| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I want to return to the significance of the Department of Justice's decision not to issue and indictment, and suggest what it means. You won't be surprised that I find this ludicrous:
| Quote: | | Oh dear! He's going to be so upset when he finds out that the hordes of Justice Department agents, who have spent 6 months desperately seeking grounds for prosecution, have concluded that the Grand Jury got it right. |
First, the failure of the Grand Jury to indict Officer Wilson, and the Justice Department to pursue a violation of civil rights case, is not, as some would say, an endorsement of Wilson's behavior as innocent or beyond reproach. Anyone without an ax to grind would look at the evidence and find, in conflicting testimony, and in credibility concerns with some of those accusing Wilson, enough evidence to be virtually certain that a jury could not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. If at least arguably he acted in a manner consistent with his training and the case law on use of force, there is no case for indictment. I am not surprised, or really disappointed.
But many on the right fail to see the larger political context, or the importance of legitimacy, in this case. When most of the African American's in the country believe, based on their experience, that they do not receive equal protection from the law, and many to the left of the John Birch Society agree, the issue remains whether or not the grand jury procedure was legitimate in the eye of the people in the community. It was carried out by a District Attorney who refused to recuse himself, blind to the optics of the white power structure in Ferguson using the police force to control the unruly black population. As such, it was suspected to be a whitewash.
It is here that the review by the Department of Justice is valuable, and something worth far more than the waste of money claimed by the neo-Birchers. The review of the matter by DOJ gives the decision of the grand jury far more legitimacy than it would otherwise have. It will not convince all, and it will not solve the political problem. That problem remains that a militarized police force is mistrusted and lacks legitimacy.
The latest comments by mrgybe perpetuate this blind spot, not surprising in those who are used to getting their way by exerting political power and ignoring or disparaging other views. There is a significant minority in this country that thinks we need to reform the standards of policing, reduce the lengthy penalties for minor, non-violent crimes, and focus on community based policing, which has been demonstrated to be effective in communities like Richmond, California, where homicides have dropped dramatically. It is cheap rhetoric to, again, refuse to address the issue of legitimacy. The United States system of justice is better than that of most countries--but criticizing it and wanting it to improve is not un-American.
On the other, repeating the leaked comments of anonymous police officers from Ferguson, and interpreting the lack of indictments as a declaration of innocence, is just putting your head somewhere where it cannot see the light at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | That's just being a jerk, you know as well as everyone else here about posting sources along with quotes.
What, are you different? |
When and as appropriate, I use several valid reasons to avoid, or at least not bother, citing the source of a quote or paraphrased comment.
1. Most people trust only certain sources, for countless reasons such as ideology, blind faith, deliberate desire to deceive, faith developed over time by independent research, and more. e.g., what's the use in citing the Harvard University School of Public Health, the Census Bureau, or IRS records to keycocker after he dismissed them as right wingers?
2. Doing one's own homework is a valuable learning tool.
3. Finding and citing a source can take more time than the topic is worth.
4. Even faced with solid gold sources, tens of millions of people -- including > 40 right here -- are just not going to change their beliefs.
5. Some sources must remain anonymous for their own safety, especially in today's loony world.
6. As I've often stated, I don't expect anyone to accept my word about or analysis of public events, even with a solid gold source. I often throw facts/quotes/professional opinions, with or without references, into this cesspool simply to alert readers interested in both sides of the story that there IS another side to the story. WHETHER they choose to research and respond depends on their own conscience, quest for knowledge, sense of fairness, and desire to prove their side right or mine wrong. HOW they respond reflects on their maturity.
7. Even the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post posts some valid facts, but their self-evident track record and agenda eliminate them from my radar screen. Others feel the same way about Fox News. The difference is that the formers' bias is incredible and incredibly self-evident (e.g., "We wish Nancy Reagan wold break a hip and die"), while FNC's newscasts' so-called "lies" are accusations from the far left, not witting false statements.
