home

Police Union President Blames Protesters and Mayor for Officers' Murder

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 06:09:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just when the police were about to get some sympathy as a result of the killing of two Brooklyn police officers, the President of the Police Union, Patrick Lynch, takes to the microphones and outlandishly claims there's blood on the hands of protesters and the Mayor. Think Progress has the video.

What a ridiculous claim. The protesters in New York and the Mayor had nothing to do with these killings. The only person responsible is a man from Atlanta with several outstanding warrants who was fleeing Baltimore after having shot his girlfriend. His depraved acts have nothing to do with the thousands of New Yorkers who protested peacefully, or the Mayor, who endorsed their right to do so.

Rabble-rouser Lynch deserves nothing but a Bronx cheer. The NYPD should get a better spokesman. Lynch is a disgrace.

< Two Brooklyn Police Officers Shot and Killed | Holidays: Remembering to Heart Your Favorite Bloggers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Police Union President Blames Protesters and Mayor for Officers' Murder | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    With protesters chanting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    "What do we want? Dead cops!

    It is not out of the question that someone would take that message to heart.

    I guess I missed the part (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    Where they chanted, "Shoot your girlfriend."

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    it does kind of contribute to the environment.

    If Rush Limbaugh and talk radio can be cited by the President for contributing to the climate that created the OKC bombing then the police criticism can be fair.

    If Sarah Palin can be a contributing factor to the Gabby Giffords shooting then the protesters can be considered a contributing factor.

    I think this killer was nuts and evil. I think his decision to kill the cops was motivated by a sick form of martyrdom.

    You can't but oil next to a match and not expect a fire. For both sides of this issue.

    Parent

    The guy who targeted (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Palin was nuts, and, as I noted, he didn't need any encouragement to shoot his girlfriend.

    Your false equivalency is noted.  

    Parent

    I think we need to remember that ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    bocajeff: "If Rush Limbaugh and talk radio can be cited by the President for contributing to the climate that created the OKC bombing then the police criticism can be fair. If Sarah Palin can be a contributing factor to the Gabby Giffords shooting then the protesters can be considered a contributing factor."

    ... public protests don't spontaneously occur in a vacuum, and that in this instance it's been the abusive behavior by police toward people of color which has instigated the public actions in the streets -- and not vice versa.

    I'm not seeking to excuse random acts of retaliatory violence committed against individual officers, such as yesterday's tragedy in Brooklyn. But you and others, such as former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, are engaging in nothing more than bait and switch.

    More specifically, you're offering two false equivalencies in your comment here, as a means to perhaps muddle the discussion regarding the cause and effect of these protests.

    First, you're alluding that the issue of police brutality is somehow similar to the 1995 OKC bombing and the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. And second, you're equating legitimate street protests in response to such brutality with the provocative and increasingly incendiary public spew of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. And quite honestly, both comparisons are rather noxious and offensive.

    Such an attempt to shift blame for the present state of affairs to citizen protestors is actually quite boiler plate as a rhetorical device. It's a shopworn argument that's invoked ad nauseum by the so-called "law and order crowd," whenever they wish to avoid any further uncomfortable discussion of an inconvenient issue.

    But while absolving the police of responsibility for their own misbehavior might make their apologists feel better personally, what good do these sorts of false equivalencies offer the rest of us, really?

    Now, I'll grant you that individuals on both sides of this issue have been quite over the top of late, and some of them are certainly capable of bad and sometimes even appalling acts.

    But in terms of the original subject of public discussion -- which, again, is the abusive behaviors and attitudes exhibited time and again by law enforcement personnel toward people of color -- logic must preclude the notion that both sides can somehow be wrong equally and simultaneously.

    (Unless, of course, one is also inclined to hold an abused child somehow responsible for having provoked his own beating at the hands of an enraged parent.)

    Rather, only one side is in the be wrong on this particular issue and I can assure you, that side's advocates aren't the ones who've taken to the streets in public protest over the other's behavior. As such, those who protest police brutality are the ones who possess the true moral authority here.

    And further, this malignant issue can only be diffused by an admission of culpability on the part of law enforcement and public officials, not by a doubling down on stupid. And it will be ultimately resolved only by a sincere effort to address public concerns and grievances, and correct the present unacceptable situation.

    Anything done otherwise will be simply another kick of the can by public officials down a well-trod road to nowhere, until such time as that can becomes the social equivalent of an IED.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I fail to see how your comparison (4.20 / 5) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:54:43 AM EST
    Applies well.  Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin trade in strawmen and conspiracy theory along the lizard brain neuropathways.  People protesting police brutality and militarization have the names, faces, film footage of real dead people along with their own personal experiences visited upon them, family, friends, peers, coworkers, and the country has had it.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by bocajeff on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    The point I am trying to make, and I know you will dispute, is that it's easier to demagogue and point fingers than to actually get to the roots of the problems and fix them.

    NYC Mayor could have helped quell the vitriol but he didn't, as well as members of the police force. I'm 2000 miles away and I knew about marchers chanting about killing cops as well as cops protecting their own vile behavior.

    But let's be honest about this: There are racists who couldn't care less if Eric Gardner or Mike Brown were killed. There are also people who are glad that these cops were killed (go to twitter to find them).

    I find the entire thing sad and disgusting because instead of tackling the problems people would rather name call and ridicule.

    Mahalo

    Parent

    But what are you doing if not demagogy, ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    bocajeff: "The point I am trying to make, and I know you will dispute, is that it's easier to demagogue and point fingers than to actually get to the roots of the problems and fix them."

    ... when you compare the legitimate and publicly expressed anger over the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown with the toxic vitriol of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, as though both are worthy of condemnation in equal measure?

    Do you seriously believe that public officials in these communities can be trusted at this point to resolve the issue of police brutality of their own volition, if only the people marching and chanting in the streets would shut up and return peacefully to their homes?

    The surest way get these protesters to pipe down is for those same public officials put forth a good faith effort to clean up the acts of their own respective police departments -- in particular, by reforming wholesale the manner in which their officers interact with their community's minority residents.

    The excessive abuses which the New York police officers once regularly visited for no good reason upon homosexuals in the mid-20th century, only began to be curbed when members of the LGBT community resisted their oppressors spontaneously and en masse.

    This finally occurred when officers sought to arrest patrons of the Stonewall Inn on public morals charges during the early morning hours of June 29, 1969, which drew a large and very hostile crowd into the streets of Greenwich Village in response.

    The same thing happened ten years later in San Francisco's "White Night Riots" of May 1979, when former policeman Dan White was shockingly convicted only of negligent homicide in his willful twin killings of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk six months prior, and received an absurdly lenient sentence of five years imprisonment as a result.

    When a few SFPD officers decided to celebrate White's de facto murder acquittal by heading to the Castro District to physically harass its residents, the entire city was in for a very rude awakening when those residents reacted quite violently and took the battle back down Market Street to the very doorsteps of City Hall.

    In both of these cases, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's readily apparent that the patience of the oppressed community had finally been exhausted at that point, completely unbeknownst to local officials. And the ensuing public backlashes against police authority were provoked when the people in charge continued to act like it was still business as usual.

    I would offer that what's happening currently in the African American communities of New York, St. Louis and elsewhere is really no different.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Michael Brown (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:51:38 AM EST

    The death of Michael Brown was tragic.  However, when a robber assaults a police officer, tries to take the officer's firearm, punches the officer in the head, and then when ordered to stop instead charges head down at the officer, we should feel sorry for Brown's horrible judgment and terrible behavior.

    Anger is not justified.

    Parent

    We do not kill people in this country (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:29:28 AM EST
    for robbery.  There is no evidence that the cop knew he was 'wanted' for robbery, nor that it would've made a difference if he did.

    Keep defending the indefensible, that's what RW commentators like you do these days.

    Parent

    Right you are (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:07:40 AM EST

    The robbery was incidental.  It was Brown's decisions to try to take the officers firearm, punch the officer in the head, and charge the officer instead of stopping that lead to his demise.  

    Parent
    Of course the robbery is incidental (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    In fact it probably had no bearing on the encounter all. Wilson and the Chief were all over the place on when and if he knew about the alleged robbery. In fact there was no mention of it for a whole week. If DW had acted while trying to "apprehend suspects" that story would have been out there within minutes.  Also I hope you do realize that the only proof that exists of the gun grabbing face punching comes from Wilson himself but you state it as absolute fact. It's not like he had any reason to lie right ?

    Parent
    No awy (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:32:05 PM EST

    It comes from the forensic evidence as reported.

