THE EMPATHY FILES: How far does our understanding extend?

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2014

Part 4—Liberal lectures police:
Here at the Howler, we’ve never worked as a police officer.

We think of it as a difficult job. We don’t know what we would do in every situation a person confronts on that job.

In part for these reasons, we’re disinclined to judge the conduct of police officers, especially in cases where the facts are unclear. We’re often amazed at how easily others make judgments in such cases.

In the past few years, we’ve been struck by how easily many liberals make such judgments, then start rearranging and inventing facts to drive their judgments along.

All too often, we invent and rearrange facts to construct a perfect case. It’s sad to see the liberal world engage in this sort of conduct.

What’s it like to be a policeman? We can’t really say. But two weeks ago, David Brooks wrote a column, The Cop Mind, which attempted to answer that question.

We were struck by the way some liberals reacted to the things Brooks wrote.

The modern “liberal” tends to be quite dismissive of the modern policeman. We noticed this tendency in many comments to Brooks’ column. But then, the New York Times published a letter which truly captured this instinct.

Brooks discussed some of the fears, anxieties and uncertainties policemen inevitably face. His discussion seemed to make little impression on one reader in Stamford, Connecticut.

The reader offered his thoughts about Brooks’ column. We were struck by his reactions, all of which took a scolding or reproving tone toward police.

Just a guess. The reader's thoughts after reading David Brooks’ column were exactly the same as the thoughts he had had before:
TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (12/16/14): Some thoughts after reading David Brooks’s column “The Cop Mind” (Dec. 9):

Police officers are volunteers, not conscripts; they choose to accept the risk of the job, and must accept its responsibilities.

The insane proliferation of guns in our society has made policing, and just living, in our country, more dangerous. Police officers should be the first to lobby for, and vote for, strict gun control.

Prospective police officers should be tested thoroughly to establish that they are able to keep their cool and their testosterone in check during altercations and trained repeatedly on how to do so.

They are supposed to be the professionals, not the citizens on the street. Officers who are an integral part of, and really know, the community they police are much less likely to see danger where it does not exist, and much more likely to be supported by the members of the community they serve.

The priority of every police department must be to ensure that the percentage of officers of color is proportional to the population of color in the community they police.


H— H—
Stamford, Conn., Dec. 9, 2014
This was just one letter, or course. That said, we thought it was striking.

Brooks’ column was intended to let readers see the world through a policeman’s eyes. But how odd! In every one of the reader’s reactions, he was basically lecturing police from his position of comfort.

It isn’t that anything reader wrote was technically “wrong.” Still, we were struck by the lack of empathy on display in his letter, by his failure to engage with anything the Brooks column asked him to think about.

Does this reader have any empathy for the people who police the nation’s streets? Even when he talked about “the insane proliferation of guns” which “has made policing more dangerous,” he ended up saying that police officers should support gun control, the way he does!

(Police organizations have tended to support such measures.)

Police departments should “ensure that the percentage of officers of color is proportional to the population of color in the community they police?” That sounds like a decent idea to us! But that idea has nothing to do with the considerations advanced in Brooks' column. The reader was simply repeating the “thoughts” he had before reading the piece.

We liberals tend to say that we’re the ones with the empathy. That said, there are quite a few groups for whom we tend to display no empathy at all.

Empathy is a form of insight; we liberals often lack it. For that reason, we find ourselves heading off for Christmas after a disappointing, dismaying year.

In the end, just how sharp are we the liberals really? How many realities can we take in? From how many (legitimate) points of view can we imagine the world?

We’ll continue to ask such questions after we return from a very Durham Christmas. As we harness our sleigh, we'll only say this:

In the past, limited vision from us the liberals has provided a path to defeat.

193 comments:

  1. You see this same kind of things from the black commenters here at the Howler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cold truth is African-Americans have it harder than other ethnic groups in the USA. That is a fact. And anyone who denies it is not living in the real world.

      Delete
    2. Except Native Americans, who have worse stats than African Americans.

      But African Americans are not all the same. Some have it harder than other ethnic groups and some have it better. That too is a fact. Those who claim to have it harder while actually experiencing circumstances that are better than others are using race to claim disadvantage they do not actually experience themselves. Oprah does that. Her disadvantage consists of feeling put upon because a fancy Swiss store won't open up for her after hours so she doesn't have to shop with the riff-raff and claiming to have been discriminated against when they refuse to do that. Her disadvantage is to libel her parents by inventing stories of childhood abuse that no one corroborates in her extended family, to conform to a stereotype of African American disadvantage that helped her career and gave her a false basis for empathy with the unfortunates she invited onto her show. The cold truth is that NOT ALL African Americans have it harder any more. Many have moved into the middle and upper classes economically and socially but are suffering an identity crisis because they don't know how to relate to the loss of their stereotypical disadvantage. Anyone who denies this is not living in the real world.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 10:06 thanks for partially disproving the thesis of Bob Somerby, Esq. that progressives could build on the comments of Bill O'Reilly that Salon would not let its readers see.

      Delete
    4. And you are illustrating Somerby's suggestion that the silliness of the left is driving away potential supporters.

      Delete
    5. I take it you, as a potential supporter of the left, think it is silly to quote Bill O'Reilly when he is empathetic toward blacks in America.

      Delete
    6. It is silly for anyone in the media to selectively quote in order to make a point that is not supported by what was omitted. No one cares whether O'Reilly is or isn't empathetic toward blacks. The issue is whether journalists are behaving ethically and honestly in their reporting.

      Delete
  2. And those commenters would be. . .?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The hell with "liberals." If you want to hear what some people really think, and confront hard truths, listen to radicals: http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2014/12/what-goes-around-comes-around/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you. If one would call police to take a bullet for one if necessary as one's home or person is violently invaded, one should also consider it an ethical obligation to resist second-guess police officers without serious circumspection and knowledge of the facts of any given event. It astonishes that anyone would do otherwise, especially one who considers himself a compassionate, just, or humane individual. But this mode of thinking is utterly alien to most modern progressives. Of all tribes, they just might be the most odiously unethical and dull-witted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a matter of law and public policy that the police are not there to insure your personal safety or to assist you. I believe it's a matter of adjudicated law that the police are under *no* obligation to assist people in distress. The duty of the police is to uphold the *law*; that is, their obligation is to the law, not individuals.

      The notion of the "thin blue line", which you're promulgating here is wrong. The police are not paid or expected to be heroic. If any particular officer has shown an act of heroism, he has gone above and beyond the call of duty. On the flip side, we should not cut the cops too much slack when they violate the law; use excessive force; or otherwise overstep their assigned duties.

      Delete
    2. In keeping with this, the police are not required to administer CPR or first aid. Some of the anger expressed over Garner was because police were perceived as uncaring because they did nothing but call an ambulance.

      I have heard angry individuals tell police officers words to the effect "You work for me, I'm a taxpayer." That suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of police that may be worth addressing down the line.

      Delete
    3. I would call police to "uphold the law" with the full knowledge that this will involve their intervention in a situation in which I am more likely to be spared and they are more likely to be harmed as they "uphold the law" than they would had I attempted to handle the situation without them. Therefore, I won't be second guessing their actions in doing the same on behalf of other people who benefit from their sacrifices and courage.

      Delete
  5. Did you doze off, Howler?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, you think atwo week old serving of Bobo topped with a week old letter from an uncaring liberal is a sign of dozing?

      I'd say Bob's stocking wasn't sufficiently stuffed and he's
      letting you liberals know what an unempathetic bunch of cheapskates you all are.

      Sony was going to sponsor How He Got There but their zany snuff film got snuffed.

      Delete
  6. The medical profession is similar to policing. The recent Ebola crisis was a reminder that theirs is a profession involving personal risk. The public wouldn't want to know how doctors think and talk about patients within their subculture. Patients and often upset or unruly and sometimes dangerous. The suicide rate is higher for them and their stress is compounded by shift work and sleep deprivation. They are perceived as having power but I think their sacrifices are better appreciated than those of police.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In "The Vision of the Anointed" Thomas Sowell says the fundamental basis by which movement liberals choose their policies is to be able to feel, "I'm better than you because I care more than you do." In other words, both what they do and how they do it are driven by a desire to enhance their self-esteem at someone else's expense. It is not enough to be simply a good person; the ideological liberal must believe that he is better than you in order to feel good about himself. All else follows from this quest to prove moral superiority.

    One easy way to feel morally superior is to ignore tradeoffs. E.g., liberals can call for huge reductions in fossil fuels while ignoring the harm that such a move would cause, particularly to the poor. Liberals can call George Bush a war criminal, ignoring the possibility that his actions may have prevented another 9/11 - type attack. And, liberals can blast the police for killing someone, while ignoring mitigating factors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liberals can call George Bush a war criminal because he is one. He committed "Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation [and] waging of a war of aggression, [and] a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, [and] participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of... the foregoing."

      For any non-liberals who need a further explanation, "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Or in Bush/Cheney-speak, people who launch wars of aggression are the worst of the worst Evil-doers.

      Before a tribunal a "who knows what might have happened if I hadn't provoked murder and mayhem first" argument wouldn't be much of a defense. As for whipping out the September 11th card specifically, anyone who has paid attention to the unraveling of the justification for the Iraq war surely knows there is nothing left to support the notion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq "prevented another 9/11-type attack."

      Delete
    2. Liberals can call POTUS Obama a war criminal because he is doing what Bush 43 was accused of doing. For any non-liberals who need a further explanation. Obama pulled all U.S. military forces out of Iraq. Hen then re-invaded Iraq with combat military forces making this Ira War III.

      "As U.S. troops return to Iraq, more private contractors follow"

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/24/us-usa-iraq-contractors-idUSKBN0K20AW20141224

      "1,000 paratroopers to deploy to Iraq"

      http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/19/airborne-iraq-army-deployment/20637055/

      Delete
    3. I apologize for being imprecise. I didn't mean to reference Iraq, but rather the use of water-boarding to try to prevent more 9/11-type attacks.

      Delete
    4. You mean like the one which happened due to his inattention?

      Delete
    5. D in C and Cicero, oh how we now long from the by-gone days when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government for 6 years, and 2of 3 for the next 2 years, and achieved such extraordinary success in almost bankrupting the country. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that they can achieve the 3-branch control again and finish the job they almost succeeded in accomplishing the ast time.

