jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
So blacks can bring attention to they systemic/structural biases they face, but they can't make anyone (especially white folks)feel uncomfortable in doing so?
Last edited:
150 Terrorists invade Oregon
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
So blacks can bring attention to they systemic/structural biases they face, but they can't make anyone (especially white folks)feel uncomfortable in doing so?
I think that bringing attention to it is inherently uncomfortable. people don't really like to acknowledge the dark side of themselves or their society.
Now I am all for them bringing attention to this issue. It clearly needs some light shone on it. I still strongly maintain the opinion that they could be doing so in a much more effective way.
But they are the ones shinning the light and I am just armchair QBing.
Since we have taken it this way I might as well throw some logs on the fire.
Here are two opposing articles on the hot button topic of "reparations".
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
Atlantic article bay Te-Nehisi Coates in favor. (attacks Bernie Sanders)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/opin...attack-on-bernie-sanders-mcwhorter/index.html
CNN article by John McWhorter explaining why Coates is wrong (defends Sanders)
Looking at the racial aspects not the political aspirations of Sanders. Thoughts?
Here are two opposing articles on the hot button topic of "reparations".
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
Atlantic article bay Te-Nehisi Coates in favor. (attacks Bernie Sanders)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/opin...attack-on-bernie-sanders-mcwhorter/index.html
CNN article by John McWhorter explaining why Coates is wrong (defends Sanders)
Looking at the racial aspects not the political aspirations of Sanders. Thoughts?
Miggs
Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that. However, that doesn't mean the cop's actions weren't warranted in the particular case I mentioned.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
You mean other than going after a police officer, trying to take his weapon, and punching him in the face?
I couldn't disagree more about Brown being a victim. And if blacks and their activists are so concerned about how they're perceived, they should probably look interally as well. Richard Sherman, someone I can't stand for the most part, spoke very intelligently about this. I'd add that they should also go into predominantly black communities pushing for education, the importance of two parent households, career readiness, and the like. Or is the rest of society to blame for the fact that 67% of blacks are raised in single-parent households? Are the rest of us to blame for the black-on-black crime? I'll stop there as I'm sure you get my point. Some self-reflection and accountability there would go a long ways.
That said, yes, we could question whether Brown would be dead or not if he was white. There's no debating that. But based on the actions that took place, again, I see the cops actions as completely warranted. White or black. Let me also add that I find the complete lack of respect for cops that's begun to run rampant in our society completely appalling.
Injustice and corporate greed at all costs are two things that bother me perhaps more than anything else. The Insider is my favorite movie in large part because of that. I'm not sure if that helped answer your question.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand better, thanks. I still disagree that anything Michael Brown did merited death. Last I checked, none of his crimes warranted the death penalty. As for whether the officer was justified using deadly force, we'll never know given that the local DA never had any intention, or so it appears, to pursue this issue further.
Note also if we are laying blame, IF the police officer had initially (from the beginning) dealt with the situation in a way designed to de-escalate confrontation, as opposed to escalating it from the get go, then none of this would have happened. And to what extent was his approach to the situation a function of the culture that had developed in the police force viz their attitudes towards black citizens? Would he have acted similarly had Brown been white? Know one knows, but I suspect it would have turned out much differently.
It's very hard to determine what really happens in a system where law enforcement inevitably circles the wagon to protect its own, in collusion with local district attorneys, and routinely lies and obfuscates. Hell, I don't trust the system. How do you think members of the black community feel?
Let me say that I think it's fair to ask the 'black community' to look inward and think about whether and what social dysfunctions may exist that contribute to high crime rates, high % of single parent families, etc. BUT, at the same time, it is fair to ask society and policymakers to take a deeper look to try to disentangle other potential explanatory factors, particularly poverty and institutional/structural factors that contribute to poverty, crime and other social dysfunctions within the black community. I suspect that once one has accounted for these other factors, race-based explanations will shrink significantly in terms of relative importance. In other words, it is not fair to demand that blacks look inward to explain and deal with existing dysfunctions without also looking outward to identify other contributory factors. It's much, much more complex than most people (particularly those on the right) pretend it is.
