shit loads of guns in a culture of violence where cops reasonably believed people who hate them are armed. It seems unfair though when they jump the gun more on black citizens. If they do.[/quote]
It’s a matter of statistical odds, I think. They will be more wary in circumstances that warrant it, at least in their minds. What we need to ask — and HONESTLY answer — is why they think that certain situations are more dangerous than others.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Housing is shaky as it is. A generalized slowdown affects general confidence and put the brakes on it.
It sure wasn’t growing much around 2001-2. Last time, housing affected everything else. This time, it might be the other way around.[/quote]
But it didn’t crash. It wasn’t event flat. So, why did you pick 2001? I wouldn’t mind if today is like 2001.[/quote]Actually, home sales and prices did decline when the stock market bubble burst, but the Fed was quick to manipulate rates and restart a new bubble in housing. Housing prices were already getting overvalued in 2001. I think spdrun chose 2001 because that was the bursting of the bubble just prior to the 2007/2008 bursting of the credit/housing bubble. We still have a credit bubble because of all the manipulations, IMHO, it’s just a matter of which assets are most affected by the surplus credit.
Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GFDEGDQ188S,GFDGDPA188S,FYOIGDA188S,
Margin debt:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcXj0xodULbgAzXuJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzYWU2MzNxBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM5YWI4MWQ0ZWRmMDVjZDkyMzg0N2ZhY2VlZmM1NTg3OARncG9zAzEwBGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dmargin%2Bdebt%2Bchart%2B2014%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D10&w=908&h=662&imgurl=www.pgm-blog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FNYSE-margin-debt-SPX-since-1995.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fgold-and-precious-metals%2F2014%2F01%2Fhighlights-of-the-week-of-january-6-2014-2571672.html&size=73.9KB&name=Highlights+of+the+week+of+January+6%2C+%3Cb%3E2014%3C%2Fb%3E&p=margin+debt+chart+2014&oid=9ab81d4edf05cd923847faceefc55878&fr2=&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&tt=Highlights+of+the+week+of+January+6%2C+%3Cb%3E2014%3C%2Fb%3E&b=0&ni=200&no=10&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13f5akt84&sigb=14m3ogd6r&sigi=12fcicua4&sigt=11g74vdib&sign=11g74vdib&.crumb=gZ2U63/s4yQ&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla
Credit Market Instruments:
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Just read an article about free trade with Europe. They are worried about our chicken washed with chlorine and hormone meat.
I believe hormone enhanced meat and dairy are causing American teens to undergo puberty sooner than teens elsewhere. And that leads to other problems later in life.
Maybe coincidental, but I spend a lot of my childhood abroad so I don’t suffer the side effects of hormone stuffed meat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/free-trade-with-us-europe-balks-at-chlorine-chicken-hormone-beef/2014/12/04/e9aa131c-6c3f-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d_story.html
BTW, when you watch Euro news and see European farmers, they are all thin compared to our husky farmers.[/quote]Gee, I thought they were envious of us and would jump at the opportunity to be more like us. 😉
Agree that many aspects of these free-trade deals would be very damaging to countries who want to have higher labor, consumer, and environmental protections. We need fair trade, not free trade. And trade agreements should never be allowed to water down the labor, consumer, and environmental laws of another country. The interests of people and the environment should always come before corporations and profits.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
We should not conflate the desire to “do the right thing” with empathy.
[/quote]CA Renter – people wouldn’t consider it “right” if they didn’t have empathy. As I have mentioned earlier, I am on the fence politically. There are conservatives who are like you who find self interest in kind acts performed by liberals. What I can’t understand is the belief, on both sides, that the other side is basically wrong (along with a bunch of other bad qualities). It’s similar to the battle of the sexes I’ve seen played out in other threads. We’re all a lot more alike than most are willing to believe – note the statistic in the article that showed that when religious donations were removed, the two parties contributed equally (I don’t think that applied to blood and volunteer hours). I think a lot of people take pride in not being (a) as closed-minded/intolerant/uncaring as the conservatives or (b) as irresponsible/unmotivated/immoral as the liberals. I think a lot of people need to demonize the other side in order to feel superior. I tend to think bad people (and good people) come in all genders, political affiliations, nationalities and yes, Brian, sizes (among other characteristics).[/quote]
We disagree on the desire to “do the right thing” being closely associated with empathy. Empathy might be involved, but in no way is it necessary. I’ve known very good people who always strive to do the right thing, but they have no empathy for those they do not approve of, nor do they have the desire to feel empathetic for these people; their definition of those deserving of empathy can be quite narrow, as well.
And I’m not saying that one group is right or wrong, or good or bad — not making a moral judgment here. It’s just that I’ve noticed these differences between those who tend to be conservative vs. liberal. Not everyone will fit these stereotypes, but I think we’re talking more about the general rule than the exceptions. (Same thing goes for the arguments regarding the gender-based division of labor and the resulting power/wealth gap, and how society reflects those values.)
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
I have yet to meet a European who is envious of our lifestyle. It’s pretty much a given, at least in their minds, that their lifestyle is superior to ours.[/quote]
That’s very interesting.
I don’t think that Europeans want to live us. But leave capitalism and the culture of consumption to run unfettered and eventually everyone in the world will live the same way. [/quote]
What do you think that “same way” would look like: paradise and a high standard of living; or a trashed environment with a tiny number of wealthy, powerful people ruling over the dirty, slaving masses; or something in between (or altogether different)?
[quote=FlyerInHi]Europeans don’t want to be like us, but they are impressed and fearful of our economic and military power. In many ways, they have no choice to follow our lead.[/quote]
Correct. We’ve shown them who’s boss. Our military is superior. Is that a good thing?
[quote=FlyerInHi]Capitalism was not invented in America, but our academics (many Jewish, originally from Europe) have perfected it. We run a better economic system.[/quote]
We’ve bullied our way to the top. Again, not so sure that’s something we should be proud of.
ParticipantI totally agree that the cops in the Garner case were out of line (IMO), but the cop in the Brown case was not.
If you haven’t seen this video, it shows why cops sometimes have to act in ways that many of us would think are over the top.
And another one showing what cops have to deal with, even during regular traffic stops (which happen to be when many officers are shot/assaulted/killed).
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyTVgYdUTgYAYBIPxQt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZAM4Rlo0S3l6S1Q5YV9CNkUxWDJMVHNBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzU2BHF1ZXJ5A3ZpZGVvIG9mIGNvcCBiZWluZyBzaG90IG1hbiBmdXIgY29hdCBkdXJpbmcgdHJhZmZpYyBzdG9wBHRfc3RtcAMxNDE4MTY2NzU4?p=video+of+cop+being+shot+man+fur+coat+during+traffic+stop&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
This is more in response to the claim that Officer Wilson shouldn’t have shot Michael Brown because he was unarmed.
Cops have to make split-second decisions that often have life-or-death consequences. In the vast majority of cases, cops have no idea if someone is armed or not.
-
AuthorPosts