      Delete
    6. @ AC/MA

      What has occurred while Dems have had control over two branches of government:

      In alphabetical order :

      . Associated Press Scandal – Remember this? When Attorney General Eric Holder issued his own subpoena to seize phone records of a journalist? Apparently there was a “leak” and the Obama Administration doesn’t want you thinking for yourself, so he teamed up with his legal lapdog and seized several journalists personal home phone records, as well as many other office documents. I just wish that we had some sort of law that prohibited such things…like freedom of the press, or unlawful search & seizure…something really catchy so we don’t get into this mess again.

      B. Benghazi – If you don’t know about this, there is simply no hope for you. Here’s what Jason Mattera had to say when he spoke with the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her failure to protect our State Department officials.

      C. Chinook Helicopter – This story didn’t get picked up immediately because we were too busy celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden, but shortly after the successful raid, 38 people died when an RPG shot down a Chinook helicopter on Aug 6, 2011. Official reports have been released but with many details left out, and still virtually no answers from the White House about why this team was sent out in a hostile environment unprepared to handle any level of violence.

      D. Drones – The infamous unmanned aircraft that can wage wars while you’re sipping a big gulp happens to be Barack Obama’s favorite method of killing. Of course, naturally, drones started towards the end of Bush 2’s presidency, but absolutely skyrocketed once Obama took office. It’s even been said that under G.W. there was a drone attack every 43 days, but under the Obama administration, there was a drone attack every four days. The ironic thing is that Obama currently holds a Nobel Peace Prize. The sad thing is that he has become really good at killing.

      E. Eric Holder – America’s blockhead neighborhood watchman, and 82nd Attorney General of the United States is the only sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress. In fact, there probably isn’t a scandal on this list that he wasn’t a part of in some fashion.

      F. Fort Hood – What do you get when you take a practicing Muslim who makes anti-American statements, and associates with suspected terrorists, and combine it with a President who couldn’t care less? You get the 2009 Fort Hood shooting where 13 people were murdered by Nidal Malik Hasan, an army major who declared his desire to defend the lives of his Taliban leaders. The President was criticized for his refusal to acknowledge that the shooting was an act of terrorism and deemed it as “Workplace Violence”.

      Delete
    7. @AC/MA

      . Guantanamo – No doubt, this is the joker in Obama’s deck. Whenever he needs public support behind him, no matter what scandal is public, he will bust out closing Guantanamo forever. Say anything you can to win, right?

      H. Healthcare.gov – For the .000001% who were not around for the disastrous rollout of President Obama’s signature “accomplishment,” here’s the gist of it…Obama force-fed a crappy law on the American People, that lawmakers didn’t even read, and the website didn’t work. If this still isn’t registering with you, here’s a list of American accomplishments that took less time to build than healthcare.gov

      I. IRS Scandal – Now according to the President, there is not one smidgen of corruption within the IRS. But according to everyone else in the country, B.O. was using the IRS to bully conservative groups that were filing for tax-exempt status. As pathetic as that sounds, it’s true, and the finger is pointed directly at the White House. God Bless America.

      J. Jay Carney – He’s the guy your mother forced you to have play dates with in grade school. Think back, I’m sure there was someone like that in your elementary school. If not…then this just got real awkward, real quick. Anyway, Jay Carney grew up to be a White House Press Secretary, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, working for the President of The United States. You’re forever ingrained in the history books, one can only dream of such an opportunity…but then again, would you want his gig? Anyway, the reason Jay is on this list is weird, because if you worked for the highest office, especially one under this administration knowing that your every mistake is going to be scrutinized, wouldn’t you hide your soviet-era propaganda away from photographers? I mean, at least TRY to seem like you’re not an anti-capitalist? But take a look at a recent photoshoot with the Carney family for MOM magazine. It’s almost like staring into the future.

      K. Keystone Pipeline – The 1,700 mile, $7 billion project that would deliver over 700,000 barrels of oil per day has been a source of contention between Democrats and Republicans for a few years now. The split seems obvious but when you dig a little deeper you can see some heavy-hitting political donors who are paying politicians for their opposition to the project. Hell, even former President Bill Clinton supports the pipeline.

      L. Lobbyist – In 2007, candidate Barack Obama vowed that the days of “lobbyist running the agenda were over” and claimed that they would not work in his White House. He must have forgotten about his promise, because he’s hired over 100 lobbyists who fund his campaign, set the agenda and work in his White House. It seems to me that the problem isn’t the lobbyist, but rather the politician who can’t keep his hands in his own pockets.

      Delete
    8. @AC/MA

      M. Monsanto – Is the world’s leading producer of genetically modified foods, which means that they’re the company that reportedly put toxins, allergens, and diseases in our food, which is super gross, and why I prefer to eat organic foods (don’t hate). In 2007 Obama had tough words for companies that sell genetically modified food, which seemed reasonable at the time. But there is a big difference between Obama pre/post-election. Even Mother Jones is pissed because Obama ended up appointing the head of Monsanto to run the FDA shortly after his first election. I’m not joking.

      N. NSA – Ahh the National Security Agency. A place of fearless leadership where brave men and women stand to protect us from anything that goes bump in the night, regardless of civil liberties and that pesky little thing we call a Constitution. What started under Bush 2—as the “Patriot Act” (you remember)—became a campaign slogan for the Junior Senator Barack Obama running for President, as something that violated our right to privacy and promised to end it. Except the last part didn’t happen. Instead, the warrantless government spying increased dramatically over the next couple of years under Obama’s administration, and he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for Edward Snowden…who now sits in Russia as Putin’s guest.

      O. Operation Fast and Furious – Once upon a time, two men who were obsessed with gun control, sold weapons to a Mexican cartel in an effort to arrest and dismantle the cartels (one of whom holds a nobel peace prize). Shortly after this, the two men lost track of the guns, and a border patrol agent was murdered with those very guns. I’m sure you can see where this went.

      P. Putin – The campaigning politician was caught on open mic speaking with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev claiming that he’s on his “last election” and will have more flexibility to negotiate MISSILE CONTROL once the campaign has ended. Medvedev promised to relay the message to Mr. Putin. Conveniently enough, this episode got turned into a partisan argument and nothing ever came about the incident.

      Q. Questions – There are still some lingering questions after Obama recently made a promise to students who are getting hit with some heavy student loans. The idea of student loan forgiveness sounds great to those who have a significant debt on their backs, but economically speaking, does not make any bit of sense. The convenient timing of all this is that the President had the Veterans Affairs Scandal, a resigning White House Press Secretary, the IRS scandal, and Benghazi was coming back into the spotlight with Trey Gowdy leading the charge this time. Seriously, I wish I had his job: Say whatever you want, do whatever you want, and when you fail…blame the other guy (GOP).

      R. Recess Appointments – This wasn’t a ‘major’ scandal by any means, but just continues to prove that President Obama is a complete and total control freak. He issued a recess appointment for the Senate when they weren’t in recess. I know it sounds super nit-picky but the Supreme Court had to step in and give him a slap on the wrist. Just to show how legit the criticism was, here’s an article from MSNBC acknowledging Obama’s overreach… for real.

      S. Solyndra – Obama’s solar-powered wet dream that ultimately went bust. The clean technology company wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, laid off 1,100 employees, and was raided by the FBI under suspicion of accounting fraud. Serenity Now.

      Delete
    9. @AC/MA

      . Timothy Geithner – The 75th Secretary of the Treasury aka the guy who prints our money aka the guy who cheated on his taxes, but no one cared because Democrats are such forgiving people (Or hypocrites, depending on your point of view). How nice…

      U. Unemployment numbers – I think that it’s safe to say that Barack Obama is a “say anything to win” politician. This became incredibly prevalent during the 2012 elections. The POTUS had to compete against Mitt Romney, who literally made a fortune out of turning failing businesses into profitable ones, and was noticeably out of his comfort zone, because the economy was still in the toilet. So if you have no record to run on, what do you do? You make up a record and tout your successes around the country; at least that’s exactly what he did. According to a New York Post article, in August of 2012 the unemployment numbers dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%. Red flags went up immediately; only it was too late, he would move on to win the reelection, and the power hungry president would continue. Forbes magazine did an even more in-depth look into the fudged unemployment numbers.

      V. VA Scandal – Words cannot describe how shameful this is. Veterans are literally dying while waiting to be treated for their war-related injuries while the President is playing golf. If you’re as upset as I am, and want to help, please take a minute and check out some of these organizations: Wounded Warrior Project, Concerned Veterans for America. Veterans are the backbone of this country.

      W. Weapons of Mass Destruction – In 2002 (yes 2002), according to a BBC article the U.S., aka Bush 2, claimed that Syria had a “long-standing chemical weapons program”. This seemed crazy to me because for the next 12 years, all I’ve heard from liberals is that Bush is a warmonger and there were never any WMDs, until 2011 when Syria broke out into a civil war, and their President Bashar Al-Assad, slaughtered his own people with chemical weapons. We almost went over there, but B.O. has no balls, so instead we just gave the “rebels” a ton of taxpayer money, weapons and training only to find out they’re in fact a terrorist organization themselves; and apparently Assad is still using chemical weapons over there.

      X. This one was hard, but don’t worry, we still got 2 years left

      Y. You didn’t build that – Remember when the POTUS said this on the campaign trail? Yeah…about that…I would keep this quiet around Jason Mattera…I’m pretty sure he might disagree.

      Z. Zero Votes – That’s the number of Senate Democrats who voted for Obama’s first two budgets. How embarrassing? But I’m sure it’s more complicated than the President being an economic buffoon. It must be the fault of you Bush-loving racists.

      http://dailysurge.com/2014/07/obamas-scandals-lies-blunders-z/

      Delete
    10. What makes you think anyone wants to read this garbage at a liberal blog?

      Delete
    11. Media Matters, dailykos, etc prohibit any posts that dare question the left wing ideology, People like yourself are shielded from painful truths about the Obama Administration. You should be grateful to B.S. for allowing dissenting voices. Now you can't claim ignorance about Obama Administration scandals.

      Delete
    12. Well said MIke 8:24. As one can see the cold hard truth makes Dubya's tribe frantic.

      Delete
    13. cicero,
      What about the IRS scandal where they gave completely political tea party groups tax-exempt status?

      Delete
    14. @ Anonymous 1:27

      Considering no such "scandal" occurred, unless you also call the IRS giving the anti-conservative moonbats MEDIA MATTERS tax exempt status a "scandal."

      Did you miss this:

      10/23/14
      "The IRS may have inadvertently figured out how to win its legal battles against aggrieved tea party groups: Give them what they wanted in the first place — tax-exempt status."