Last edited:
This is something I agree with. There is mountains of work to be done in society as a whole, in the white community and in the black community. Until all 3 groups get real about it we will continue to have nothing but finger pointing and arguments.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I've been out of town for a week. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not angry at all about the way this group protests. I just don't think it's nearly as effective as it could be. The reason I brought up Soros is that it seems to me that his money is routinely behind this sort of agitation and I think there's a high likelihood that he or his people have the ultimate say in how these organizations are being run (which goes contrary to those who are saying that we should just let the black population decide how to frame these issues).
IMO black people and communities have made enormous contributions to American and human society. I believe they would benefit by focusing on those positives and consequently lifting themselves up, than by highlighting the negatives and pulling themselves down. It's a strange phenomena and I know that some posters here are going to strongly disagree with me, but my experience has been that whatever you focus on is what you ultimately get. I can think of many examples of this, both in my own life and in others that I've observed.
On a side note back to the original story.
The new measure this groups is taking. Is to get ranchers across the west to renounce their BLM grazing rights and refuse to accept BLM authority.
So far I've heard of 1 rancher in NM and 8 in UT taking this up.
The new measure this groups is taking. Is to get ranchers across the west to renounce their BLM grazing rights and refuse to accept BLM authority.
So far I've heard of 1 rancher in NM and 8 in UT taking this up.
The NM grazing rights probably pre-date US acquisition of the territory. I don't know why anyone in NM talks to the BLM, any more than say Texas or California. Utah and Nevada have recorded titles to grazing rights sitting in all the county recorders offices going back before the BLM was authorized by Congress(1948). It was not until the 1970s that the Feds clearly stated an intention to keep the lands, in violation of many earlier acts and covenants.
But all that is nothing compared to the Fed record in treaties with the native Americans.
American land policy has always boiled down to the interests of the politically powerful over everyone else, which is why I believe all this sequestration of federal lands for one noble sounding purpose or another is just large scale Rockefeller-style restricting the competition in the interest of the cartelist who holds the most bought and paid for "Cards" in the system.
Sierra Club takes donations from mining titans like Rio Tinto, lumbering interests who just outright own forests in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota. A lot of "environmentalists" are the new "green" sort with large scale dreams about re-establishing vast wilderness corridors across all the world, really no different from the commies of Russia who seized farm lands in the name of collectives. . . and then produced nothing to speak of. . . . while CP members drank and danced their way around in sequestered little posh villas. Communism in Russia and China was just large scale "State Capitalism" and the little people got nothing out of it. State Corporatism is actually no different in any meaningful way. It's still a little group of powerful essential insiders drinking and dancing their way around all the UN meetings around the world, and you get nothing to speak of.
Those federal lands will gradually be withdrawn from public access in one way after another until we are living like ordinary Soviet citizens did in their little apartments, with a world of wilderness stretching from the Arctic to the Himalayas, from the Black Sea to the Pacific.
Cartelists who control the resources don't have to produce much because they can just raise their prices until they can cut their staff and live off government contracts. Same thing with government bureaucrats. The government becomes the meaningful "customer" and the people don't even really get into the equation.
Game might think this is some sort of "Conspiracy Theory", but no it's human nature, the way people with power behave. If they have the power, they'll do these predictable sorts of things.
A whole lot of people making decisions in predictable ways once the rules are set to allow it.
Last edited:
Interior Deptl Prioties
The US Dept of the Interior realizes the political vagaries of it's credibility with the public. To make this point, here is an item of personal observation. A range fire on a mountain with several hiking trails a few years ago. . . . and resulting flash floods washing out access to those trails. . . . had Interior out with massive forces and machinery to restore the hiker access. I had not yet been able to get Interior to fix the damn fences that got washed out, essential to the grazing use.
So anyway, if people get a bee in their bonnets, the govt can still dance to their tune, but enough people have got to be playing that tune to get any reaction.
I think that the "green" movement and other political agitators for sweeping the ordinary folks outta the way in the name of idealistic visions of earth's future have gotten out of step with most people, and that the time has come when the public can effect some reasonable adjustments to our policies.