The funny part to me is that even after it has happened probably > 100 times, some people STILL challenge what I purport to be factual despite my >99.5% track record of backing up my claims when I so bother. I find that especially reassuring when their initial rebuttal seems valid until I dig deeper to further check my own facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's all fine and dandy for those who never slam other people's sources, but for those who do, and they know who they are, they should be the first ones to be always showing their sources, like bajaDean, he always shows his.
Otherwise they are hypocrites.
And that is my bone of contention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's real simple NW. You highlight the section, then right click. It will give you a menu option to search google. When someone quotes a long piece, you will get there right away.
But you seem to be too obsessed to try it. Here you go: http://nccadp.org/issues/racial-bias/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | That's just being a jerk, you know as well as everyone else here about posting sources along with quotes.
What, are you different? |
When and as appropriate, I use several valid reasons to avoid, or at least not bother, citing the source of a quote or paraphrased comment.
1. Most people trust only certain sources, for countless reasons such as ideology, blind faith, deliberate desire to deceive, faith developed over time by independent research, and more. e.g., what's the use in citing the Harvard University School of Public Health, the Census Bureau, or IRS records to keycocker after he dismissed them as right wingers?
2. Doing one's own homework is a valuable learning tool.
3. Finding and citing a source can take more time than the topic is worth.
4. Even faced with solid gold sources, tens of millions of people -- including > 40 right here -- are just not going to change their beliefs.
5. Some sources must remain anonymous for their own safety, especially in today's loony world.
6. As I've often stated, I don't expect anyone to accept my word about or analysis of public events, even with a solid gold source. I often throw facts/quotes/professional opinions, with or without references, into this cesspool simply to alert readers interested in both sides of the story that there IS another side to the story. WHETHER they choose to research and respond depends on their own conscience, quest for knowledge, sense of fairness, and desire to prove their side right or mine wrong. HOW they respond reflects on their maturity.
7. Even the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post posts some valid facts, but their self-evident track record and agenda eliminate them from my radar screen. Others feel the same way about Fox News. The difference is that the formers' bias is incredible and incredibly self-evident (e.g., "We wish Nancy Reagan wold break a hip and die"), while FNC's newscasts' so-called "lies" are accusations from the far left, not witting false statements.
The funny part to me is that even after it has happened probably > 100 times, some people STILL challenge what I purport to be factual despite my >99.5% track record of backing up my claims when I so bother. I find that especially reassuring when their initial rebuttal seems valid until I dig deeper to further check my own facts. |
you are in lala land, you claim to filter out and not read posts of people you disagree with. So your so called statistical self analysis about what is challenged and accurate is about as valid as your world views. about a dumb of a analysis there is.
Huffington post was started by a right winger turned liberal by disgust of the lies of the right wing party. Again another right winger that was loved by the right wing party who turned on them and the right wing party just can not handle this new truth telling by an insider. Similar to, (suprised you did not list them Media Matters) another top right wing hater of the time, ppaid huge sums of money by the top right wing media owners and haters.
David Brock was in the absolute top right wing hat circles, being paid a million dollars a book to attack Clintons, anita Hill, and so on. Sicko trust funders like the trust fund kid Richard Mellon Scaife owner of the Pittsburgh paper paid him big bucks, scaife was also the person who funded not only Paula Jones Lawsuit from the start but also Paula Jones nose job. Brock was the one who started the entire Paula Jones stuff which he regrets. Brock worked at the partisan hater of a paper washinton times owned by Rev Sun young Moon, remember the moonies pan handling at airports in the 60s for their god moonies as they were called. At least these people got consciences at some point.