      "Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed almost all counts brought against the tax-collecting agency in two cases, ruling that both were essentially moot now that the IRS granted the groups their tax-exempt status that had been held up for years."

      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/irs-tea-party-legal-victory-112145.html

      Delete
    15. Lying a nation into a war of aggression has the moral equivalence of being a serial child molester, only more destructive on a more massive scale. GWB and his gang of neocons destroyed the lives of multitudes of innocents for their own twisted gratification.They laid a massive Karma debt on this country and the best their loudmouth cheerleaders can offer up is desperate, involved attempts to change the subject.

      Delete
    16. @Anonymous 2:46

      Please provide a credible link that ponies up any evidence that proves Bush 43, Powell, P.M. Tony Blair etc intentionally lied about the WOMD.

      Since POTUS Obama has reinvaded Iraq with combat ground troops, by your own rubric, he must have the same moral equivalence of a child molester

      Delete
    17. You don't belong here. You clearly don't read anything but conservative sources or you would already be familiar with the evidence you challenge others to provide. Calling Obama a child molester is just trolling. Take a day off and enjoy Christmas instead -- isn't defending your Christian right to open presents a war that needs to be fought too?

      Delete
    18. So you are unable to provide any evidence. Ok. That didn't take long.

      It's Ok to say Bush "has the moral equivalence of being a serial child molester," but you become indignant when POTUS Obama is associated with the same pejorative regarding the same country and new and different war. Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.

      Delete
    19. Not unable. Unwilling. You can look this up yourself.

      Delete
    20. Bush lied about Iraq. He said Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out. He wasn't ignorant of the truth. He was told the truth (that the weapons inspectors left after being told by the US the war was imminent.
      Lied. Not misremembered. Lied. Not uninformed. Lied.
      George W. Bush lied to march the nation to war.

      Berto

      Delete
    21. cicero,
      What does this sentence fragment mean, "Considering no such "scandal" occurred, ..."
      As your links show, a scandal DID occur.
      The scandal being the IRS gave political groups tax-exempt status.

      Delete
    22. Cicero, wow, never expected such a comprehensive (albeit lunatic) response. Obama is hardly perfect,no question about that, but I don't know how you think Romney or Mccain would have been better. You seem like an ultra zealot, incapable of objectivity. somewhat deranged. (OK, maybe I'm understating it). In spite of all the A to Z verbiage, you fail to address my point, that the last time the GOP had control, the economy almost collapsed; now they want to finish the job.

      Delete
    23. @AC/MA

      Would you describe yourself as just a rudimentary zealot? That would be fitting of someone whose astonishing epiphany of POTUS Obama is that he is "hardly perfect.."

      "New Study Confirms Economy Was Destroyed by Dem Policies"

      "A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy."

      http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies

      Delete
    24. @ Anonymous:1:56 AM

      The actual IRS scandal, in case you missed the story, is IRS Director Exempt Organizations. Lois "slow" Lerner specifically targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny and then held up their applications.. Unless you believe MEDIA MATTERS tax exempt status should be revoked, why do you imagine that political groups are disqualified from achieving tax exempt status?

      "Justice Department caught huddling with Lerner to crush tea-party election"

      Published: 12/09/2014

      "WASHINGTON – The government watchdog group Judicial Watch has struck again, discovering Lois Lerner, former IRS tax-exempt division chief, had discussed possible criminal prosecution of conservative groups with Justice Department officials two years before what the agency had conceded.

      Lerner met with Department of Justice officials in October 2010, just before the November midterm elections. Amid the rise of the tea-party groups targeted by Lerner, Republicans in the 2010 elections gained the most seats in the House since 1948.

      Judicial Watch used a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to obtain the documents but had to go to court to force the DOJ to release the material."

      http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/bombshell-revelation-blows-lid-off-irs-scandal/

      One document shows a DOJ official with the Election Crimes Division of the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ’s Criminal Division setting up a meeting with a “Ms. Ingram.”

      Judicial Watch said it was an apparent reference to Sarah Hall Ingram, former commissioner of IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities. The unnamed DOJ official was Richard Pilger, director of the Election Crimes Division.

      Delete
    25. @ Berto

      WaPo gave POTUS Obama 4 Pinocchios for the most notable lie regarding a domestic policy. Do you have a link to a similar source that proves Bush knowingly and intentionally lied about WOMD? This is the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee

      "Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence

      -- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office -- "

      Thursday, June 5, 2008

      http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

      That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

      – President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health-care law was being written.)

      “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.”

      – Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.

      Four Pinocchios

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

      Delete
    26. cicero African-Americans do have it much tougher than whites. It's true some cops don't like blacks.

      Delete
    27. Cicero, I won't at this point argue with you because one can't argue with a lunatic. You/ve gone off the deep end.

      Delete
    28. cicero,
      Regarding the IRS and those Tea Party groups. What kind of "party" are they? A dance party?

      Delete
    29. Cicero is doing some damage here. The most intelligent and considered content in any posts I've seen here in quite some time.

      Delete
    30. "Cicero is doing some damage here. The most intelligent and considered content in any posts I've seen here in quite some time."

      What gave it away, his mention of Benghazi?

      Delete
    31. In our view, it was his empathetic tone that won the day.

      Delete
  8. The police in Bob's hometown are seen as an occupying force by many of the citizens that those law enforcement offices interact with every day. Not officers there to serve and protect, but a paramilitary, deployed to pacify their communities. Bob doesn't have that type of relationship with the po-leece because Bob is a white guy. You're not going to see Bob sitting on a curb in the middle of the day, surrounded by a gaggle of boys in blue while they run his ID. Bob can walk down to B, confident the the city's finest will move heaven and earth if some punk from the "Westside" gets in his face. A grandma walking to the Save-a-Lot, not so much.

    When it comes to journalistic malfeasance, Bob had nothing to say about WBFF's creative editing of protester's chants Sunday night on the 10 o'clock news. No, radio silence on that one. Does Tyrone West's sister deserve empathy, or is it only people who look like Bob that deserve an empathetic hearing by liberals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every person deserves empathy. You clearly have none for Somerby. You present a caricature of his life.

      Delete
    2. Anon 10:18 You may be a black guy living in DC. But, if you are not, are you sure you know how those people feel? And BTW don't you think all these demonstrations tend to make black people feel even more alienated from the police?

      Delete
    3. DinC he may be a biracial Kenyan tutored by traitors among us trying to weaken America. Just ask Thomas Sowell.

      Delete
    4. Hi DinC,

      I'm an actual black woman. Not everyone on the internets has a penis. You write some of the most ignorant statements about black people that I've read in quite a while. Do you know any black people David?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 24, 2014 at 11:56 AM -- I am close to my cousin B, who is black, and to her 3 children, who are half black. They're middle to upper middle class, so they aren't necessarily representative. Their politics are opposite to mine, but we love and respect each other.

      I play tennis with a black man from the Caribbean who is not upper middle class. He and I have never discussed social or political issues.

      Delete
    6. @ 11:56, as a liberal, allow me to show empathy for your lack of a penis. Bob would want me to. Consider it an early New Year's resolution.

      Delete
    7. We in turn show empathy for those who lack vaginas. We have to or we wouldn't be able to succeed in a world that is run by and for men.

      I have a dream that someday there will be a march on Washington to encourage change in the police enforcement of domestic violence laws so that women can stop living in fear for their lives. Many more women are killed by men in such contexts than black males are shot by police, unarmed or not. Why are so few people upset about this? Where are the t-shirt slogans? Where are the columns by professors, black or white? Where is the empathy, especially from those with the knee-jerk reaction "Why doesn't she leave him?" without realizing that the point where a woman leaves an abusive man is when her life (and those of her kids) is most in danger.

      I realize this is not a contest to see whose issue is more important, but I cannot understand how "liberals" can be so involved in civil rights and not care about the issues that affect a much larger percentage of the population -- those affecting women and girls.

      Delete
    8. @ 1:40

      Bob Somerby and his liberal bloggin ilk would rather jump off a crab cake stand by the Chesapeake than cover domestic violence. Unless committed by a local football hero and it gets press coverage they can then criticize.

      "Really? Three women per day are killed by a boyfriend or husband? Forget the lack of an Ice Bucket Challenge. Where was the discussion of that?"

      Of course Bob was not asking that quoted question of himself.

      Here are some quite old numbers on the topic.

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

      We link to these numbers because they were prepared by the same "professor" Bob chose to criticize in the post before this one. You know, Callie Marie Rennison. The person whose statistical expertise Bob "Got My PhD in Rules of Tumb" Somerby criticized due to her lack of explaining commonly understood terms to him.

      Merry Christmas.

      Delete
    9. I don't care whether Somerby duscusses it in his media criticism blog. I do care that our society at large ignores it, including the many commenters here who worry more about rare police violence than frequent domestic violence, because race trumps sex every time.

      Delete
    10. I would call police to "uphold the law" with the full knowledge that this will involve their intervention in a situation in which I am more likely to be spared and they are more likely to be harmed as they "uphold the law." Therefore, I won't be second guessing their actions in doing the same on behalf of other people who benefit from their sacrifices and courage.

      Delete
  9. Here is a little empathy for the police Howler readers are not allowed to see.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/off-duty-black-cops-in-new-york-feel-threat-from-fellow-police/ar-BBh9xQE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feeling threatened is not the same as being threatened. That professor on the train felt like her belongings were being threatened. Were they? I doubt it. The guy seemed to want to sit down, not break her computer. These black cops want to express solidarity with others of their race. Yet none of them describe anything beyond traffic stops. I've been stopped twice myself and I'm a white senior citizen.

      Delete
    2. You were stopped for failure to obey signals? It is clear you can't read.

      Delete
    3. From the link: A number of academics believe those statistics are potentially skewed because police over-focus on black communities, while ignoring crime in other areas.

      Well, I would hope police focus on black communities, when those communities unfortunately have very high crime rates. And, such a focus is a boon for black people, whose greatest risk is being a victim of a crime committed by another black person.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal shows all of the empathy we have come to expect from white readers.

      Delete
    5. Only 1 in 20 white officers believe that blacks and other minorities receive unequal treatment from the police. But 57 percent of black officers are convinced the treatment of minorities is unfair.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM -- If you were living in a high crime neighborhood, wouldn't you want to have lots of police around?

      Delete
    7. If 40% of black officers don't believe the treatment is unfair then it probably is extremely rare that it is. A surprisingly low proportion given race hustlers' efforts and lies.