One reasonable adjustment is the recognition of grazing rights as a vested property right, not outright ownership of the land, but a use of the land with an appraisable value. Grazing rights holders should pay a property tax assessment, and be subject to local standards of maintenance of the land. The Federal Government, which is as corruptible as any local government should relinquish claims to owning land, turning over administration to the States.
In my view, this would promote preservation of scenic and tourist values, as tourism is a bigger cash cow with more widespread beneficiaries in local populations than any corporate entity. Gas station owners, motel owners, real estate developers would generally realize that their neck of the woods needs to be a place people want to visit or live, and preserve those nice things people notice and care about.
For any scholars who want to read more on the grazing rights issues today, here is a good summary:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853
The US Dept of the Interior realizes the political vagaries of it's credibility with the public. To make this point, here is an item of personal observation. A range fire on a mountain with several hiking trails a few years ago. . . . and resulting flash floods washing out access to those trails. . . . had Interior out with massive forces and machinery to restore the hiker access. I had not yet been able to get Interior to fix the damn fences that got washed out, essential to the grazing use.
So anyway, if people get a bee in their bonnets, the govt can still dance to their tune, but enough people have got to be playing that tune to get any reaction.
I think that the "green" movement and other political agitators for sweeping the ordinary folks outta the way in the name of idealistic visions of earth's future have gotten out of step with most people, and that the time has come when the public can effect some reasonable adjustments to our policies.
One reasonable adjustment is the recognition of grazing rights as a vested property right, not outright ownership of the land, but a use of the land with an appraisable value. Grazing rights holders should pay a property tax assessment, and be subject to local standards of maintenance of the land. The Federal Government, which is as corruptible as any local government should relinquish claims to owning land, turning over administration to the States.
In my view, this would promote preservation of scenic and tourist values, as tourism is a bigger cash cow with more widespread beneficiaries in local populations than any corporate entity. Gas station owners, motel owners, real estate developers would generally realize that their neck of the woods needs to be a place people want to visit or live, and preserve those nice things people notice and care about.
For any scholars who want to read more on the grazing rights issues today, here is a good summary:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853
Uh oh. It just went down.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/
Around a half dozen arrested and 1 militant dead. FBI and state police got them on the highway.
Will the rest slink away or will this lead to a lot of people joining their cause?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/
Around a half dozen arrested and 1 militant dead. FBI and state police got them on the highway.
Will the rest slink away or will this lead to a lot of people joining their cause?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Awesome!
It's finally over!
Hope Bundy enjoys federal prison. Enjoy having federal overreach up the butt!
I'm also very grateful that the person killed was a terrorist and not law enforcement. Guess Capt Moroni can enjoy his 77 Virgins or whatever the hell he was fighting for!
It's finally over!
Hope Bundy enjoys federal prison. Enjoy having federal overreach up the butt!
I'm also very grateful that the person killed was a terrorist and not law enforcement. Guess Capt Moroni can enjoy his 77 Virgins or whatever the hell he was fighting for!
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It's over. They were barely clinging on before. They were requesting everything from food to French creamer. Soooo manly.
Laws are laws! This country is a country of laws and justice. It's not Afghanistan where everything goes
People who don't like the progressive political direction the US govt has taken since 1978 in stating that the federal management will be forever, contrary to many relevant Statehood admission acts of Congress just have a pretty steep learning curve, and a long uphill climb, to contest those decisions and trends. I believe mismanagement is serious enough, and enough people are seeing it, that these issues will only get more support as time goes on.
The Bundys are morons. The Hage case is never given much press, but they won in that case.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
RIP #tarpman. From what I've read, supposedly he had his hands up when shot 3 times. If this is true, thoughts?
Well, thriller is happy about it...
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Law enforcement lives matter. THey deserve to go home to their families too.
We are a nation of laws.
If the terrorists wanted to make serious change then they'd use the democratic means to do so. But just because you don't like the law or don't want to pay taxes doesn't mean that you can take over a federal refuge, cost thousands of dollars of damage to it, terrorize a city, and shoot at law enforcement.
Sorry.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
On his youtube page (the dude killed) some guy posted a video saying he was shot 3 times, hands in the air and on his knees. I'm sure Thriller is happy every time this happens.