    1. Brown's finger prints and DNA on the gun.

    2. Browns blood and part of his thumb on the inside of the vehicle.

    3. The bruise on Wilson's face.


    Parent
    Would you please provide (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    a link to any legitimate report that shows Brown's finger prints were on Wilson's gun.

    I think you have made up some of your so called facts and there is no proof that Brown actually touched Wilson's gun but I welcome you proving me wrong.

    Parent

    I misread an old report (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    It was his blood. not finger prints.  However that forensic evidence supports Wilson's account non the less.  

    Parent
    Old report? Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    Read Fljoe's reply to your inaccurate statement. It covers the subject very well. I have no need to repeat what he said.

    Parent
    And any one of a dozen ... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    ... other possibilities, none of which involve Brown reaching for the gun, which is what the imaginary fingerprints were supposed to establish.

    Funny, how that "misreading" can happen when you're straining to see something ...

    Parent

    questionable evidence (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    1. The gun was never tested for finger prints and was handled by Wilson well after the shooting.
    2. Browns Blood was on officer Wilson and could have been deposited by him after the fact (he testified he returned to the vehicle after the shooting. I believe the skin was on the outside of the door.
    3.Not much of a bruise and where is the bruising on MB's hands that must surely be there from the death blows he was raining down?

     A lot of the evidence especially with regard to the gun might not even be admissible in a real trial.
    All you apologists keep claiming the "forensics" support Wilson , when in fact they are inconclusive at best.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:18:04 AM EST
     
    In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.

    About four minutes later, there's more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

    At noon, Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves - units 25 and 22 - if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car." His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

    Wilson recognized them and asked for back up.

    Link

    Parent

    Yes, and Wilson also testified (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    That Brown came at him like a 'demon', so forgive me if I think that his testimony is less then helpful here.

    Also, either he or the Ferguson police chief have committed perjury, or couldn't get the story straight at first:

    About 10 minutes before Brown and Johnson were stopped by Officer Wilson, video footage released by the police last week showed the two young men taking cigars from a convenience store--footage that enraged the Ferguson community, which saw the release of the video as an attempt to smear the dead teenager. The Ferguson police later clarified that Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in a robbery when he approached the two young men for walking in the middle of the street.

    And, presumably they made this statement after reviewing the records in this case.

    So either the Ferguson cops lied, or Johnson lied.  Take your pick.  

    And, as a relative of Wilson's stated, if he really thought Wilson was the suspect, he wouldn't have begun the encounter by cussing at him when asking him to get off the street.

    Now, think about that for a while before you go off half-cocked again about this issue.

    No charge for the advice.  😃

    Parent

    From the GJ transcript (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:55:45 PM EST
    Testimony of the first person to interview Wilson after the shooting:

    Second, now we have a transcript of his direct supervisor's testimony. Sergeant LNU* responded to the scene within minutes after the shooting and was the first person to interview him.
    Question by a Prosecutor Ms. Alizadeh

    Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?

    A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
    
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?

    A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]

    Question by a GJ member

    A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.

    Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?

    A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.

    Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
    
A: Correct
    [GJ, Vol. V, p. 58



    Parent
    Context is everything (2.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    He knew nothing about it at the start of event.

    And as Uncle Chip has thoughtfully shown us, the whole event took 104 seconds.

    Nothing you have shown says he didn't learn about it during the event.

    And then we have the inconvenient fact, for you conspiracy theorists, Wilson called for back up.

    You don't do that to arrest two guys for jay walking.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Read comprehension is everything (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Wilson told his sergeant that he didn't know about the robbery at the Ferguson Market. His sergeant testified under oath that Wilson told him that he didn't know about the Ferguson Market robbery.

    Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?

    A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.

    Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
    
A: Correct

    There is nothing obscure or complicated about the sergeant's testimony.  It didn't say that Wilson told him that he didn't know about it at the start but he learned about the robbery during the event. It said very definitely and very clearly that Wilson told him that he didn't know there was a robbery at the Ferguson Market.

    Parent

    By George, I think you have it! (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    It didn't say that Wilson told him that he didn't know about it at the start but he learned about the robbery during the event.

    Right you are! The context was what did Wilson know before he backed up the van. Start back at page 47.

    Now a time line.

    At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.

    About four minutes later, there's more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

    At noon, Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves - units 25 and 22 - if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

    Now, why could Wilson ask if they needed help if he didn't know there had been a robbery?????

    At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, "21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car." His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

    Now why would Wilson ask for backup if he didn't know about the robbery??

    Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call.

    Link

    So your conspiracy theories continue to be laughable and incapable of standing up to the record.

    Parent

    Actual documented testimony under oath (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    Before the grand jury could only be described as a conspiracy theory by someone with a completely twisted mine set.

    Comparing actual documented testimony under oath to anonymous sources is what is truly laughable. Completely standard procedure for you but laughable all the same.

    Parent

    You are the one who is twisting (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 04:25:08 PM EST
    facts and ignoring facts and you are the one who thinks that the cops conspired and lied.

    I posted public information to show you that he answered that question.

    But that had nothing to do about what happened subsequently to that question.

    Now I'm done. You'll just keep repeating a false scenario so there's no use to try and discuss.

    Parent

    Testimony under oath, JIm (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    from Grand Jury testimony. You are the one who is indicating that the sergeant lied under oath, not I.

    The sergeant's testimony is there for anyone who wants to read it. It contradicts your so called public information (anonymous source) and Wilson's testimony.

    I'm really glad you're done. You can yell false all you want but that does change that there is nothing false about the fact that the sergeant testified under oath that Wilson told him he never knew about the robbery. Anyone can read the testimony. It is in Volume V.

    Parent

    No, I am saying that the (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 06:19:21 PM EST
    question related to what Wilson knew before he backed the van up.

    Context is everything.

    Parent

    No it didn't (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 02:38:56 AM EST
    that is not what the sergeant said at all. The sergeant did not testify that Wilson did not initially know about the robbery but became aware of it during the confrontation with Brown.

    Wilson never mentioned the robbery at all when he gave his account of what happened during his initial interview with the sergeant. In subsequent conversations with the sergeant, Wilson told him he didn't know about the robbery at the Ferguson Market. He didn't say he didn't know about it at first. He told the sergeant he didn't know anything about what happened.

    The St.Louis County Dective who interviewed  Wilson at the hospital testified  that Wilson never mentioned that he suspected the two of stealing the Cigarillos when he gave his  account of what happened.

    Parent

    Kinda puts Jim's version of events (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    Into the dumpster, doesn't it?

    Parent
    Rest assumed (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    he will come up with some bizarre explanation why every transcript entry that supports Brown was a demon and Wilson was a poor helpless 5 year old child is golden, this testimony is not valid.

    Parent
    Title should read (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    Rest assured

    Parent
    Your lack of logic is astounding (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:25:01 PM EST
    The Ferguson police later clarified that Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in a robbery when he approached the two young men for walking in the middle of the street.

    It was during the encounter.

    You know, like "Hey! That guy I just told to walk on the sidewalk is wanted for robbery!"

    And, as always, no charge for the education.

    Heaven knows you need some.

    Parent

    I get it now (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    gets robbery call (files away in back of mind)
    sees MB,DJ walking ,asks them to move (politely of course, everything's Kosher)
    gets dissed, gets pissed (light bulb goes on !!!)
    proceed to confront the demon (just like in the comics)
     that's one hell of a compelling narrative you have there.

    Parent
    Gersh, you'd think that the Ferguson P.D. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    having access to all the logs and radio transmissions would've gotten their story right the first time.

    But, hey, cops practicing CYA for one of their own?  Never happens except on TV and in the movies.</s>

    Parent

    It appears to me they got it right (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:33:03 PM EST
    it's just you folks who always find the cops at fault who are wrong.

    I repeat. He figured out what was what during or just after the first meeting.

    It really isn't difficult unless you have an overwhelming bias you need to feed.

    Parent

    People who coordinate their stories (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    Always get it right, Jim.  I'm shocked that you have such a naive view of human nature.

    Parent
    But they didn't get it right (2.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:02:59 PM EST
    or that's what you claim.

    Try some fish oil for your memory.

    Parent

    The point I raise is a valid one, Jim. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:59:24 PM EST
    That you have yet to address it directly suggests that I'm not the one in need of fish, which was once thought in popular culture to be brain food because like the brain, fish has a lot of phosphorus in it.

    You can't prove a negative, Jim. I'm know that, sans fish or fish oil.

    Parent

    Address what?? (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    That an unattributed person supposedly in the FPD knew what he was speaking of? Okay, I haven't disagreed.

    AT THE START OF THE EVENT BROWN DIDN'T KNOW WILSON AND JOHNSON WERE SUSPECTS. HE FIGURED THAT OUT DURING IT.