      Delete
    8. Nearly 1 in 10 policemen don't think it is wrong to respond to verbal abuse with force.

      Delete
    9. @10:56 -- what percentage of white officers believe that their encounters with police were unfair? Anyone stopped by the police and hassled thinks it was unfair. The unequal percentages may be because black officers have more off-duty encounters with police. That may be because of greater attention from officers (black and white) or it may be because they are more likely to engage in behavior that attracts police attention. I do not understand why an off-duty policeman would continue to be rousted by a cop after identifying himself as an off-duty officer. That suggests job tensions, not racism per se.

      @12:33 -- why do people think it is OK to verbally abuse police officers (or anyone)? I have seen several interviews with black people who have asserted (1) it is OK to ignore police requests if you have done nothing wrong, (2) police have no right to request that you identify yourself to them, (3) police have to tell you why they are stopping you, (4) police cannot stop and restrain you if you fail to respond to their requests, (5) it is OK to assemble in public and engage in protests as long as you are not breaking the law and thus you need not disperse when police tell you to do so. These assumptions are no doubt the source of some of the "unequal" treatment, since most white people understand that they must comply with police and do not tend to resist. I've seen protesters spit on officers -- something ruled as assault in my state. I've seen them try to stand nose-to-nose and argue with an officer about a request. That is what the actress in LA did, instead of supplying an ID when asked, then she tried to walk away and got upset because the officer detained her. This description is in her own words. If large numbers of black people mistakenly believe this behavior is OK, that itself will account for some of the statistics.

      Delete
    10. Thanks @ 1:51 for showing no empathy for those beaten for mouthing off. Nearly 90% of the police think that is wrong. But you and less than 10% of the police think is is not.

      Delete
    11. The actress in LA and the guy waiting for his kid, who did the same thing, were not beaten. Those beaten resist arrest in a more vigorous way. The police meet force with greater force. Brown didn't just mouth off, nor did Garner. When someone is stupid enough to mouth off, it raises anxiety about more violent behavior. If a cop anticipates that with force, the person isn't being beaten for mouthing off but for threatening the cop. That Baltimore article explained that context. It would be nice if cops were able to function at all times without human emotions but they are people. This discussion should be about how to prevent such abuses, not whether it is OK for them to happen. This will happen no matter what percentage approve if kids persist in mouthing off (and other behaviors resisting police authority).

      Delete
    12. To DinC,
      A funny thing happened in South Phoenix about ten years ago.
      Black parents and community leaders went to the Phoenix police and complained that gangbangers were harassing their good kids when on legitimate business after dark.

      The Phoenix police stepped up patrols, and would stop and ask teenagers where they were going and why.
      After several weeks of this, the parents and community leaders went to the Phoenix police and complained that now the cops were harassing THEIR kids.
      Go figure.

      Delete
    13. Comrade @1:51P,

      You vigorous defense of the necessity of people's submission to the police is noted and your name has been forwarded to the Central Committee with approval!

      Alas, the law does not comport with your views:

      1. It's perfectly OK to ignore some police requests, whether you've done something wrong or not. You may always legally refuse to give a cop information (except your name) or refuse a cop's request to search your home or your vehicle (absent a warrant).

      2. You must respond truthfully to police request for your name. You are not obligated to show a cop any identification, unless you have been stopped while driving on public roads, in which case you're obligated to establish that you're properly licensed.

      4. Police have no right to stop you without reasonable suspicion and no right to arrest you without probable cause. Refusal to cooperate does not give rise either to the reasonable or the probable.

      5. Public assembly and public protest are Constitutionally protected activities under the First Amendment.

      The "actress in LA" was Daniele Watts. She says she was making out with her boyfriend in his car. The police got a 911 call about lewd behavior and went to investigate. The couple was the obviously the subject of the complaint, and that certainly is reasonable suspicion, so Watts is legally obligated to tell the cops her name. She doesn't have to supply an ID, but when she refused the cops handcuffed her and put her in squad car. The cops said they had "detained" her while they investigated the incident, and when they determined that no crime had been committed, the let her go. She was later indicted for lewd behavior, so the the DA or the cops obviously got someone to swear out a complaint after the fact.

      Delete
    14. Thank you for corroborating my statements. If police violate citizen rights it is better to file a complaint or get a lawyer than to mouth off and try to tell a cop to stop doing his job. Watts tried to leave the scene before police established what was going on.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous @9:37P,

      It's hard to tell the Anonymous Ignoramuses without a scorecard. What's so hard about using a nym? Anyway, if you're the same now as you were at 1:51P, I most certainly didn't "corroborate" your statements. If the police violate your rights, generally your only remedy is with a court. Physically resisting arrest, for instance, is not allowed even if you rightly believe that the arrest is not legal. This does not mean that you are legally obligated to honor all police requests or commands.

      In the United States, it is not against the law to dispute what a cop is doing or saying to you. That said, it may not be the wisest thing to do. I made no judgments about wisdom of mouthing off to the police.

      Watts was under no obligation to show the cops an ID. She was obligated to tell them her name and to remain on the scene, detained for a short time of an immediate investigation.

      Delete
    16. There are two ways cops can deal with someone who wants to stand there and argue with them. One is resisting arrest. The other is interference with an officer in the performance of his duties. It is very stupid for someone to mouth off to a police officer. As Brooks describes. He may be fearful and he will most certainly want to prevent the situation from escalating out of control. The best way to do that is to use preemptive overwhelming force to control the situation. That generally leads to unfortunate consequences for the person asserting the officer has no right to control their behavior. The officer generally wins. So what it is about this situation that black people do not understand?

      Perhaps being black makes black people more likely to assert themselves when being confronted by a cop. If so, that is something the black community should be examining. You, deadrat, seem to be framing this as a matter of individual liberties. It is not. It is a matter of survival. Men, in particular, seem to know how to size up a rival and know when and how to back down in the face of someone more dominant. That all seems to go out the window when a cop is involved. Why? If this is a matter of historical legacy, it needs to be reexamined because cops deal with white and black people in the same way when it comes to challenging their authority, and the cops win.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous @12:35P,

      Since this is Thursday, I'm going to dial down the snark. I'm not used to doing this, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not totally successful.

      Let me first say that I'm not disputing the notion that confronting the police can lead to bad consequences. Mouthing off to anyone rarely makes your situation better, especially when the person you're mouthing off to has a gun. With bullets. Nor do I dispute that the professional lives of police are filled with more than the usual amount of fear and loathing, and for good reasons.

      What I will dispute is your basic assumption that "cops deal with white and black people in the same way...." I don't believe that to be true, and many of your fellow black citizens report that it's not. But your refusal to consider that your own experience might not be universal has led you to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with black people. "What is it about black people that they can't understand?" you ask. And you have an answer: "Perhaps being black makes black people more likely" to confront a cop."

      I have a modest suggestion that the answer might be found in the research done by Dr. Samuel Cartwright, who in 1851 discovered drapetomania, a mental illness affecting slaves that caused them to escape captivity. The disease seems to have been eradicated in this country in1865, but perhaps it has resurfaced in a form that causes black people to argue with cops. Might be worth investigating, no?

      I'm afraid I also have a problem with your blithe assertions about the legal authority of the police. Resisting arrest requires physical effort to avoid being taken into custody, and it doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't been arrested. "Interference with an officer" is also called obstruction of justice, and it requires either physical struggle or lying. Neither of these covers heated verbal disputes. I find it somewhat Orwellian that you've convinced yourself that escalating to "preemptive overwhelming force" is the best way to prevent a situation from escalating. How'd that work out in Ferguson?

      In the United States, dealing with the police is always a matter of individual liberties. Our "historical legacy" may have it's share of mythology and more than it's share of hypocrisy, but it still teaches us that the state is bound by rules. Some have made this lesson more important that "a matter of survival." One rule is that the state's agents often have no right to control a person's behavior and almost never have the right to suppress a person's assertions. This in spite of the agents' claims otherwise and your apparent willingness to agree with them.

      The "best way" in most situations may just be to cooperate with the police. Not least because the cops almost always win. My guess is that many more black people know that better than you think they do.

      Delete
    18. Just as I cannot know what it is like to be in a black person's situation, a black person cannot know what it is like to be white. I keep hearing black people assert things about white experience that are flatly untrue. But if I say so, I am considered an ignoramus.

      I think your guess that many more black people know they need to cooperate with the police is true for many black adults but not for black teens, activists and entitled black actresses who think a starring role exempts them from life's hassles. Folks in Beverly Hills call the police on anyone making out in a car. Black people don't understand how much white people get hassled in the same ways they do. They also don't understand that not every slight, disappointment and injustice in life originates from race. Life is hard for most people, white and black. I have had more than my share of problems, in my opinion, and I find it particularly hard to believe that most black people have more difficult lives than mine has been. So these generalizations perhaps bother me more than they might otherwise.

      You cannot have this both ways. Blacks cannot be both more careful around cops (because they know more than whites the necessity to cooperate) and also less careful, asserting their right not to show ID or be frisked or to move along (because cops cannot control law-abiding individuals). I see black teens asserting their "right" to control space at the expense of those around them, in much the way Michael Brown did in that convenience store. I have never used the word drapetomania -- that's yours. I have asked how a parent or anyone who cares about black teens can encourage behavior that will result in conflict with others knowing that it can be fatal -- that is the stupidity I have questioned. I know that white parents teach their kids to respect others. I assume black parents do the same. But, if they also teach their kids that white people are racists who get all the good stuff in life and will screw you at any opportunity, how can any message about respecting anyone not black be heard? I call that teaching self-defeating because it leads to an inability to participate fully in the wider culture, because someone who doesn't respect others will be on the receiving end of bad outcomes, whether in a job, at a concert or film, in a store, or from cops. One social standard of behavior for blacks and a different one for whites is not far removed from the segregation of the past, but I see it coming from black people, not solely from whites. And I see a lot of attempts at better interaction originating from white people being sabotaged by that kind of behavior. I'd give examples but you'd just call me a racist ignoramus again. And before you ask me who my black friends are (as you've baited David in CA), I will remind you that we are all living in a multiracial society now, in which many of our families are integrated, not just our institutions, and that schtick is tired.

      Delete
    19. Anonymous @5:23P,

      I don't believe that you cannot know what it's like to be in a black person's situation. I think it's true that you cannot know exactly how other people, black or white, feel or everything their life experiences bring to them, but that's different.