Daily Kos is another blog... again shows you comparison the most biassed owner of right wing trash , who made hs money with enquirer publications that featured three headed babies on their front pages as a some how credible owner of the media Fox, new york post, wall street journal now the largest circulation paper. And you are spouting out about media bias when the media is owned by trust fund kids like this. again look at what Murdoch puts in the media three headed kids and such trash, pays poperatzi to follow politiciands and actors. and that is your hero owner of the media. His first publication after doing his trash in Australia England was in the USA the Star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
Following his father's death, when he was 21, Murdoch returned from Oxford to take charge of the family business News Limited, which had been established in 1923. Rupert Murdoch turned its newspaper, Adelaide News, its main asset, into a major success.[6] He began to direct his attention to acquisition and expansion, buying the troubled Sunday Times in Perth, Western Australia (1956) and over the next few years acquiring suburban and provincial newspapers in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory, including the Sydney afternoon tabloid, The Daily Mirror (1960). The Economist describes Murdoch as "inventing the modern tabloid",[24] as he developed a pattern for his newspapers, increasing sports and scandal coverage and adopting eye-catching headlines.[9]
Not sure where your references came from on Nancy reagan as most of these blog sites came on line many years after the reyguns were out of office. Remember Nancy running the white house and the press not having a field day when she was having her astrologer involved in even the timing of the inaugurations. Remember Ronald thinking he was the anointed one, and the press stall made him out to be a hero. when he was one stupid moron.
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g40.htm
| Quote: | Former aide Michael Deaver says Reagan became more stubborn after the shooting. Reagan believed that he was "chosen" for his role by a higher power, and that the shooting was a reminder of this. He therefore decided to more closely follow his own instincts 11.
Thus, Gerald Ford's assessment is relevant: "He was not what I would [call] a technically competent president. You know, his knowledge of the budget, his knowledge of foreign policy -- it was not up to the standards of either Democrat or Republican presidents. But he had a helluva flair.... So I praise his assets, but I have reservations about his technical ability" |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sitting here at Heathrow airport reading the Times. Whole front page devoted to the resignation of the entire lefty administration in north of England town for failing to take any steps to protect 1,400 girls who were severely and repeatedly abused by Asian men. Their excuse? They were afraid they would be accused of racism. They preferred to blame the girls. When this outrage was originally reported it was dismissed by these people as "a politically motivated attack by the Murdoch press". Does this ring any bells? Lefties here routinely hurl out accusations of racism, and equally routinely cite Murdoch when scornfully dismissing views that don't coincide with theirs. Cut from the same cloth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Sitting here at Heathrow airport reading the Times. Whole front page devoted to the resignation of the entire lefty administration in north of England town for failing to take any steps to protect 1,400 girls who were severely and repeatedly abused by Asian men. Their excuse? They were afraid they would be accused of racism. They preferred to blame the girls. When this outrage was originally reported it was dismissed by these people as "a politically motivated attack by the Murdoch press". Does this ring any bells? Lefties here routinely hurl out accusations of racism, and equally routinely cite Murdoch when scornfully dismissing views that don't coincide with theirs. Cut from the same cloth. |
hmm i do not think i have seen info on Murdoch being a racist, he may be but I would like to see that... He is a trust fund rich liberal hater... He reminds me of the trust fund Hilton boy that was recently arrested.
Now in that town, where was the right wing owned media by Murdoch. Murdoch was the largest or one of the largest media holders in the UK too. And because you claim that town was liberal, Murdoch loves to hate liberals and where were the front pages of his enquirer papers bring an end to this a long time ago. As we know he could make it front page if he wanted... a long time ago. But he did not for what reason? again he loves to hate liberals in any part of the world and this would have been huge for his hate agenda if what you claim (which I doubt your ability to give us the real facts). make my day show these were liberals and find out why ruppy was not exposing this horrendous crime against humanity front page for years... I would as a owner of the media...
So should the media owners be removed from ownership when such horrendous crimes against humanity are not front page. I believe so.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Cut from the same cloth. |
... or torn off the same roll of toilet paper.
Speaking of which ... I saw shelves of recycled TP in a store last week. I don't even WANT to know what that's about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | mrgybe wrote: | | Cut from the same cloth. |
... or torn off the same roll of toilet paper.
Speaking of which ... I saw shelves of recycled TP in a store last week. I don't even WANT to know what that's about. |
there is a town in Texas I read about that is going live with recycled sewage water for their drinking water I think this year. If your worried about wiping your ash , how about drinking your you know what.
Anyway I assume space travel has similar systems for water use, but what do they do about toilet paper?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Recycled sewage?!?!? Hmmm...That reminds me of just about every one of bajaDean's posts on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