    Pardon the bull horn and flashing lights but I remain hopeful that you will cease trying to establish a conspiracy by all of the FDP, DA and the 12 GJ citizens...

    I mean, it is just so foolish to keep on repeating the same old points that, even if true, are meaningless.

    Parent

    then why in the name of Hades (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    Did they not say that he was confronting suspects in the first place. Are you telling me the cop's would hold that info secret? Were they just trying to amp up the drama? What shooting an unarmed man for a jay walking violation sounds better than shooting a suspected criminal.In his original statement to the sgt at the scene Wilson does not mention that they were suspects. Even after the tape was released and Wilson named the chief changed his story a couple of times. He did not know but to cover his ass he comes up with this ridiculous "light bulb moment"

    Parent
    On a day where many (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:48:39 PM EST
    thousands of protesters were, peacefully, exercising their first amendment rights a small group of outsiders, who, rapidly, travel from city to city in the hope of appearing larger than they actually are, slipped into the much larger demonstration.

    Mingling among the peaceful demonstrators, the "dead cops" troublemakers were professional agitators, race-baiters, and anti-government protesters, who only wanted to promote violence.


    Parent

    Is that so? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    Can you name any of these "outsiders"?

    Were any of these the same supposed outsiders that burned and looted Ferguson?


    Parent

    You don't have time (2.33 / 3) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:43:25 AM EST
    the Laundromat called, your sheets are ready

    In other words, get lost.

    Parent

    I don't buy the outsiders either (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    While I am sure some people travelled to protests to cause trouble I think any sizable group of locals will have it's share of "bomb throwers". It doesn't really matter about the ethnic makeup or even the particular issue at hand. Serious injustice (real or perceived) will always inflame passions. For better or worse that has always been the case in this country. Sorry to say but the fight for fair and equal justice has never been bloodless and much of that blood has been shed by innocents.

    Parent
    Disagree some what (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    If you go back and look at those who were arrested in Ferguson, many were from out of town and out of state.

    There were times,  particurly at the start of the protests,  when from a list of 10 - 11 arrested only 1 person would actually be from Ferguson and maybe a couple more from the general area.

    Yes, feelings ran high with local people and the police and the pols continued to add fuel to the fire almost daily, but there was definitely a fairly high ratio of outsiders showing up on the police blotters. Can't say that they, rather than the locals, were responsible for the looting and the destruction of property but outsiders did help stir the pot.


    Parent

    Still somewhat of a straw man. (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:21:01 AM EST
    There will always be troublemaker willing to travel. as in "I am grabbing the AK and headed to the Bundy ranch". Somehow trying to deflect all of the violence shown by protesters onto some vague group outside agitators somehow minimizes the white hot anger  justifiably felt by the locals. Instead of parsing  who is venting their anger we should be asking why.

    Parent
    Don't think my comment (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    deflected all of the violence or all of the anger on to an outside group. Actual facts IMO are not made of straw.

    What I attempted to do was to relay what was actually happening in my neck of the woods.I live within 20 minutes of Ferguson and followed the local news very closely. I've been in Ferguson between the time Brown was shot and when the announcement of the Grand Jury decision was made. I driven by the burned out areas in Ferguson in a bus full of white seniors and believe me the comments made were not full of sympathy and understanding.  

    The AAs who live in Ferguson and the surrounding area will have to continue to live there. The people in my area who were part of the peaceful protests and have tried to channel their anger in more positive ways will IMO pay a price for the violence of others.

    Please be aware that the heightened degree of anger is not restricted to the AA community. While some white people have joined in the protests (see South St. Louis Shaw neighborhood) many more are extremely angry with the attitude of how dare those people do this. Believe me they are not asking why the AA community is angry. They are condemning them for their anger. They see no reason for the anger. They expect those people to be grateful for what they have. My state rep. (D) announced on face book or twitter that he would gladly give the protesters marching to Jeff City a map to Mexico so they could keep on marching out of the country. One of the sweet old ladies at a luncheon I attended didn't think Mexico was quite good enough. They should be rounded up and be sent to Afghanistan.

    So yes, I am very much interested in seeing that all black people here are not painted with the same brush. Just read the comments here. There is already too much of the meme that angry black people deserve whatever they get including being shot and killed for minor infractions.  

    Parent

    Angry indeed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    As an elderly white man many miles from the scene the anger I have about these events is quite intense. I am not a violent persons but if I picture myself as a young black resident of Ferguson I could easily see myself resorting to violence without any outside influence. Remember the fuse was lit a long time ago. I am not trying to tar anyone with any kind of brush. I am trying to say while violence is never acceptable it is always understandable in cases like this. I am not saying that outside agitation was not a major (maybe even the only) factor in the violence but to say that it would not have happened without outsiders is somehow saying that the anger was not that intense

    Parent
    For the most part, you and I agree (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    Your anger and the anger of the elderly white folks around me is miles apart. Their anger is bubbling up and spewing out hatred against black people. There is no empathy or no understanding and it gets worse. The killing of the 2 cops will only add more fuel to the fire.  

    I listen to what is going on around me and read some of the comments here and I cannot help but worry that this will spin completely out of control long before it leads to a better way of addressing our problems.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    to that

    Parent
    absolutely right, Shooter (none / 0) (#76)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    we have these characters in abundance in Oakland

    they now form the heart of Occupy Oakland, such as it is (there's a reason why Occupy Oakland is known as the Westboro Baptist Church of the Occupy Movement) - it didn't take long for Occupy Oakland to devolve into a series of weekly FTP (for "F^ck the Police") marches, recently revived, though i suspect that the killing of the two cops in Brooklyn may put a temporary damper on the FTP fiesta

    many of these nutcase nihilists come from a "cell" of fundamentalist true-believing "anarchists" based in Eugene, Oregon - they have invaded West Oakland the same way crack gangs from LA invaded Tacoma 20 years ago, because of a shortage of cops & consequent opportunities to raise hell

    in Oakland & Berkeley these masked white d-bags have been setting fires in residential neighborhoods & smashing up not just Starbucks & other corporate windows but also local shops & co-ops, including minority-owned businesses - they have also been violently assaulting peaceful marchers (& journalists) who try to stop them - seriously, all these people are missing is the brown shirts

    if you take a look at Twitter (#FTP, #oaklandprotests, #berkeleyprotests, @OccupyOakland, @marymad & other hashtags & handles), you will come away with the impression that the most grievous event in recent American history is the fact that an undercover cop dared to pull a gun on the gaggle of "protesters" that had just beaten his partner to the ground - how shocking

    these tools were & are also present in Ferguson - check out the Twitter feed for the last four months on @ReWyldStL to see the bonding process between a hateful local group & the visiting "anarchists"

    oh, just to be clear, these antisocial scumbags don't give a sh!t about "people of color," Michael Brown, Eric Garner or anyone else - in West Oakland they are squatting in foreclosed houses that belonged for years to black families, houses that their "activism" could have done something to win back, if they truly cared

    Oakland & Berkeley are as progressive as any place on the planet, but these lying hypocrites are despised by local progressives, notwithstanding some race-obsessed white naifs & Weatherman nostalgia ghouls in Berkeley who are only too happy to serve as useful idiots for this sociopathic mob

    we've reached the point where it's all but impossible* for anyone here to organize a peaceful march or demonstration that doesn't degenerate into a riot, & of course this has its own chilling effect on ordinary people's First Amendment rights, not to mention the right of ordinary people to get to a hospital (as in the case of a woman in labor who got stuck on blocked I-880) or have an ambulance reach them (as in the case of the man who died while waiting for paramedics who could not get to him through blocked streets)

    *there have been three strong & effective events, all organized and led by local black activists, not by destructive squatters or narcissistic white "allies"

    Parent

    I expect Union representation to pull out (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    All the stops.   It is a side of a debate.

    But for the Conservatives around here wailing about protestors "causing" this, if guns don't kill people...people kill people, a protest doesn't kill people...people kill people.