      What do you "keep hearing" black people say about white experience? I don't hear that much, but maybe I'm not listening. I do hear white people telling black people how they should act and what they should understand. White people like you, for instance.

      It's difficult to talk about societal phenomena because we have to talk about the experience of groups of people. And it's easy to forget that a group of people is an abstraction that doesn't experience things directly. So I'm careful to say I'm making guess that most black people don't fit your generalizations. I think it's an educated guess based on what I read, whom I know, and what we would otherwise see if I were wrong. You're willing to admit (grudgingly, I suspect) that I might be right about black adults, but not about three other reifications -- black teens, activists, and entitled black actresses.

      Black activists or activists of any race?

      How many black teenagers, activists, or black actresses do you know or know about? What percentage of each class is that?

      Do "folks" in Beverly Hills really call the police on anyone making out in a car? The Watts incident didn't happen in Beverly Hills, but never mind. Can you even imagine what it would take in Los Angeles to commit a lewd act? Are you sure that white people get hassled in the same way that black people do?

      Part of the problem is that you want to personalize the discussion and then generalize your personal experience to the world. You think you've had a hard life, in fact harder than the lives of most black people. I can't figure out how you could even measure the latter claim, but that's as may be because the discussion isn't about you. When people say that the playing field isn't level on their side, they are not saying there are no obstacles on your side. An article in the NYT today reports that the unemployment rate among black recent college graduates is 12.4%; among their white cohort, 4.9%. Nowhere does it say that every black recent college graduate is worse off than any white recent college graduate. Or worse off than you, for that matter.

      The contradiction you see in my having things "both ways" arises because you think there is such an entity as "blacks" that can be careful or careless. From there it's a short hop to black parents who teach self-defeating lessons to their children, making the real problem that white people don't get enough respect because of a double standard of behavior tantamount to a black self-segregation that sabotages the good-faith efforts of white people to make things better. And anyway we're living in a post-racial society now where many families are integrated.

      Whew! Do you ever stop to listen to yourself?

      Some of your fellow citizens are trying to tell you that on average their experiences differ from yours, and that this difference shows up in unemployment rates, median family wealth, segregated housing and schools, and the unlikelihood of finding that the next cop will be Officer Friendly. That some of these people will turn out to be self-centered actresses, boorish professors of nonsense studies, or teenagers acting out is to be expected. We've managed to endure Zsa Zsa Gabor, Ward Churchill, and Justin Bieber without getting too exercised about the societal fitness of the white race.

      (con't. →)

      Delete
    20. (← con't.)

      I'm afraid you've missed my point about drapetomania. I wasn't accusing you of using the word. Please go back and muse a bit on why I might have found the subject apposite.

      My cyber-relationship with DAinCA is better described now as bated rather than baited, but in any case, I'm not much interested in your personal anecdotes. I have no basis on which to believe them or doubt them, and even if I were to go with the former because it's still Thursday, the plural of anecdotes still isn't data.

      Have I ever called you a racist? I don't think so. It's not a term I throw around much because it requires that I know your convictions and motivations. Have I ever called you an ignoramus? That's more than possible because I use that term often when I respond to the ignorant, but I don't think you have a problem because you're short on facts.

      Delete
    21. People are not statistics. They are individuals. No single African American person owns another's experience. I don't own white racial history because I am white. If I am ignorant, so are you.

      I am fully aware that others have different experience than I do, but why are you so sure their unemployment rate is worse than mine? Are you unaware of how hard it is for anyone over 50 to find work, or do you not care about anyone not in your demographic? What is the employment rate for white people with disabilities? Do you even know? When you imagine someone white you imagine someone privileged because that is your stereotype. That's how black people imagine everyone white has it better and then use that assumption to justify whatever rudeness they feel like indulging, and hopefully it is only hogging an extra seat. You need to practice what you preach and understand that you have no idea who you are talking to online, even when someone says they are white.

      When you call someone a name it doesn't matter what the name is.

      Delete
    22. Anonymous @10:01P

      I'm confused by your reply. Yes, people are not statistics, but if we want to talk about societal issues, we can't do that one person at a time. Statistics are a helpful tool in helping us understand group issues, but their use usually requires giving up absolute statements in favor of probabilistic ones. Nobody "owns" another's experience. I'm not sure what that even means. I don't think anyone has accused you of "owning" white racial history. Certainly not I.

      My ignorance is not contingent on yours.

      From what you write, you don't seem fully aware that others have different experiences from you. Sorry, maybe it's just me with that impression.

      I'm as sure as I can be without doing my own research that black recent college graduates have a much higher unemployment rate than their white cohort. Are you disputing that result? What does your unemployment status (you don't really have a rate) have to do with this?

      Yes, I'm aware of the difficulty people over 50 have in getting work. Why is that important to the discussion? What demographic do you think I'm in? I'm the oldest whore on the block.

      I didn't know the unemployment rate for white people with disabilities, so I looked it up on the BLS site. In 2013, for the white disabled, the statistic is 12.2%; for black disabled, 19.2%. So thanks for making my point for me. Do you think we should consider black recent college grads as part of the disabled? Their unemployment rate is worse than that for the white disabled. Are you getting the idea yet that the field might have a racial tilt?

      I think you should stop telling me what I imagine and what stereotypes I believe. I know, for instance, that there are more white rural poor people than black. You should also stop telling black people what they imagine.

      It's true that I don't really know whom I'm talking to online. But I'm pretty sure you're white or doing an awfully good impersonation of someone who's white. In what way do you think I"m a hypocrite?

      I disagree with you: I think the type of name matters. If I called you something hurtful because of circumstances beyond your control, say your race or a disability or your appearance, I think that's worse than if I disparaged your behavior. But I don't believe I've called you any names at all, partly because it's still Thursday in my time zone.

      I don't think you're thinking very clearly about some issues, but that just means I disagree with you.

      Delete
    23. deadrat rightly points to statistics showing that black unemployment is worse then white unemployment. In that sense, there's a racial tilt, regardless of the cause of the differential rate. One implication is that a black community is apt to have a larger percentage of unemployed people than a white community.

      deadrat didn't say that the cause of the difference is racism. The cause of the difference cannot be deduced from the raw statistic, because the pool of white potential employees isn't identical to the pool of black potential employees. A researcher without a political axe to grind who wanted to tease out how much of the difference is due to racism could try to match blacks and whites by ability. This would be very difficult to do, because many factors affecting an employee's quality cannot be discerned by specific, objective criteria. However, many people wield these statistics without doing a proper job of measuring employability in an effort to prove racism.

      Are employers really racists? A clue can be discerned from this chart. It shows that Asian unemployment rate is lower than white unemployment rate. It's conceivable that this could be due to racial prejudice against whites and in favor of Asians. But, it's more likely that Asians do a better job than whites, on average, and so they are more attractive hires, on average.

      Political correctness makes its hard to discuss the reasons why black unemployment is so high. One would have to start with the significant percentage of blacks who might be called "gangbangers" or who Chris Rock calls "Niggas" who have little interest in getting a job within the normal workforce. These people ought to be excluded from any comparison. Of course, whites and Asians with similar characteristics should also be excluded.

      Black IQs are lower than white or Asian IQs on average. The average difference in IQ does NOT mean that there's any genetic difference in intelligence. The difference is probably due to non-genetic factors. Nevertheless, whatever the cause, higher IQ tends to make one a more valuable employee.

      Then there's the percentage of people with degrees in STEM. I recall being ordered by my boss to hire a black person for a mid-level actuarial opening. I didn't get a single black applicant and wound up hiring a Chinese-American woman. Someone looking only at raw statistics might wrongly conclude that my decision was based on pro-Asian prejudice and anti-Black prejudice.

      I suppose someone will now call me a racist for daring to mention these facts. So be it.

      Delete
    24. Ah, the empathy of the right. As vast as the number of stars one can see in an overcast sky. At noon.

      Someone with a shred of Bob's cherished empathy would approach something like this understanding that one of the questions that needs to be answered is WHY there are so few blacks in STEM programs, and higher education in general. But it's much easier -- and emotionally satisfying -- to brag about oneself, and then toss off stereotype-driven generalities and pretend to have contributed something constructive.

      Once again, we are struck by crazy Bob's crazy standards -- for the left. We confess we have lost all empathy for him -- and once, we had plenty. But as he has become crazier and crazier, pettier and pettier, our empathy has shrunk down to nothing. Now, we feel little more than contempt.

      Delete
    25. On what day did you last post anything showing empathy for Somerby?

      Delete
    26. DinC,
      Nah. I've read some other stuff you posted here in the past, so it's not your "facts" from the 3:29 AM post that would make me call you a racist.

      Delete
    27. Good question, RMEF. Why are there relatively few blacks in STEM? Or, a similar, but even better question: How can more black children be induced to study STEM? I suspect that one big reason is that somehow a culture has developed where blacks who have excelled at STEM are not promoted as role models to black children.

      Exhibit A is the late David Blackwell, a brilliant black mathematician, who I was privileged to hear lecture once. Blackwell co-invented a field of mathematics called Dynamic Programing. Yet, he is virtually unknown. I recall years ago sitting next to a young black man on a plane returning from London. The young man was working for a big bank in New York City. He was a recent graduate, either with an MBA or similar degree. Even though Dynamic Programming was somewhat related to his field of study, he had never heard of Blackwell and was unaware that a black man had developed a field of mathematics.

      OTOH everybody knows who Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are. They've been on TV all the time. Sharpton is a highly respected Democrat, Heaven help us!

      In short, black kids are more encouraged to be race hustlers than mathematicians.

      Delete
    28. David, there is an article in November Atlantic Monthly about the "bamboo ceiling" and the disproportionate number of Asian Americans unable to advance in their jobs, even in STEM fields. Once hired, they are not promoted.

      Black students have no trouble in my statistics classes. However, I do see them disproportionately choosing to major in fields like social work and sociology instead of fields where they might make more money or where they are underrepresented. Given the difficulties of working as a minority in such a field, why wouldn't someone choose a path of lesser resistance? No one chooses to do things the hard way -- that just isn't smart. STEM appeals only to white males because it has created a culture in which only white males can get ahead. Others recognize that and avoid it. It isn't any more complicated than that.

      Delete
    29. AnonymousDecember 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM -- I suggest you point some of your students at an actuarial career. Advancement is based on passing a set of difficult examinations. Race is not a factor.

      Now, it may be the case that a black person who has passed all the exams has a lesser chance of advancement from that point. I don't know about that. However, even passing the exams makes one a corporate officer with a very comfortable income.