    Josh at TPM has good article on this (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    Saying a political leader has "blood on his hands" in the immediate aftermath of a vicious murder borders on incitement. And that is quite apart from the fact that there's nothing de Blasio has done that even by the most tortured definition could make that claim make sense.
    ...
    The "blood on his hands" comments from Lynch and other police union leaders was a graphic and vicious exploitation of the tragedy of the two officers' death to pursue what is essentially a political feud with the mayor. There's no other way to put it. I don't know how representative Lynch's views are of his membership. But I'm not under any illusion that the head of the police union is greatly out of touch with many of his members. Regardless, the police cannot be an independent force, demanding reflexive institutional support irrespective of perceptions and grievances of at least substantial sections of the population they are sworn to protect. That is neither reasonable nor sustainable.
    ...
    The conflicts over policing are ones that need to be worked out at the grass roots level in the hard but critical work of police-community relations and at the grander level of city politics. But what has been disturbing to me for weeks, well before this tragedy this weekend, is the way that at least the leadership of the police unions has basically gone to war against the Mayor over breaking even in small ways from lockstep backing of the police department in all cases and at all times. When we hear members of the NYPD union leadership talking about being forced to become a "wartime" police department, who exactly are they going to war with? WTF does that mean? And who is the enemy? Link

    It is a long article but IMO well worth the read.


    Parent

    Apparently this man was a solo (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:08:43 AM EST
    violent protestor.

    Parent
    I am waiting to hear more (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    About what was going on with him.

    Parent
    We'll never know all the factors (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:36:34 AM EST
    that caused Brinsley to do this. Everyone looks bad here.... the protesters, the mayor, the police union, the athletes.

    Parent
    LOL, why, it's McBain (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:32:57 AM EST
    "We'll never know all the factors"

    Not if you have anything to do with it.

    "Everyone looks bad here.... the protesters, the mayor, the police union, the athletes."

    Personally, I would have included the shooter, but, that's just me.

    And, you left out the cops, aren't they part of "everyone?" That's right, cops are always innocent


    Parent

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:49:29 AM EST
    The two dead cops are innocent on this one.

    Parent
    There's no need to take an attitude like that (none / 0) (#38)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 01:52:23 AM EST
    It doesn't help the discussion.  I hope you won't do it again.

    I thought it was obvious the shooter was a horrible person, but yes,  I should have included him.  As for the cops, the two who were just murdered were innocent. If you want to explain why cops look bad, go ahead. Maybe, I'll agree.    

    Parent

    The problem with posting on blogs (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 02:42:38 AM EST
    is that nuance doesn't always come through.

    The long-time posters here, and, I, rarely have a problem interpreting each others meaning, or, frame of mind, or, the context of a comment.

    So, what I considered a light hearted greeting to an almost friend, and feeling comfortable as friends do around each other, I'm saddened that the liberty I took of a friendly little familiar jab elicited such a somber retort. I'm a life-long New York City kid, I don't bruise that easily.

    To each their own. The scroll button exists for a reason; I suggest you utilize it, I know I'll be.

    Parent

    Everyone looks bad (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    Perhaps, but some sure look worse than others. I will grant you that all the protests and statements made about the spate of deaths caused by police probably contributed in a stochastic manner to this terrible crime (unfortunately there will probably be more). Some people of course will blame the protesters, pundits and politicians for speaking out but the alternative is worse. Does anyone really think that if everyone just zipped their lips in the face of injustice (real or perceived) that everything would be hunky dory? Does anyone think that if everyone just accepted unarmed citizens getting gunned down in the street the  new normal would make things right? So who is really to blame here?
    Angry protesters? Overpaid athletes ? Bloviating politicians and pundits? Or  just maybe two good cops paying for the sins of the bad cops and their
    enablers within the system.

    Parent
    People have died (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    I don't consider that anyone at this point "looks bad".  A few things must change. That's what I see.

    Parent
    Police Unions are proving (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    themselves thin-skinned little children lately. They make completely unprofessional statements then demand respect from the populace in the same breath. Poor spoiled brats. I have no use for any of them.

    America's mayor.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    blames the people he hates.

    The former mayor also criticized President Barack Obama, Holder, and Al Sharpton for addressing the underlining racial tensions behind the failure to indict the white police officers who killed Garner and Mike Brown in Ferguson. "They have created an atmosphere of severe, strong, anti-police hatred in certain communities. For that, they should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

    I can't stand this guy. It's time for him to crawl back into the woodwork that he came out of.

    Is this information (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    He made statements on social media suggesting that he planned to kill police officers and was angered about the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases.
     [NYT.]

    This may be OT (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 04:38:45 AM EST
    but I think that the alienation between the police and the people is largely due to the fact that they are called upon to enforce ridiculous and antiquated laws related to prohibition - the war on drugs.

    They also are the ones designated by the State to harass people who wish to peacefully protest.

    So, the cops become the enemy - or the representatives of the enemy.

    This is not to say that there are no natural born sadists among them. But they way that they are used by the State certainly encourages mean behavior with which many may begin to identify.

    José Martín: 6 Ideas for a Cop Free World (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 04:06:49 AM EST
    Here's the Rolling Stone link.

    I like the mental health one (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 08:05:32 AM EST
    The rest sounds like sociology classroom babble that I took part in in college.  I remember a professor trying to convince me that we didn't need stop signs.

    Easy to discuss when you're safely within the walls of a secure campus and not in a drug ridden crime ridden neighborhood.

    What these areas need is a total new style of policing similar to the story that appeared on 60 minutes a year ago.

    Less policing is exactly what these areas don't need.   Of course family structure and a decent education system would help as well but we've been working with that for , well forever.

    Also I agree with Jeralyn that the protesters are completely a non-factor in this murder but the union does have room to criticize the mayors overly political reaction to the Garner episode immediately following it.   Their reaction to his reaction is obviously way over-the-top but I don't think we should ignore that the mayor was a little too political when he responded.

    Also try to put yourself in the shoes of the average patrolman or police officer. You've been taking quite a few hits from all sides lately and some of them have not been fair. One can understand that they are a little sensitive right now but that does not excuse them blaming protesters for the acts of criminals.   I would only caution an us versus them attitude when it comes to the police force. When I need the police force I'm awfully glad that they're there.

    Parent

    They need policing that isn't filled... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    ...with the military, bully, I-am-a-God-you-are-just-a-stupid-civilian mindset that police work attracts. Also, those neighborhoods definitely DO NOT need what they will see in terms of policing for the next few decades: PTSD afflicted military veterans being domestic cops. And I will reiterate my stance on this: you can be a cop or a soldier, not both. Period. Separation of church and state in law enforcement.

    The fact is, Slado, I haven't had an interaction with a police officers, in the 20 or so I have had through my life, in which I, a white guy, was treated with anything but disrespect, condescension and disdain.

    The personality type that police work attrats and recruits is a death sentence for these neighborhoods.

    It is wrong, and inexcusably so.

    Parent

    In another thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    i condemned the killing of police officers in part because I have them in my family.  I now endorse and agree with your comment completely for the same reason.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    a lot of what you say is true. My racist nephew wants to be a police officer. I really cannot think of a worse person to give that authority to. Hopefully the police department will have a good screening system and he will not be allowed to be one.

    Parent
    Just ridiculous (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:00:41 PM EST
    Blatant stereotyping and group think to describe huge groups of people.

    Replace cops with Muslim and you can see the same over the top reaction we saw post 9/11.

    Maybe you're right.   Just put up a fence, set up some checkpoints and we'll just let the cops work the nice neighborhoods.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    I'm not saying all police officers are racists but for some unknown reason the police force seems to attract these types like my nephew. And a lot of it is management by that particular location. Some better management and some better screenings in some of these departments might be a big help. And not all police departments seems to have these problems. Maybe looking to the ones who seem to do it right and admitting there's a problem would be a step in the right direction. Right now people don't seem to want to admit there is a problem.

    Anyway, it seems the good cops that do speak up about the problems are the ones that lose their jobs and the bad ones are the ones that get more power. Something needs to be done about that.

    Parent

    Fair point (none / 0) (#68)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    But we could have the nicest friendliest police in the world and young black men are still going to be shot by white officers.

    While unjustified use of force by police should never happen I feel some have lost perspective on the left of how hard the job is and how serious the issues are in the communities they are trying to protect.

    Cop puts some perspective on things

    This video for me clearly illustrates the cop point of view and why we should be a little more understanding of how much they put on the line for us and how some might become a little jaded over time as incidents like the one he refers to happen on a nightly basis and he gets criticized for looking at a cell phone in a council meeting.


    Parent

    Forever? (1.25 / 4) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:34:47 AM EST

    Actually, family structure was pretty stable up to the War on Poverty.  

    Parent
    Wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    The War on Poverty at 50

    Still, that rate is considerably lower than two important benchmarks.  First, thanks to a recent study by poverty scholars from Columbia University (see chart and source below), we can track this improved metric back to the latter 1960s.  In 1967, about 26 percent were poor compared to 16 percent in 2012.

    And what does help break down family structures?

    There's a counterargument -- one as old as poverty itself -- that says don't blame the economy; the poor themselves have made life choices that consigned them to poverty, like not getting enough schooling, single parenthood, or having children out of wedlock.  Clearly such choices have always played a role in driving up poverty, but how have they changed over time, and what's their relative importance compared to the broader economic trends noted above?

    In fact, research released Monday by some of my colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that such demographic and educational trends have often moved in opposite directions, some pushing toward higher poverty rates, others pushing toward lower ones.  Regarding the latter, for example, the share of adults with higher educational attainment has risen significantly, family size has shrunk, and a lot more women are in the paid labor market.  Pushing the other way -- toward higher poverty -- are a larger share of single-parent families and lower employment rates for men (I wouldn't be so quick to assign this one to behavior versus structural economic changes).

    Fortunately, the Economic Policy Institute publishes a revealing decomposition on the relevant roles of these poverty determinants, including inequality -- which, by steering any given level of economic growth away from the low-income families, leads to higher poverty -- family structure, education, and so on.  Their analysis shows that between 1979 and 2007, the increase in inequality was the single most important factor in their analysis, increasing poverty by 5.5 percentage points.  The shift to single parent families added 1.4 point to poverty over those years, but educational upgrading reduced it by almost twice that amount.

    so please quit channeling Heritage Foundation bulls*hit.

    Parent

    Family structure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    Family structure was indeed fairly stable until the War on Poverty.  Your post did not address that at all.  

    Before WOP the vast majority of black children were born into two parent households.

    Post WOP the vast magority are born to single parents.

    BTW, the fairly steady decline in the poverty rate flattened out with the advent of the WOP.

    Parent

    Poverty rate graph. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    Link.

    Parent
    You should (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    read the comments on that article. The US Census did not do poverty rates until 1960 so the figures were entirely bogus apparently prior to that.

    Conservatives doctoring numbers again? Tell me it isn't true? LOL. And the person that originally put up those numbers prior to 1960 apparently started backing off them.

    Parent

    No poverty before 1960 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:51:54 PM EST
    Wow!

    Parent
    The census (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    didn't do poverty rates so there is no way to know what the actual numbers were. You're not even dealing with facts. The numbers before 1960 were completely made up and undercut your argument.

    Parent
    Who cares when it started? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    Right now it's an epidemic.   Can we agree on that?

    No family, bad schools and bad CJ lead to black males more likely to have a record then attend college.   This is not sustainable and the tired policies we've been using for 50 years aren't working.  

    Obama sad it best, time for something different.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    then one of the first things that needs to go is the war on drugs that gives poor people a record and wealthy people nothing for the most part.

    And we had the lowest poverty in the history of this country under Bill Clinton but conservatives just could not wait to try to get him out of office.

    Parent

    Wrong! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    From Ta-Nehisi Coats in the Atlantic:

    But while it's true that you see a dramatic increase in single-family homes in 1960, the gap is about as old as our data. Ruggles was able to get ahold of census micro-data and basically concluded as much. If you look at the report you can see on Table 2 that as early as 1880 there were roughly double the percentage of black children born to single mothers as to whites (13.1 to 5.9.) Ruggles concludes:
    ...[T]he finding of recent studies that the high incidence of single parenthood and children residing without parents among blacks is not new. The pattern is clearly evident as far back as 1850 among free blacks. From 1880 through 1960, the percentage of black children with at least one absent parent was fairly stable and about two-and-one-half times greater than the percentage among whites. Recently, the percentages of both black children and white children with absent parents have risen dramatically...

    Race differences in family structure have expanded throughout the twentieth century, especially over the past three decades. But the fundamental differences in the percentage of children residing without parents began well over a century ago. The critical question remains: What is the source of this distinctive African-American pattern of single parenthood? Recent economic changes can be invoked to explain the growing differential between black family structure and white family structure, but they cannot explain why blacks started from a higher base.
    Again, you see a big shift in 1960. But that's true for both black and white families, and it's a shift that has been oft-commented upon. The change in marriage is not a "black" problem, and I am not even convinced that it is a "problem." People who want us to go back to 1880 should have the intellectual courage to advocate for the entirety of their vision, not just the parts they like. It is not simply a question of "Is marriage good for kids?" It's "Are shotgun marriages good for kids?" "Should marriage be valued at all costs, including enduring abuse or ill-treatment?" "Should women marry men regardless of their employment prospects and their contact with the correctional system?"

    My sense is democratic. I think that human beings are pretty logical and generally savvy about identifying their interests. Despite what we've heard, women tend to be human beings and if they are less likely to marry today, it is probable that they have decided that marriage doesn't advance their interests as much as it once did. It's worth noting that it is not simply women with children who aren't marrying, but women period. Indeed, black women today who are unmarried are having fewer kids than at any point in our recorded history. Mouthing platitudes about culture is fun if you want to be right. But if you really want to know, it's a little harder.



    Parent
    Then the question is (2.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    .... if poverty and single mother families isn't the cause of this what is?

    Parent
    No idea, Jim. There is literally nothing (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    in your FBI crime stats page to indicate the background of any of the arrestees, whether white, black, brown, native American or Asian.

    Parent
    hmmmm (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:24:24 PM EST
    Would you care to expound on this?

     

    it is probable that they have decided that marriage doesn't advance their interests as much as it once did.

    Why, in your opinion, would be driving that?

    Parent

    It looks like (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    ...speculation based on a strawman evaluation.

    Any statement that starts out by saying that it is "probable" that people the speaker looks down on hold opinions that might, if they actually existed, conveeeniently support his speculation, does not sound like rigorous science.

    Parent

    You've just summarized (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    90% of his posts by detailing his tactics.

    Parent
    repack and Mordiggian (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    That was Mord's comment that I quoted.

    Wrong! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 09:32:06 AM CST

    It's just above.

    You guys want to attack so badly you can't even take time to think.

    lol

    Parent

    You don't have to respond (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    To us, Jim.  But thanks for the feedback.

    LOL!

    Parent

    So just who is it... (none / 0) (#78)
    by unitron on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    ...that Ta-Nehisi Coats is looking down on?

    Parent
    Looking at the various links (none / 0) (#47)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:35:10 AM EST
      we can see:

      The percentage of children of all backgrounds being raised in single parent homes has dramatically increased since 1960.

      The increase from 1960 has been more pronounced among whites than blacks, but a higher percentage of blacks are still raised in single parent homes.

      Controlling for all other factors, including race, "achievement" or "success" is substantially higher among children raised in two parent homes.

      That's about as far as objective data will take us.

       In attempting to divine "causes" we first have to recognize the limitations of our ability to quantify. We also need to remember that we are not dealing with simple "cause and effect" relationships. Common sense tells us we need to consider that the multitude of factors at play have a symbiotic relationship.

       As just one obvious  example, while lower levels of financial attainment may often  result from being raised in a disadvantageous environment such as a single family household, it's also no doubt true that lack of financial attainment makes it less likely  a person will have a successful  relationship with the other parent of a child.

       The same "back and forth" influence certainly is also present on a purely  "social level" in that a person raised without both parents being involved in a successful relationship during his childhood is less likely as an adult to have a successful monogamous relationship with the other parent and raise their children in an advantageous environment.

      Then when you think about all the other factors which are also  interdependent and cross-influencing  operating simultaneously upon individuals (neighborhoods, schools, peer groups, other social networks, childhood "enrichment" activities and on and on)that vary tremendously and provide large advantages for those with "positive" opportunities, you have to appreciate the HUGE good fortune involved in being "born lucky."
     

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    you have to appreciate the HUGE good fortune involved in being "born lucky."

    My parents were sharecroppers. They had nothing. I know poverty and being looked down on first hand. Yet they worked their way up to owning their own farm and retiring comfortably in their own paid for home in a sound financial position.

    How does that apply to me??

    My home also had books and newspapers and I was expected to succeed in school and anything less than an A was not acceptable and unacceptable actions, reported by my teachers, extended family or neighbors was treated with discipline and love.

    And although the type of "job" I wanted wasn't available, plenty were. My response was to join the Navy, get into the aviation branch and take advantage of every opportunity for training and schools offered. This later translated into a successful career. Like many young people what I had thought I wanted was false. It took maturity and exposure to a wider world to let me find what I enjoyed and was good at.

    When I married  I understood that it was for life and that I was responsible for the protection of my wife and future children.

    I am not unique nor a great example. Many with less, of all races, has had greater success.

    But what is different in our background?

    First, being raised to accept and live within the societal norms. Having children our of wedlock was not acceptable. Rioting was not acceptable. Criminal activity was not acceptable.

    Secondly, we had, before our eyes, multiple demonstrations by our parents that we had a future. There was a way out of poverty. Our lives could and would improve if we worked at it.