      Delete
    30. Two actuaries went duck hunting. They hunkered down in a blind, and when the first duck flew by the first actuary jumped to his feet and fired. He missed by ten feet to the right. Another duck flew by and the second actuary took his shot. He missed by ten feet to the left. The two jumped for joy, gave each other high fives and shouted "We got it!"

      Delete
    31. African-Americans do have it much tougher than whites. It's true some cops don't like blacks.

      Delete
    32. Then Dick Cheney came along, shot both of them in the face and told them to go fuck themselves. But he did it with empathy!

      Delete
    33. SOME African Americans have it much tougher than SOME whites. SOME cops don't like blacks and SOME blacks don't like cops.

      Delete
    34. The cold truth is African-Americans have it harder than other ethnic groups in the USA. That is a fact. And anyone who denies it is not living in the real world.

      Delete
    35. No, Native Americans have it harder than African Americans. Some immigrant Hispanic groups have it harder, especially those who are undocumented, don't speak English and live in poverty. African Americans, as a group, have improved their position in the USA. Lingering racism is not a greater hardship than circumstances endured by several other groups in the USA today.

      African Americans, as an ethnic group, have had little sympathy for the struggles of others, refusing to make common cause and refusing to help those groups address their problems. They have explicitly rejected parallels between their experience and that of others and they have insisted that only their troubles are important. It has helped to create the lack of empathy many feel for their continued insistence that they are uniquely the targets of discrimination, above that experienced by other people. But perhaps you would have to be an ethnicity other than African American to appreciate how this deliberate stance has affected others who might have been sympathetic.

      An example is the way biracial people are treated by African American political activists. If biracial people are part African American, they are pressured to adopt a wholly African American identity. Many biracial people resist this because it entails abandoning the parent (and family members) who are not African American. If they are resistant to do that, they are called names and harassed by African Americans. This was Obama's dilemma, and has been experienced by a number of celebrities (e.g., Tiger Woods, Nicole Ritchie). This society is becoming multiracial and multicultural. Old-style African American protesting and racial identity politics are obsolete and are alienating supporters. The cold truth is that African Americans are mostly just like everyone else, with lives about as difficult as anyone else's and those who are in such a position have largely abandoned poor and uneducated African Americans, except as symbols of racism, when they come in handy as martyrs (if embarrassing details about their plight are ignored). The right calls this race hustling. I call it self-serving hypocrisy. Somerby calls it ignoring the needs of black children and everyone here mocks him. I am prouder than ever of our society during this holiday season and I don't blame Somerby for sounding a bit depressed these days.

      Delete
    36. Before deadrat arrives and claims that I cannot know what is in the minds of African Americans as a group, let me make it clear that I am basing my comment on the collective writings and speeches of various civil rights leaders from W.E.B Dubois to Malcom X to the leaders of the 50's and 60's movement to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Ta- Nehisi Coates. MLK attempted to be more expansive and to transcend the personal struggle and embrace a wider world toward the end, as did Malcolm X but his movement didn't follow.

      For example, Wikipedia notes:

      "Despite the early successes NOW achieved under Friedan's leadership, her decision to pressure the Equal Employment Opportunity to use Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to enforce more job opportunities among American women met with fierce opposition within the organization.[21] Siding with arguments among several of the group's African-American members,[21] many of NOW's leaders were convinced that the vast number of male African-Americans who lived below the poverty line were in need of more job opportunities than women within the middle and upper class.[22] Friedan stepped down as president in 1969.[23]"

      Despite the obvious parallels between women (as second class citizens) and African Americans (male and female), African Americans strongly opposed feminist efforts because they saw them as in competition with their own struggle. They characterized feminism as a "middle and upper class" women's movement, ignoring the large working class participation, and rejected any comparison. To date, African Americans continue to be more regressive when it comes to women's issues, because concerns of women come second to race. So, Hillary had to wait for Obama and Anita Hill was derided for her complaint against Clarence Thomas, and Nicole Simpson's death was secondary to O.J.'s image, just as Tiger Wood's career was more important than his cheating on his wife. And we are all expected to consider the racial complaints of today's upper and middle class African Americans as more important than the needs of poor Hispanic immigrants. In your dreams! When today's protests take up the cause of a young man who deliberately aimed a gun at a police officer, it makes itself ineffective because even liberals are not going to condone blatant shooting down of police by young men committing crimes.

      Delete
  10. So Bob is down to using one commenter in a newspaper column as a proxy for "the left."

    Take out the "we liberals" and handwringing about how terrible it all will be for "our" electoral prospects, and this post would fit in perfectly on Townhall or the Limbaugh or Hannity shows. Even the quality of argumentation is at the same level of what one will find there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, why are you here?

      Delete
    2. Someone has to stand up against the appeasers in our midst?

      Delete
    3. When racism is reduced to some white guy being blamed for trying to get the attention of a seat-hog, the interests of civil rights are not being well-served. That kind of trivialization warms the heart of Limbaugh and Hannity because it does their job for them. If you think Somerby is wrong to point this out, I think you may not understand the issue at hand.

      Delete
    4. Our mind is now at ease by the fact that racism is reduced to Brittney Cooper's ridiculous post. We had thought there were other things going on. but you have eased our troubled mind. We must thank Bob, and you, for incomparably pointing this out. Brittney Cooper, and her ridiculous post, is the REAL problem here. It is in no way an anomaly, an outlier from a larger body of legitimate issues, highlighted by an angry old kook to demonstrate his angry old kookiness. Wherever would we be without Bob

      Delete
    5. Who said anything here about a "seat hog?" If you think anyone here did, I think you may not understand much of anything at all.

      Delete
    6. So, you think it is Ok for Professor Cooper to reduce racism to the petty annoyances of her commute, in print, as a representative of a liberal point of view? And someone who objects is an old kook?

      Delete
    7. As we have said, it was foolish, and treated as such in real time by the vast majority of the liberal world. What was beyond foolish was Bob pretending that Cooper's post is in any way representative of the way "liberals" "increasingly" behave. Elevating Cooper and her post to the status Bob did is a way of trivializing legitimate issues, legitimate complaints about racism, and other issues. Do LIBERALS "reduce" racism to that one event, or does BOB (and his dumber acolytes) reduce racism to that one event? We know the answer. So does every sane person who reads this. That last qualifier, alas, seems to exclude you. Please accept our sincere Rudy-"Mr.O"-style empathy.

      Delete
    8. @2:56
      Someone who places her bag on an adjacent seat and does not move it when the train fills up is a seat hog. Those who ride public transit recognize the behavior. It is rude. She should have apologized, not gotten all huffy.

      Delete
    9. The negativity that Ms Cooper encounters in her life probably has less to do with her being black, and more to do with her hooray for me the hell with you attitude.

      Delete
  11. Most don't understand how tough society has made it to be a policeman. To do the job you’ve got to bend the rules and understand the law of the jungle; the world is divided into two sorts of people — cops and a — holes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Al Sharpton, POTUS Obama's race czar, believes the world is divided into two sorts of people - race hustlers and targets of opportunity to be hustled.

      Delete
    2. Another empathetic white person. Put Cicero on your list, Bob.

      Delete
    3. This comment is an unattributed quote from the article about black officers in Baltimore. That article says that SOME police officers have this attitude. By excerpting it in this manner, it sounds like all do. That is not what the original article says.

      Everyone acknowledges that there are bad cops. There are also black cops who hold exactly this world view.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @ 1:57 my hats off to you for proving, for the many people here who use the term indiscriminately, what a real douchebag is.

      The comment is almost a direct quote from the "The Cop Mind." To refresh you douche sloshed memory, that is the column written by David Brooks which is a centerpiece of this post by Bob Somerby. It had nothing to do with Baltimore or blacks, be they in uniform or not.

      The full quote:

      "In many places, a self-supporting and insular police culture develops: In this culture no one understands police work except fellow officers; the training in the academy is useless; to do the job you’ve got to bend the rules and understand the law of the jungle; the world is divided into two sorts of people — cops and a — holes."

      This is the column that is supposed to make us empathetic to cops.

      Delete
    5. Why would anyone, black or white, have empathy, for Sharpton? He managed to turn the murders of two minority NYPD officers into a pity party for himself.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcbkHl_ktw0

      Delete
    6. @3:12 See, this is why it is important to identify quoted material and cite the source. You blame me for misattributing it, but you are the one who left off the crucial author's name.

      Delete
    7. I emphasize. You are dripping wet.

      Delete
    8. Another cogent response.

      Delete
  12. Racist police brutality has to be punished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ALL police brutality has to be punished.

      Delete
    2. I am sure David Brooks has a good reason to just include racist police brutality. The statement is his.

      Delete
    3. This hinges on the definition of brutality. Some people consider all force to be brutality. If you restrict brutality to excessive force you need to define what is excessive.

      Delete
    4. I in the comment box have never worked as a poilice officer. I have to rely on Bob's representation that I should have empathy for the police based on the written work of David Brooks.

      The modern Howler reader tends to be quite dismissive of the work cited by Somerby.

      In the end, just how sharp are you the Howler readers really? Perhaps if Bob were interested in the Brooks column rather than one letter it provoked, we might have a better idea.

      Delete
  13. The antics of Sharpton, DeBlasio and Obama and their supporters nurture a mindset and behavior that requires police response, sometimes lethal against people who otherwise would continue to live. But it's only because they "care."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And when they do up to two thirds of those policemen suffer moderate to severe emotional problems. Fortunately many stay on the force up to another seven years or more.

      Delete
    2. Another unattributed quote from that Baltimore article. Please at least cite your source. When you modify a word or two to express your own opinion instead of that contained in the article, you commit a worse abuse than simply plagiarizing because readers may not understand where your opinion starts and that of the original source leaves off. But I doubt you care about anything except being angry.

      Delete
    3. Why Sr. Douchebag. It is you again.

      These statistics are merely gleaned from the wonderful column by David Brooks called "The Cop Mind."

      I know these statistics must be accurate or Bob Somerby would have raised questions about them, as he always does, not just when numbers are questionable, but when they are not adequately explained.

      Delete
    4. I'm the bad guy here supposedly but you have shown an unwillingness to consider the content of Brooks article that exemplifies what Somerby meant about lack of empathy. You are behaving just like the reader he quoted.

      Delete
    5. Your comments, to use the words Bob Somerby used in this post, "ha(d) nothing to do with the considerations advanced in Brooks' column." Indeed
      they demonstrated you had not read Brooks' column.