    I don't claim perfection for the system or myself. Heaven knows it was not and I was not. But it worked.

    Yet somehow it went off track and like a hurricane following the winds aloft it follows the "if it feels good do it" philosophy implanted in the 60's and fed large doses of "I'm okay and you're play."

    Our failures stem from a societal acceptance of those false doctrines.

    That it "feels good" has never been a logical reason to do anything and none of us are "okay."

     

    Parent

    Lucky and unlucky come in degrees (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:31:45 PM EST
      It sounds to me that you were lucky in quite a few ways even if your folks were not rich. You seem to recognize the advantages you had.

      I won't blame your parents but, the things you either lacked or maybe lost along the way lost might include compassion and empathy.

    Parent

    Really?? (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    You know nothing about me beyond a few comments on a blog and yet

    you either lacked or maybe lost along the way lost might include compassion and empathy.

    That is the postal child for psycho babble.

    Parent

    maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    just maybe, you will someday learn it is fair to judge people by their words. If you d't like being judged negatively don't write things that leave no other option. Or, at least stop whining.

    Parent
    Whining?? (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:18:46 PM EST
    Nope, just noting the facts.

    If you disagree, fine. Do so with my blessing.

    But when you decide to use psycho babble on me I'll just repeat.

    That is the poster child for psycho babble.

    Parent

    Repetition (none / 0) (#97)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:19:31 AM EST
    does not establish validity.

    You might also consider that I expressly refrained from ascribing a cause for your lack of compassion and empathy. I admit I have no idea why you are this way. My observation is purely behavioral.

    Parent

    I said psycho babble (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    I should have included a tendency to jump to a conclusion, perhaps, triggered by not carefully reading what has been written.

    You say lack of empathy?? I don't have to share or recognize someone else's experiences. I don't have to "share your pain." I have actually experienced it. Trust me. There is a huge difference between driving by in your limousine and standing in the rain waiting for a bus.

    My parents were sharecroppers. They had nothing. I know poverty and being looked down on first hand.

    I also wrote:

    I am not unique nor a great example. Many with less, of all races, has had greater success.

    Sympathy?? I wrote:

    I don't claim perfection for the system or myself. Heaven knows it was not and I was not. But it worked.

    Yet somehow it went off track and like a hurricane following the winds aloft it follows the "if it feels good do it" philosophy implanted in the 60's and fed large doses of "I'm okay and you're okay" ("okay" corrected from original "play")

    Our failures stem from a societal acceptance of those false doctrines.

    That it "feels good" has never been a logical reason to do anything and none of us are "okay."

    How much more do you want? I recognize that the system has failed and that the problem is societal. Sympathy over a death from food poisoning without understanding that it was the preparation that caused it...and will kill and kill again if not corrected?? Is that the sympathy you want??

    I suspect that you want sympathetic solutions. And if someone doesn't swear loyalty to the solutions favored by the Demo Left they must be mean and evil.

    I describe myself as a Social Liberal. That means I support equality for minorities, gays, women... in all situation. That includes marriage and the right to choose by women. I think our drug laws are completely screwed and need changing. My biggest quarrel with Obama is that he did not, as I hoped, establish a single payer health care insurance plan instead opting for one that is, basically welfare for the insurance companies paid through his base.

    I am also a firm believer in national defense and that you do what you have to do to win. That includes enhanced interrogation. And along with that, Universal Military Service. You live here you also serve here.

    All of these positions have been expanded upon in the past. The latest here. No one has bothered to disagree. Which tells me that most of the current crop of commentators we have here are interested in snarks, attacks and put downs and telling each other how smart they are...not in debate and sharing ideas.

    But I have rattled on far too long. If you want to have discussion about what we can do to improve it I would enjoy reading your suggestions.

    But spare me the instant analysis and twenty word comment. We have many others, less talented than you, who will willingly perform that task.

     

    Parent

    What is a postal child? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:06:36 PM EST


    Parent
    I've always disliked the term "lucky" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    Luck is being born into the ghetto or Beverly Hills.   What your parents  do after that to screw up or improve you is a series of choices that they are responsible for.    You can get good/bad kids from both with statistics showing that one is obviously harder then the other but the term lucky seems to easy a way to absolve personal responsibility.   That said we all know some kids never stand a chance and they are unlucky.

    Parent
    So who is showing better parental responsibilities (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    in your opinion (since you strongly feel about parental responsibilities)-the Palins or Obamas?
    Not a trick question, just want your honest opinion.

    Parent
    Obamas (none / 0) (#98)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:33:40 AM EST
    I hate when kids are used as media tools.

    Palin had a reality TV show.

    Enough said.

    Parent

    Confused again, Mordiggian? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:07:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    But thanks for asking.

    Parent
    Wrong? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 08:24:54 AM EST
    Wish I was.

    Not only are black women more likely to give birth out of wedlock but they are more likely to have children from multiple partners.

    Black Men knock up too many black women

    This is to me not some symptom of poverty as much as a strange cultural consequence of black men consistently being out of the home for decades.    They either start not being there because the baby is produced out of wedlock or they are in jail because we lock them up at too high a rate and from my personal observations there is absolutely zero stigma now in some communities for fathering children with multiple women when you never plan to take care of any of them.  Just look at all the NFL player news lately.   Peterson I think has no less then 3 children with three different women.   How is that possible?   His story is not unique.   Sean Kemp had 9 children, Travis Henry 11.   Many fathered well after they'd secured contracts making them millionaires.   What is the social cause of such poor decision making?

    The end result is a complete breakdown in anything we'd even remotely call a family structure.   It's so far removed from a traditional childhood I don't even know what to call it.    To pretend that we can reduce long term poverty, fix school attendance, limit these young kids temptation to join gangs and drug culture just seems foolish when you consider the family environments we are applying  these programs to.

    I have no idea how to fix this by the way but when I read articles like the one you posted I just feel sad that the people who could make a difference can't even acknowledge one of the major problems.

    It's convinced me we can't fix this with our current policing and social services model.   It's not working.   Both sides have to be open to acknowledging what the issues are and how we can fix them.  Otherwise we have another generation locked in a cycle that keeps getting worse.

    Parent

    I do know that expecting young men that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 09:28:16 PM EST
    have no experience of a two-parent family to know how to create one of their own is pretty unrealistic.  Much like Jim thinks everyone ought to be able to raise themselves out of poverty like he did, maybe other men figure that if they grew up without a father in the house, their own children should be able to as well.

    My dad was as white working class as they come, but his dad left his family when my dad was a baby...and he did the same to my family. Really he did not think it was a big deal except for himself - who could expect him to live with my mother - she was crazy!

    I think having to raise yourself breeds a special kind of narcissism.

    Parent

    ruffian writes (3.50 / 2) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2014 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    "Much like Jim thinks everyone ought to be able to raise themselves out of poverty like he did, maybe other men figure that if they grew up without a father in the house, their own children should be able to as well."

    Nope, didn't say that. What I said:

    I am not unique nor a great example. Many with less, of all races, has had greater success.
    Snip
    I don't claim perfection for the system or myself. Heaven knows it was not and I was not. But it worked."

    The system worked for me and millions like me. But the tidal wave of fatherless children has created a new standard. And that standard is proving dreadfully harmful to the individual and society.

    And as I have written in other places, I don't have a solution.


    Parent

    Your information is out of date (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    At least as it applies to black women who are single:

    But while the number of unmarried black women has substantially grown, the actual birthrate (measured by births per 1000) for black women is it the lowest point that its ever documented.*

    I point this out to show that the idea that the idea that, somehow, the black community has fallen into a morass of cultural pathology is convenient nostalgia. There is nothing "immoral" or "pathological" about deciding not to marry. In the glorious black past, women who made that decision were more--not less--likely to become mothers. People who are truly concerned about the percentage of out of wedlock births would do well to hector married black women for moral duty to churn out babies in the manner of their glorious foremothers. But no one would do that. Because it would be absurd.(Ed)

    Theories of cultural decline are irrelevant. Policy not so much. Given the contact rates between the justice system and young black men, and given how that contact affects your employment prospects, the decision by many black women to not marry, and to have less children, strikes me as logical. If we want to change marriage rates, we need to change our policies. Nostalgia is magic. Policy is the hero.(Ed)



    Parent
    So you say that the number has crested (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    among black women.

    Irrelevant. It has increased among whites and hispanics and like a disease that has produced a high fever if it doesn't go down it will continue to destroy.

    I mean, do you think these numbers are acceptable?