      You repeatedly attributed quotes or ideas from Brooks' column to some mythical article about black policemen in Baltimore, then you criticized me for not "citing" my "sources" when all I was doing was presenting the work of an author Somerby seemed to present to us as one showing the life of cops, with whom we should empathize.

      Perhaps if Somerby had actually reviewed Brooks' work you might havve known better.

      You think I am behaving like the reader he quoted?
      In one sense you are right. We both read Brooks' column. You did not. You just acted like you did. Then you acted like you knew something about where my comments came from. That is what makes you a douchebag. And, alas, a Somerby reader.

      Delete
  14. The tone of Bob's "conservative" commenters -- the bulk of them picked up during Bob's incomparable display of empathy during the Trayvon Martin era -- highlights one of the many problems with the way Bob reasons these days. Liberals, Bob claims, have a problem with empathy, but that brings up the question: a problem compared to what? Compared to the party of Rush and Sean, and dozens of others, and their perpetual anger and racebaiting and namecalling? The party of Paul Ryan, and his soulful attempts to cut services for the poor and middle class, while cutting taxes on the rich? By just what standard are liberals NOT empathetic?

    Much as is the case with Bob's "increasingly" scam, the problem is the lack of some kind of baseline. If liberals aren't empathetic, what are conservatives? If liberals are "increasingly" crazy, what is this "increasing" measured against? What were they before? Bob should explain exactly what he means by liberals and their lack of empathy, but like he does with his "increasingly" scam, we doubt he ever will, because the ridiculousness of his claims will become instantly manifest. The best we'll get is some cherry-picked comments from online posts, perhaps some backpage blogger at Salon or some such will post something stupid he can use -- if he's lucky. And that would, indeed, be "good" luck to the "New Bob Somerby."

    And then we have Bob's own empathy. Boy, do we have that. Brittney Cooper should be thrown in front of a bus. Liberals are stupid and dumb (a regular quotation from empathetic Bob). Various pundits (almost always liberal), are "pimps," "chimps," and "clowns." If Bob's own behavior sets the bar for empathy, then EVERYONE short of an enraged psychopath with a bad case of Tourette's passes underneath it. With room to spare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And how long have you been here?

      Delete
  15. Back to Ferguson. Should the citizens empathize with the police officers who enforce the corrupt peonage programs there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's corrupt peonage to expect that a teen will pay for his cigarillos and walk on the sidewalk instead of down the middle of the street?

      Delete
    2. How to whiff on my post.
      I'll say it. You did it on purpose. Congratulations for making believe you're an idiot on the internet.

      Delete
    3. Funding govt through traffic citations, warrant payments et al is bound to stir up animosity regardless of the community's racial makeup.

      Delete
    4. When they did this in my local community, I stopped speeding and the result was that I stopped getting tickets. This isn't rocket science.

      Delete
    5. Then they switched to fees on guns and ammo. I wqnet unarmed. And when they switched to a tax on food I starved myself to death. This isn't rocket science, it is blog commentary.

      Delete
    6. Local communities decide how to pay for their local services.

      Delete
    7. Either Sr. Douchebag is back or the spirit of the wet one was strong in the commenter who passed through and made deveral deposits around 1 PM EST.

      Delete
    8. Assuming you know what a Douchebag actually is, why do you persist in using a slang term for a women's hygiene product as a slur to describe someone you dislike? It is derogatory to women and makes you sound like a sexist jerk.

      Delete
  16. What's the deal with the police deserving resect, even when they don't give it?

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, if Bob wants to base posts that admittedly make a big deal about a letter one guy wrote, I guess we have to conclude even MSNBC did a good job that day because he doesn't have much to write about. Scrolling down the way we can see how much of a following Bob has developed among far right race cry babies (we have gone far beyond David in Ca, and his tattered volumes of Uncle Thomas Sewell) and that's a little sad.

    Well Bob, here's another one guy's thoughts: the problem we may be dealing with here, beyond the race baiting from both sides is that A) It is insisted that we understand the Police have a very hard job, and B) it is insisted we accept that they never make mistakes. Even under considerable stress as was probably the case in Ferguson.

    The vastly obvious question is weather Bob has any empathy for friends and family of those who have lost lives to this paradox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is insisting that the police never make mistakes. It has been the practice that when they do make a mistake under the pressure of their jobs, that they not be put in prison for it. Under those circumstances, no one would do the job and we would have a society impossible to live in.

      The relatives of people shot by police always insist that someone pay for their loss. That isn't possible given society's need for someone to do the job of policing. I have never seen such a relative admit that their loved one contributed in any way to that death. Those protests of the death of Antonio Martin are a case in point. On what planet can someone point a gun at a cop and not be shot? And yet there were protests.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for a sincere reply to my post, there is obviously something in what you say. Yet the system in these cases DOES, in effect, say that Police cannot make mistakes, or as you pretty much go on to say, can't make mistakes they can be held accountable for, which amounts to the same thing. Do the relatives "always" insist that "someone" pay for their loss? The cases that have black America crying race (sometimes frivolously) are not cases where someone held a gun on the cop, they were cases where the perp was unarmed.
      Would "no one" be a cop if they did not have, in effect, the right to execute a suspect for noncompliance and in some of these cases not even that? Of course not. You're special pleading for an occupation whose dangers have been romanticized by TV Shows and TV News.
      Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone has done really good or bad journalism on these issues. But Lazy posts like todays little sermon from Bob cloud the issue rather tan illuminate it.

      Delete
    3. People are not being shot for "noncompliance." They are being shot because an officer was made to fear for his life or the lives of others.

      You cannot put someone into a job where they are required to risk their lives on a daily basis. That kind of sacrifice occurs only in wartime.

      If you think black America does not "cry race" in cases where someone held a gun on a cop -- go read the details of the Antonio Martin case, last week's protests. There is video of him attempting to shoot an officer who escaped only because he fell down while running backwards to escape Martin. That is the case currently being protested.

      Delete
    4. You force the opposing view to state a lot of obvious things: The Police dept. is neither A) The Military or B) a secret society that has been extended an official License to Kill as part of the social contract. You may a some bizarre wish for B), but that's a personal matter. And we could point out here that the instances of police putting there life on the line is hardly daily, and a lot of other obvious things too.
      In the Statin Island case (admittedly the most extreme) the man was clearly strangled to death (by a cop with a crummy record) for non compliance. It takes a Bernie Kerik to argue otherwise.

      Just as there are "blame America Firsters" there are liberals who will always take the opposing side against the cops, as there was when tasering was being debating some years back. But like Blacks who are completely irrational on these issues, they are few and far between.

      As American citizens, however, they do have the right to express themselves, which seems to be what bothers you. It should not need to be explained to you at this point but I guess it is: Blacks have all the same constitutional rights as you do, whatever old grudges you privately nurse.

      Delete
    5. nor, as I should have said, "an unofficial license to kill"

      Delete
    6. ...in self defense and the defense of others (e.g. innocent bystanders, family members of a deranged individual, targets of crime).

      Delete
    7. 9:54 AM,
      That cop in Ferguson felt threatened by an unarmed black kid 148 feet awash from him. Of course, by the cops own statements, the kid seemed like he could run through bullets and was as strong as Hulk Hogan fighting a 5-year old.

      Not sure what you have against black teens, according to the cop and many racists, blacks have superhuman powers.

      Delete
    8. That unarmed black kid was not only a danger to the officer but to people around him, such as the clerk who tried to stop him from stealing from his store. A cop cannot allow a fleeing suspect to just go because once he has exhibited a willingness to attack a cop, he is a danger also to anyone else he may encounter, including innocent bystanders. No one is claiming he had superhuman powers, but he was large and appeared motivated to engage in violent behavior. Denying that makes you appear either stupid or willing to lie. Classifying him with "black teens" in general, much like calling him a "gentle giant" makes him appear harmless when he was not, as demonstrated by the video of him strong-arming the store clerk. He seems like an unworthy figure to exemplify unwarranted police violence, since he was quite likely violent himself toward the cop and had previously been violent (on video for all to see) toward a member of the community. This idea that an "unarmed" teen is not dangerous to others is another obfuscation. People have been killed by unarmed attackers. That the cop said he FELT LIKE a five year old being attacked by Hulk Hogan conveys his sense of threat. You may think you would have felt differently in his place, but I cannot see how you can pretend he was describing reality. Most people feel frightened when attacked. And that kid who initially ran away was coming toward him. The distance is less important than the rate at which he was approaching, which never seems to be mentioned (perhaps because there is no video).

      Delete
    9. Anonymous @4:38P,

      There is no evidence that at the time Michael Brown ran from Darren Wilson that the former was a threat to anyone. And that includes the clerk that Brown had pushed out of his way. (I'm not excusing theft and assault, so don't write in, OK?)

      A cop who has backup a few minutes away has no need to let a fleeing suspect go, and in the circumstances under discussion, said cop is not legally allowed to shoot dead that fleeing suspect. Unarmed teenagers may have killed people, but that's as may be. Michael Brown wasn't one of those, and he was facing someone who was not only armed himself but was supposed to be trained in apprehending criminals.

      I think you mean to say that you can't see how anyone can pretend that he [Wilson] was not describing reality. But there's no reason to accept Wilson's self-serving word at face value. That doesn't mean that Wilson committed a crime or even that he should have been indicted.

      Perhaps people don't mention the rate at which Brown was coming toward Wilson not because there's no video but because the two were separated by almost 154 feet.

      Delete
    10. 154 feet = 50 yards = half the distance of a football field. How fast can someone running cover that distance? Not as slow as you seem to think. What should a cop do while that person is running toward him? Watch?

      Delete
    11. First of all, there is absolutely no good evidence that Brown was running toward Wilson. A majority of the witnesses say that Wilson fired on Brown while Brown was running away and that Brown turned and faced Wilson with his hands up when the shots were fired. Wilson says that Brown takes a step towards him, then does a stutter step, and then starts running at him. Wilson knows that backup will be there in 30 seconds to help him make the arrest. So you tell me. Even if you believe Wilson's self-serving story about an adrenaline-charged incident, how long do you think it would have taken Brown to cover 50 yards to reach Wilson?

      What should a cop do? How about not illegally firing at a fleeing suspect? How about moving away? How long would it take Brown to reach him then? How about getting in his car? How about getting his night stick and pepper spray? How about not leaving his taser at the police station? Wilson wasn't overmatched physically; he's 6'4" and over 200 pounds. Even assuming that you believe the absurd notion that Brown was "bulking up" to run through a hail of gun fire, how about using his police training to take down an assailant?