    With little fanfare, the federal government has posted its annual compilation of birth data, including out-of-wedlock births. Here's the bad news (essentially unchanged from last year): Preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it's 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders.

    Link

    Parent

    There is no inherent link (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    Between illegitimacy and the stability of a given society.  When I took a class in sociology of the family some 30+ years ago, my teacher stated that removing the stigma from the children born out of wedlock in our society also makes it more acceptable.

    Now I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in enforcing morality on the kids who did nothing wrong, who didn't choose to be born to parents who weren't married, to make them literally suffer for the sins of their parents.

    But that is the only way you can bring it down by bringing the element of sin and shame back to it.  Now it may be that society as a whole was better off when that was true 50 to 60 years ago, but the children weren't better off.

    You want to make legitimacy more popular, change the tax code, for one thing.  Also, increase education about sex and birth control. And recognize there are other factors as well.  In my neck of the woods many teen pregnancies are in Mexican and Hispanic adolescents whose culture encourages fertility and submission to patriarchal values( no birth control).

    Finally, maybe more African-American women would be married to African-American men if we stopped locking them up in disproportionate numbers comparied to their white counterparts for the same crimes.(I e, statistically, an African-American male will serve more time and receive more punishment than a White-American will for the same offense).

    The thing that isn't working is to tell women to keep their lady bits pure until after the wedding because Jesus said so.

    And no, I don't believe in pre-marital sex, if it's gonna delay the ceremony.

    Parent

    No where (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    have I written that I wanted to:

     

    enforc(ing)morality on the kids who did nothing wrong, who didn't choose to be born to parents who weren't married, to make them literally suffer for the sins of their parents.

    In fact, I have commented that I have no solution.

    But I do recognize the problem.

    And I haven't mentioned sin.

    So what are you trying to do??

    Simple. Having been forced to accept the fact that, as I wrote,:

    Yet somehow it went off track and like a hurricane following the winds aloft it follows the "if it feels good do it" philosophy implanted in the 60's and fed large doses of "I'm okay and you're okay" ("okay" corrected from original "play")

    Our failures stem from a societal acceptance of those false doctrines.

    That it "feels good" has never been a logical reason to do anything and none of us are "okay."

    You want to reframe the argument.

    Again, I have no solution and, unfortunately, more sex education, etc., hasn't worked. And the last time I checked, while getting married increases joint income it decreases the tax rate.

    And teenage pregnancies were common in the 50's and earlier. Hasty marriages were also common and it was an accepted fact that:

    The first child can arrive at anytime. The second one takes 9 months.

    But, if you want some shame, how about the professional athletes who have multiple children by multiple females. Maybe we should have the leagues hold hearings and then establish funds where the prolific daddies can pay into to support the children??

    Parent

    Is your problem with the "legitimacy" (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    of children born to parents who are not married to each other?  I'm willing to bet that neither my 8-week old grandson, nor his 2-year old cousin has any idea whether their parents are married, or even what marriage is.  But they are both aware of the presence in their lives of both mom and dad.  That all 4 parents participate in the care of their respective children - feeding, rocking, reading, bathing, playing, discipline, structure, rules - all of it.  

    Would either of my grandchildren be disadvantaged if they only had one parent?  Based on the care I see my daughters and their husbands providing, I think that while it would be hard not to have someone to share the journey with, both my grandchildren would be well-loved and well-cared for with only one parent.

    Just as it is wrong to label someone an "illegal immigrant," it is just as wrong to label someone "illegitimate" because the parents are not married.

    All people are legitimate.  Their births are no less legitimate for lack of a marriage license.

    I have two children.  My children each have one child.  Between the cost of the basics, and the cost of day care, both struggle over the fact that it will be a financial sacrifice to give their children a sibling.  I can remember my husband and I going through that same exercise: could we afford to have another child?

    So, if I have any problem at all, it isn't with whether someone has a child with the benefit of marriage, it is that too many - married or not - have children who can't afford to support them.  And my problem with athletes who have children in multiple cities isn't that they can't afford them, it's that they can't possibly give all their children the benefit of their presence.

    I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned the antiquated and economically debilitating policies in this country regarding maternity and parental leave.  Does anyone think having to put your child in day care for 10 hours a day when the baby is sometimes as young as six weeks old fosters strong familial bonds?  Does anyone think daycare workers are the best substitute for mothers and fathers?  Does anyone think it a good thing to put parents in the position of having to choose between work and family?  I mean, to some extent, all of us with children and jobs have faced that struggle, but shouldn't families get more support for wanting to be good parents?

    I mean, this is a country where women who breastfeed discreetly in public are made to feel dirty and shamed.  Where people who wouldn't consider eating their lunch in a bathroom think it's okay to suggest a breastfeeding woman feed her baby in a bathroom stall.

    Personally, I think most of you who are demonizing people for having children out of wedlock, and blaming lack of marriage for the downfall of society, need to come into the 21st century and out of the Stone Age.  

    Parent

    Why do you make things up?? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    Is your problem with the "legitimacy" of children born to parents who are not married to each other?

    I have never even hinted at that yet you use the artificial question to rattle on about such deep issues as some nuts opposing public breast feeding.

    I mean, please. Focus.

    The issue isn't the Candice Bergen's TV heroine having a child "by themselves."  The issue is that among the poor the child-soon-to-be-mother is truly alone and the vast majority will live a life of poverty and the child will not have adequate supervision or a male role model.

    Glorification of the so-called elites in their counter productive actions advertises a false view of the world that encourages children to become mothers and the male, with no taught base that he must take care of the mother and child, takes full advantage of the situation.

    If it sounds like I despise "dead beat dads" then my message is getting through.


    Parent

    I had hoped to avoid this, but here goes (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    Our failures stem from a societal acceptance of those false doctrines.

    That it "feels good" has never been a logical reason to do anything and none of us are "okay."

    That doesn't explain why red states have a higher rate than blue states.  If your explaination was correct, it should be the other way around.  In fact, those parts of the country that aren't as you describe tend to have more problems as well:

    According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 10 states with the highest number of total inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, 9 were red. Of the 10 states with the most female inmates per 100,000 residents that same year, all were red. (Conversely, of the 10 states with the lowest incarceration rates of female prisoners, 9 were blue.) Not only do red states pack a larger percentage of their populations into their sardine cans, they have a near monopoly on capitSince 1976, the highest number of executions have been carried out in red states, with Texas--no surprise--ranking No. 1 on the hit parade. George Bush may be stingy with the pardons as president, but his wrist was quite limber when it came to signing those execution approvals as governor of Texas. "Now, you would think that all of this imprisonment and death might result in safer, more peaceful Red States, wouldn't you?" asks John Grevstad in his book, Red State, Blue State: Defending the Liberal Jesus and Blue State Morality from Red State Religion and Hypocrisy (which references the above statistics). But nay. "You would be wrong. Red States tend to be the most violent places to live.... Red States dominate the rankings of violent crimes despite their emphasis on judgment and incarceration." It's never fun having your a** shot off, but the odds of that occurring seem higher in the red states, which account for all of the top 15 states in rates of death by firearms (2003). Methamphetamine addiction is a national scourge, but it's been chewing the heart out of the red Middle West, where Missouri has the tragic distinction of hosting the highest number of lab incidents (meth labs or production facilities raided by authorities), with Indiana, Tennessee, Iowa, and Kentucky also among the top six states afflicted with an outbreak of bootleg chemistry. The 10 states with the lowest meth-lab incidents? Eight of them are blue. Then there's the violence or despair directed selfward. Of the 15 states with the highest adjusted rates of suicide (2003), 14 are red.

    And, yes, sex education works, as well as increased access to birth control for those in their teens.  Apparently you haven't checked why illegitimacy rates are lower in most of Europe than here in the states.

    And the problem with shaming the athlete fathers is as I stated earlier.  You want to shame them, some inevitably accrues to the innocent child as well.  I assume you have the child's interest in mind as well, correct?

    As for the 50s, yes many pregnant teens  married to avoid the shame that would fall to them and their innocent child.  That you think that was the good old days tells us how good they weren't if you weren't a white male back then.

    Parent

    Why do you post (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    hundreds of words that has nothing to do the subject?

    The problem is societal, not dope use. If that were the case then I'd say CO is at the top of the list because it has made MJ legal.

    So you can't blame the father because that would shame the child?? Really?? What logic. You have astounded me. What's next? We can't prosecute murders because that would shame their children? Really?? I giggle. I can't help it. You have won the most desperate attempt award for trying to reframe a losing argument for the year 2014.

    And if sex education "worked" then why do we have this problem?? BTW - I have no problem with the attempt at education. Note the "attempt."