      The only possible crime Wilson could have been charged with was criminally negligent homicide. I don't think Wilson's behavior would justify such a charge, and certainly there's no evidence strong enough to overcome reasonable doubt. But I also think it's clear that Wilson failed to properly shoulder his duties as a cop. I recognize the burden is heavy, just as I also understand the strength of impulse under fear and surprise. But no one should simply take Wilson's recitation at face value or claim that Brown was charging Wilson an Olympic dash speeds.

      Delete
    12. How fast can someone running cover that distance?

      Depends. Regular person or superhuman black teen who can seemingly run through bullets?

      Delete
    13. 4:38 PM,
      Thanks for reminding me of that partial video the cops released for no other reason than to sway public opinion about the victim (and then lied about the reason they did so).

      And to think some people don't trust the police.

      Delete
    14. I believe they released the video to counteract the "gentle giant" story being circulated by the parents' attorney. That "gentle giant" story too was being circulated for no other reason than to sway public opinion about the victim. Was it a lie? The video permits people to judge. Which served the interests of truth more -- the "gentle giant" story or the released video?

      Delete
    15. I appreciate the media not looking into everything the 2 NY police officers have ever done to see if they might have had it coming. They should be that respectful to all victims.

      Delete
  18. Hey Bob. Want to seem some real liberals write comments with no empathy?

    Want to see what a real jihad against Hillary Clinton looks like?

    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/hillary-clinton-trying-shore-left

    ReplyDelete
  19. Merry Christmas, Bob, and Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A command is a Ionely job. It isn't easy to make decisions.

      Sometimes the creator of a blog needs help ... constructive Ioyalty. A website is like a family. We all have ideas of right and wrong but we have to pitch in for the good of the family.

      If there was only some way we could help each other.

      If there's anything you want to say, we should be glad to empathize.



      Delete
  20. Bob Somerby lost it and revealed his "liberal" credentials when he sided with George Zimmerman's ludicrous story about having his head banged on pavement by an 18 year old boy-- just turned-- that Zimmerman out-weighed by some 50 lbs., a boy who had no history of violence at all... Somerby actually believed it was a "reasonable doubt" that an 18 year old boy would just randomly kill a stranger who was following him.

    Somerby lost it long ago, and columns like this continue in his "liberal" tradition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. There is no reason for Bob Somerby to read these comments. They are all filled with lies.
      All the trolls are disloyal.

      They are always fighting Bob.

      If the media darlings wanted their narratives repeated, the paid trolls would praise them.

      Take the Trayvon Martin case. Defective coverage.
      But they began spreading wild rumours about sympathy for the perpetrators.


      - and then young D'Leisha Dent. Bob was to blame for white liberal incompetence. Maddow would rather jump off bridges than discuss black vocabulary, but not Somerby.

      But the traffic cones. that's where Bob had them.
      He proved with rules of thumb that a legitimate study could have existed.

      He could have proved that study should have been coivered. They were protecting some reporter, then the e-mails came out.


      Naturally, we can only coverthe War on Gore from memory.

      If we've left anything out, just show some liberal empathy. We'll be glad to build progressive victories on them.


      Delete
  21. I think this comment box should be titled "When Whites Just Don't Get It...Part 6"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter how many protests are held, the USA is not going to become predominantly African American. That means the burden of accommodation is never going to be on white or Hispanic people to adjust to the demands of black people. So, who needs to "get it" in this society? Hint: It isn't whites.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Starting work on Part 7 already I see.

      Delete
    4. @ 1:00 PM.

      You may have misunderstood my comment at 12:35PM. It had nothing to do with blacks.
      Just folk such as yourself.

      Delete
    5. Don't by coy about what "it" is.

      Delete
    6. On many issues, the majority is required to "adjust" to the demands of the minority. It's in the Constitution.

      You could look it up.

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure exactly what deadrat's comment means. There's no constitutional requirement that the majority eat pizza, sushi, and bagels. They choose to do so voluntarily.

      Regardless of the Constitution, minority groups have generally progressed by their own efforts. Progress was achieved by means of hard work, ambition, mutual support within their group, strong families, and copying majority ways of dress, speech and behavior. African Americans were doing quite well on this route until the 1960's.

      Blacks were given a boost by passage of the Civil Rights Act. Then giveaways and victim status interfered. Politicians love to give things away. Thanks to all the stuff they gave blacks, Democrats get 95% of the black vote. But, these gifts don't build self-reliance, hard work, black support groups or strong black families. In fact, they undermine them. Welfare's requirement of no father present was devastating. More subtle was the establishment of so many government organizations designed to help blacks. These inhibited the formation of black self-help organizations.

      Another baneful cultural and political shift is the canonizing of victims. Victims get big lawsuit awards. Victims get government aid. So, blacks (and others) are encouraged to be victims, that is, to be weak and not self-sufficient. So, we see blacks pointing to "white privilege" to claim victimhood. And, some campuses learning about "micro-aggressions", as if some slight perceived insult would paralyze a person’s And, a focus on failures like Brown and Martin and other criminals, rather than on their black victims.

      Blacks will gain equality by their own efforts, but it will take longer because of actions by people today who imagine that they're doing good.

      Delete
    8. Deadrat, please cite the part of the constitution that says the majority must adjust to the minority. I assume you are talking about some mechanism by which this is made to happen, not just vague idealistic language.

      Delete
    9. The Constitution lays out principles but few "mechanisms." The latter are left to the legislatures to devise and the executives to enforce within the guidance of those principles. So my answer will be restricted to those guidelines in the Constitution that require the government to not only suffer a minority's existence in society but to protect that minority in our midst.

      Let's start with the 14th Amendment. The government is not allowed to set aside certain rights for the majority and deny those same rights to a minority. A minority under constraint must be granted the right to challenge those constraints via due process of the law, which must be applied equally. When the constrains involve basic rights or particularly vulnerable minorities, any discrimination under the law must meet what's called "strict scrutiny," i.e., the differential treatment must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and narrowly defined, indeed so narrowly defined as to leave no other means to achieve the governmental goal. In practice, strict scrutiny always defeats the state.

      In addition, the Constitution explicitly or implicitly defines certain spheres of social life in which the government may not intrude, including expression, assembly, association, religious belief, travel, and privacy. The Constitution also outlaws certain legal tricks that have been historical favorites in isolating minorities, including religious tests for public office, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and low thresholds for seditious libel.

      You may wish to argue that these rules apply to everyone, not just members of a minority, and that's true. But the majority is rarely in jeopardy from state action, and it's the minority that requires these protections for survival. Thus Nazis get to march in Skokie, Jehovah's Witnesses always win in court, and Westboro Baptist cannot be stopped from demonstrating at funerals.

      Delete
    10. These principles ensure that the minority be treated no differently than the majority. They do not say that the minority gets its way or gets special treatment independent of the measures enacted for everyone by the majority. Freedom from discrimination is not the majority adjusting to the minority. It is the minority accepting the same conditions as everyone else lives under.

      Delete
    11. @8:15P,

      Well done! Another straw man dispatched! Nay, demolished!

      Nobody is arguing that the minority gets "special" treatment, as of course, any minority is subject to the same rules of the law and avails itself of the same rights under the law as the majority.

      And well played! If there is an award for semantics, I'll nominate you for quibbling about what the word "adjusting" means. Fingers crossed; hope you win.

      In general under our system, the majority sets the rules, and the minority must abide by those rules they oppose. That's pretty much what "adjusting" means. So you might not like the WPE's going to war in Iraq, or you might not like serving black people in your restaurant, but you have to pay your taxes and serve those low-IQ patrons anyway. And it works that way because in general peaceniks and racists who find themselves in the minority must adjust how they live to the rules set by the majority warmongers and civil rightists.

      But there are significant exceptions to this rule. As I said @12:50A, "on many issues" in response to the dunderhead who opined @1:00P that "the burden of accommodation" is never going to fall on white people. (Oops! Were you the same anonymous ignoramus as Anonymous @1:00P? If so, then I'm sorry. When I said "dunderhead," I really just meant numbskull.)

      I think it fair to say that the majority would rather not see nutcases in SS uniforms marching down public streets warning about the evils of ZOG. The majority would rather not have to listen to the rantings of religious zealots whose religious zealotry contradicts their own. The majority would like to keep homophobic nutcase zealots from interrupting funerals. These are "the conditions" that the majority would like to impose, but that's too bad. Because the majority must accommodate these people. Accommodate being a synonym for "adjust to."

      And here's another one. The majority will, as expressed by laws in most states, once allowed the police to kill any fleeing suspect. These laws are now void, another adjustment that had to be made by the majority who are the unthinking friends of the Police Benevolent Association.

      Delete
    12. I fully agree with deadrat in principle. In practice all kinds of minorities have lobbied for special treatment and gotten it. Sugar farmers. Ethanol producers. Plaintiffs attorneys. Labor unions. Blacks. Women (who are not a minority). Government employees. Etc.

      Delete
    13. Sugar farmers are a minority?

      Delete
    14. deadrat, my understanding was that fleeing suspects could be shot if they were considered a danger to others.

      Delete
    15. @11:37A,

      Your understanding is correct. Thanks for sharing. Did you have a larger point?

      Delete
    16. D in C, there is one minority who really get the shaft, and thanks to you for sticking up for them - the billionaires

      Delete
  22. Scratch a 2nd Amendmenter, who has a gun to keep the tyranny of the government in check, and find an authoritarian who sides with the police and torturers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to think when you have stereotypes handy.

      Delete
    2. This. Proven on an everyday basis by the DavidinCal and cicero crew.

      Delete
  23. Torture of foreigners may be a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with authoritarianism. It's simply a means of warfare that one might disapprove of. Similarly, drones and nuclear weapons are means of war that one might disapprove of, but they're not authoritarian when used against foreign foes. Now, if they were used against Americans, that would be authoritarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When one falls over oneself to defend torture because the authorities say it isn't technically torture, it has EVERYTHING to do with authoritarianism.

      Delete
    2. OK, but it was the authorities who entered into a treaty banning torture. So, by your definition, banning torture was an authoritarian act.

      Delete
    3. That's some defense of ISIS you laid out there, DinC.

      Delete
  24. Woman driver survives encounter with brutal Southern Police force

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2014/dec/28/womshoots-hixsneighborhood/280032/

    ReplyDelete