    And I didn't know you were alive in the 50's. I mean you write about it with such certainty.

    And were did I say they were the good old days??

    What I said was:

    I don't claim perfection for the system or myself. Heaven knows it was not and I was not. But it worked.

    There was a need for change. I watched my dad work to get a union in where he worked. I heard and saw the threats. But:

    Yet somehow it went off track and like a hurricane following the winds aloft it follows the "if it feels good do it" philosophy implanted in the 60's and fed large doses of "I'm okay and you're okay" ("okay" corrected from original "play")

    Our failures stem from a societal acceptance of those false doctrines.

    That it "feels good" has never been a logical reason to do anything and none of us are "okay."

    What you propose is more of the same. Remember. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.


    Parent

    You are getting things wrong again (none / 0) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    Ithink that shamming the parent does nothing positive, and is counter-productive.

    And really, comparing illegitimacy to murder?  What's next, I'm in favor of arson because I don't believe in stigmatizing the children of arsonists?

    You're getting into crazy territory here, let alone the fact that you buy into the permissive society swill as well.

    As for the 50s, my mother was alive in the 50s, and she to,d me how half of her fellow,graduates of he class of '54 got married afterwards because it was the only way a good Catholic girl could experience sex.

    Now, are you going to snark something about my mother as well?  Something about how her experience was abnormal?

    And nowhere did I subscribe to the feel good doctrine, I merely point out that the problem with illegitimacy in this country is in I your beloved American South, a region where even you'll agree that the "feels good do it" outside of the major cities is frowned upon by the majority of the citizenry there.

    As you like to say, facts be facts, Jim.

    Do some real research on e subject besides confirming your vulgar and outdated prejudices, check out the statements I've made on this thread and maybe, maybe

    You'll learn something new, for a change.

    As before,

    Parent

    I understand what you think (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 06:35:15 PM EST
    Ithink that shamming the parent does nothing positive, and is counter-productive.

    You think that making a bunch of well paid athletes support their children some how harms the children.

    Me? I think letting them grow up without adequate resources and no father is harmful.

    No one except truly nasty people blame the child for the parents actions. Are you projecting again?

    And I didn't say you subscribe to anything. I said society as a whole has done so. Please try and keep up.

    And not knowing any good, or bad, Catholic girls all I can say is that Protestant girls also liked to have sex.

    But that has nothing to with the larger issue and is just another attempt to reframe the discussion.

    And please, one moment you are blaming us for the manufacture of speed and the next moment you are blaming us for condemning such wild behavior.

    Could you please make up your mind???

    ;-)

    Of course the truth is that the dope market has now been taken over by your beloved Mexico.

    Parent

    I'm sorry but you are so confused so (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    I'll make it simple.

    You claim that the feel-good movement permissiveness of the 60s is responsible for the increase in illegitimacy.

    My reply is that if that were the case, then the American South, where such values aren't in ascendency, should have lower rates than the rest of the country on average, and, they should be way lower than what is seen in blue states where one could reasonably say the values you cite are probably more influential there than in the South.

    But, when you look at the data, it's the other way around.  Red states in the American South not only do not have lower rates, their rates are higher than the decadent blue states.

    Now, read what I wrote here, think, and think before you formulate a response.

    😀

    Parent

    Rates of what?? (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    And shouldn't we be looking at metro areas rather than geographic??

    Why yes. Yes we should because that would be an apple to apple comparison.

    And in the final analysis, the crime rate in our inner cities speak for themselves. Look again at the FBI stats and explain why that is the way it is.

    But, instead of accepting what I posted earlier..... that the stats are unacceptable in all states either at the low end or high end... you want to reframe and try and make it a north south argument...

    Hey, Mordiggian. The Civil War is long over.

    Parent

    Rates of illegitimacy of course. What else were (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 08:20:53 PM EST
    We talking about?

    And I didn't make it a strictly N/S thing, I did caveat about large cities in the South being a little more towards the feel-good philosophy than the surrounding areas in the South, but I guess you missed that part.

    Let me just leave this here for you:

    The FBI's final 2012 crime statistics confirm a long-term and somewhat puzzling fact -- the South has more violent crime than the rest of America.

    The South accounted for 40.9% of all reported violent crimes even though it makes up roughly a quarter of the country, according to the final Uniform Crime Report for 2012.

    Violent Southerners aren't anything new. In 1958, the South had a homicide rate of nine per 100,000 compared to a rate of three per 100,000 for the U.S., according to a paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

    The South has continued to have more than its share of violent crimes over the years, even as the rest of the country gets safer, Radford University criminology professor Tod Burke tells Business Insider.

    Of course, nobody really knows why the South is consistently more violent. There are a couple of pretty popular theories, though.



    Parent
    You keep on blathering and copying (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    about rates when, I thought we had agreed that all the rates were too high.

    Evidently they are too high in the south and okay elsewhere.

    And you conflate out of wedlock births with violent crime?? Wow.

    Now I have given you ample opportunity to propose some solutions to the problem and all you do is reframe and attack.

    So enough and good bye. You aren't interested in a discussion.


    Parent

    I'm pointing out that the rates (none / 0) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    Don't support your hypothesis, and of course you'd call it blathering because you have no answer to my falsifying your hypothesis.

    Nope, never said that they were only too high in the South, just that they're higher in the South than elsewhere, which is a different concept, and one that you have difficulty accepting because of your rose-colored glasses view of that region.

    As for conflating, I'm just pointing out that the South leads the nation in various statistics like the higher rates like I mentioned earlier, divorce, etc.

    No charge, as always.

    Parent

    And why are you concerned about the south?? (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 03:46:30 PM EST
    You don't live here. And if we corrected all the problems of the south, wouldn't the same problems exist in your own world??

    Yes they would.

    You want to talk about the south because you can't admit that the

    FBI stats are national figures.

    You want to talk about the south because you can't admit that

    40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it's 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders.

    And these are national figures.

    BTW - The national figure in 1993 was 31%.

    Why the avoidance?? Why not admit that we have a problem. Too many children are growing up without a father and that is causing huge problems.

    These are national problems. Hiding by changing the subject changes nothing.

    Parent

    Because it throws your theory (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    Of the feel good movement being responsible for the rise in rates.

    As for the statistics you cite again, I responded earlier in this thread, that you ignored it earlier leads me to wonder if you can actually participate in an exchange of views, since you don't seem to offer anything but a few links and the rightness of your POV.

    So why discuss anything in the first place, when you've already thought it through?  Why do you need my agreement with a crazy theory that I've falsified?

    Those are the questions you need to ask yourself,  not me.

    Parent

    Say what?? (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    Are you claiming that the south wasn't part of the 60's?

    lol

    Nope. You're not. You're just looking for a way to support and expand the false narrative you're pushing.

    Parent

    I said the South is the part of the country (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    where the feel-good movements, outside some major cities, have had and have(try saying that fast) the least impact on the culture there.  

    Now, if you want to argue it would be lower still if the feel-good philosophy hadn't reached the South, that could be true.

    But when you compare the South to the North, according to your theory, the Northern states, being less religious on average than the Southern states, less church-going, etc, which I hope as an honest Southerner you'd agree with, should have higher rates of illegitimacy than the more traditional South, and you agree with me that it's the other way around.

    See how simple thst is?  And don't tell me that I was claiming the 60s never took place in the South when even a sixth-grader could read what I wrote and understand what I meant.

    But, you'll stretch out my position to a ridiculous length, because you're afraid that you'll lose the argument if you don't

    Protip:  When it gets that far, it's already too late.

    Again, something you need to think about, before formulating your next response here.

    Parent

    Why someone (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 21, 2014 at 06:12:39 AM EST
    would put spam in a thread as serious as this one escapes me.
    Once again Reason sets me straight (none / 0) (#99)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 02:37:25 AM EST
    It's the criminals fault.

    Reason Magazine

    Both sides should avoid the political tactic of using heated rhetoric to some how assign blame to its political opposition.

    De Blasio has made his mistakes but he's no more responsible for the death of those cops then I am.

    The criminal/actor is ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    ... always responsible for their actions.  That being said, sometimes people who engage in extreme rhetoric can also be responsible for violence if their rhetoric incites others to violence.

    What did De Blasio say that would even make someone ask that question?

    Parent

    Pat Lynch... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 23, 2014 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    To exploit the murder of two of his members like this is really beyond the pale...but that's Pat, always has been.  

    NYPD rank and file would be wise to find better union representation, and a better spokesman, if they desire the respect of the communities they "serve".

     

    Police Union President Blames Protesters and Mayor for Officers' Murder | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment