« Broken Windows - Friday Open Thread | Main | The Varieties of Fictional Pleasure »

April 27, 2015

Comments

"This leads to folks here employing bigger and bigger cluesticks"

With all respect to Teddy Roosevelt, I am not sure this "speaking softly and carrying a big cluestick" business works as well as it should.

Balmer, Merlin.

What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?

How freaking easy is it to see yourself as superior to people who are acting badly?

Who gives a crap if you are "morally superior" to a bunch of rioters? Do you want a merit badge?

You appear to be incapable of imagining the lives of anyone not like yourself. You haven't thrown a brick, so you're good, and they are bad.

Good for you. But nobody gives a crap about your moral status as compared to that of anybody in Baltimore.

Several hundred thousand people live in Baltimore, and apparently, for many many thousands of them, it royally sucks to live there. Not because of them or any particular thing they do, but because nobody gives a flying f*** about what happens to people when their livelihoods and opportunities go the hell away.

That should be a matter of concern.

Riots are epiphenomena. The primary phenomena are what should be scaring the hell out of us, and what should be stirring whatever moral outrage we are capable of.

Who gives a crap if you are "morally superior" to a bunch of rioters?

Going by lj's link, a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less.

"a bunch of school kids trapped by cops in riot gear at a transportation hub when school let out, no less."

Because their plans to start a riot weren't quite as secret as they'd supposed. If you announce on social media, "Hey, let's riot and loot at the mall at 3pm", you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?

And I'd say I'm the one with the clue stick here, and it's just bouncing off your skulls.

Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them, if all they can do in response is things that increase the suckage, like burning the neighborhood down?

OK, I'm sorry they're uncivilzed morons. Happy?

Whoops, this conversation is going to look a little odd. Yes, it's him again, our local racist troll, I added yet another IP addy to the block list. Buh-bye, "Icarus".

I had made myself a mental note to check on Icarus, but I have been buried at work and at home (both of which buried-nesses are a GOOD thing) and just let it slip. Thanks for closing on that.

Icarus just cannot keep from flying too close to the racism.

Here are the real morons.

Don't put your moral outrage panties on backwards, folks.

What kind of moral blindness does it take to NOT feel superior to arsonists and looters?

I don't think that is really the right question. What you should ask (or be asked) is: What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?

Taking "outraged" as meaning: "we should cap their asses." And "irritated" as meaning: "they should be arrested and charged" -- knowing that their families can afford to get them a good lawyer, who will manage to get them off with community service or something.

That may not be what you think you are writing. But it is what others are reading from you. If it was just a couple of people, it could be just lacking in reading comprehension; but when a whole slew of them, with very different political views otherwise, all are getting the same take?

Because their plans to start a riot weren't quite as secret as they'd supposed

Yes, and the incredibly skillful police response was apparently to (a) cancel outbound transportation from the station so that kids who just wanted to go home couldn't leave, and (b) surround the place with cops in riot gear.

Why should I care if it royally sucks to be them

That's a question you have to answer for yourself.

OK, I'm sorry they're uncivilzed morons.

Let's assume you're right about that. Why are they such, and why aren't other people such? What are the circumstances that led these people to be uncivilized and moronic, if we accept your premise? Why are you sorry about it? Does that mean you'd like to change things so that more people don't end up the same way?

Because their plans to start a riot weren't quite as secret as they'd supposed. If you announce on social media, "Hey, let's riot and loot at the mall at 3pm", you really expect the police to not show up if somebody points it out to them?

Emphasis added by me. Pronoun trouble.

The outrage of the powerful is remarkably similar down through the ages...consider this response to an earlier tea party:

"North justified the harsh measure by asserting that Boston was "the ringleader in every riot, and set always the example which others followed." He believed severe punishment of this rebellious town would strike terror throughout the colonies, and so bring the Americans into subjection to the crown. Many of his supporters in the House used very violent language, calling the Bostonians "mobocrats," and "vile incendiaries;" men who were "never actuated by reason, but chose tarring and feathering as an argument." One member denounced them as utterly unworthy of civilized forbearance. "They ought to have their town knocked about their ears," he said; "and ought to be destroyed." He concluded his unstinted abuse by quoting the factious cry of the old Roman orators against their African enemies--"Delenda est Carthago"--Carthage must be destroyed."

Source.

"What kind of moral blindness does it take to be outraged, and feel superior, to arsonists and looters when they are poor minorities? While merely being irritated when the same behavior is exhibited by white college kids?"

What makes you think I wouldn't take the same attitude towards white college students rioting and looting, and burning buildings down? It seems to me you're asking me to tolerate in blacks what I wouldn't tolerate in whites, just because they're black. The poor dears can't be expected to be civilized, after all.

I used to live close enough to Detroit that you could hear the rioters when the suburban police stopped them at 9 mile, a half mile from my home. I've driven, many times, down the expressways that go through the heart of Detroit, seen the burned buildings with trees growing out of them close to half a century later.

These people didn't just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community. It will likely never recover.

If somebody came in from outside, (I mean, aside from the professional riot organizers who we're starting to learn are arranging these 'spontaneous' riots.) and bombed the hell out of Baltimore, it would be an act of war, we'd hunt them down like dogs.

Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors. I got no sympathy for them, none at all. It's all used up on their victims.

The primary phenomena are what should be scaring the hell out of us, and what should be stirring whatever moral outrage we are capable of.

Brett, just like the "conservatives" all over my TV, clearly don't give one hard little shit about the primary phenomena. what gets them up in the morning is being able to cluck about the problems with "black culture". every time a black kid breaks something, they get another chance to ignore things like police abuse and institutional racism. and they never let such an opportunity go by. because it's much easier to scold someone else than it is to question one's own behavior.

and they wonder why most blacks think the GOP is full of it.

Well, residents of Baltimore did this to their neighbors. Their own neighbors.

So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?

These people didn't just destroy some businesses. (And how about some sympathy for their victims, eh?) They destroyed their community

Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the '67 riots?

"So, once again, would it have been okay if all the anger, violence and destruction were directed at the police?"

Imprudent. But if people direct their anger at the people who anger them, you can at least afford to be around them. If they direct it randomly, even treating them nice isn't safe. And if they direct it where stuff is available to be stolen?

They're just theives using anger as an excuse.

"Are you thinking that the decline of Detroit over the last 50 years is due to the '67 riots?"

Are you thinking it isn't? Nobody in their right mind wants to live where people riot, do business where people riot. Detroit might have declined even without the riots, but the riots pushed it over a cliff.

It's all used up on their victims.

Have you considered that the sorts of things that pissed off the rioters are the same things their victims, in the same neighborhoods, have to put up with?

You're not angry with all the peaceful protesters are you? What do you think they're protesting? Do you have any sympathy for them or care that it royally sucks to be them?

Not all of the "real morons" were at the horse race in Baltimore County while things were unraveling in Baltimore. Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. :)

Someone's smug control devices have failed and require replacement. See your NAPA dealer for parts!

No, I'm not angry with peaceful protesters. But I've got no patience for anybody who uses even a real grievance as an excuse to go out and attack their neighbors.

An excuse, that's all I think it was. Violent thieves who knew that if they individually went on a rampage they'd be picked off, but if they did it together, they'd likely get away with it.

Don't make excuses for them.

Are you thinking it isn't?

Yes, I'm thinking it isn't.

"Yes, I'm thinking it isn't."

Obviously, I think you're wrong. Too bad we didn't have two Detroits, one of which didn't riot.

Don't make excuses for them.

I'll make excuses for anyone I please, thanks.

In any case, you seem to be open to the idea that there are real grievances, and that there are people who have those grievances other than the rioters you couldn't care less about.

So, what do you do with the same grievances the rioters have when they also apply to people who've done nothing wrong? Do you ignore them because of the riots, punishing the innocent along with the guilty?

I think I'm starting to get it.

Morally outraged bakers are used by powerful political interests who fund their public manifestos and pay for their appeals to the Supreme Court. Liberty!

Morally outraged blacks are provided morally correct tactical advise to engage in suicidal attacks on the police. Sucks to be you no matter what you do. Also Liberty!

Bobby, you have to understand. There are two conflicting demands here:
- Liberty! No government constraints on what a free person what to do.
- Order! Harsh government action against those engaged in violence (e.g. rioting and looting).

Although, I suppose, you could just give (oops! government spending) guns to everybody, so they could form local militias to shoot the rioters. Of course, we know how that goes in reality -- just look at the areas where local criminal gangs hold sway.

Perhaps what you mean is, it sucks to be an anti-anarchist, but absolutist, libertarian. At least, if you admit that most of the world does not share your high-minded virtue when it comes to dealing with others.

Jalen Bookman, 13, was furious that the rioters' actions were overshadowing the community.

"I'm angry about the way we're being viewed as not people, the way we're being viewed as less than what we were, as less than what we can be," the 8th-grader said. "Those aren't the people that care about this city. The media only focuses on the bad and never the good."


Some of them were at the White House Correspondences Dinner. :)

Yes.

...a young salesman, father of two, left a customer’s apartment and went into the streets. There was a great commotion in the streets, which, especially since it was a spring day, involved many people, including running, frightened, little boys. They were running from the police. Other people, in windows, left their windows, in terror of the police because the police had their guns out, and were aiming the guns at the roofs. Then the salesman noticed that two of the policemen were beating up a kid: “So I spoke up and asked them, ‘why are you beating him like that?’ Police jump up and start swinging on me. He put the gun on me and said, ‘get over there.’ I said, ‘what for?’ ”

An unwise question. Three of the policemen beat up the salesman in the streets. Then they took the young salesman, whose hands had been handcuffed behind his back, along with four others, much younger than the salesman, who were handcuffed in the same way, to the police station. There: “About thirty-five I’d say came into the room, and started beating, punching us in the jaw, in the stomach, in the chest, beating us with a padded club—spit on us, call us niggers, dogs, animals—they call us dogs and animals when I don’t see why we are the dogs and animals the way they are beating us. Like they beat me they beat the other kids and the elderly fellow. They throw him almost through one of the radiators. I thought he was dead over there.”

....

On April 17, some school children overturned a fruit stand in Harlem. This would have been a mere childish prank if the children had been white—had been, that is, the children of that portion of the citizenry for whom the police work and who have the power to control the police. But these children were black, and the police chased them and beat them and took out their guns; and Frank Stafford lost his eye in exactly the same way The Harlem Six lost their liberty—by trying to protect the younger children. Daniel Hamm, for example, tells us that “…we heard children scream. We turned around and walked back to see what happened. I saw this policeman with his gun out and with his billy in his hand I like put myself in the way to keep him from shooting the kids. Because first of all he was shaking like a leaf and jumping all over the place. And I thought he might shoot one of them.”

He was arrested, along with Wallace Baker, carried to the police station, beaten—“six and twelve at a time would beat us. They got so tired beating us they just came in and started spitting on us—they even bring phlegm up and spit on me.” This went on all day in the evening. Wallace Baker and Daniel Hamm were taken to Harlem Hospital for X rays and then carried back to the police station, where the beating continued all night.

that was written in 1966.

Obviously, I think you're wrong

Obviously.

We don't need two Detroits. We have the example of a number of American cities that were subject to racial riots during the 1960's.

A short list: NYC, Rochester NY, Buffalo NY, Jersey City NJ, Elizabeth NJ, Chicago, Philly, LA, Cleveland, Newark NJ, Washington DC, Baltimore, Kansas City, Louisville, and Detroit.

Just after the assassination of MLK, there were significant riots in about three dozen American cities.

Some of those cities, like Detroit, are today kind of burned-out shells of what they used to be.

Some are thriving.

Conversely, there are lots of cities that did not experience race riots in the 60's, or since, and which were doing pretty well in the 60's, but look kinda like Detroit now.

Most of them are in the rust belt. Former industrial cities, manufacturing moved out, now there's no tax base, so now they're screwed.

Cities like Youngstown, Akron, Canton, Flint and Detroit of course, Gary IN.

They're not all as far gone as Detroit, but few places in the US are.

What's the common thread across the cities that are circling the drain? Race riots 50 years ago?

I'm not seeing it.

If you want to pursue the argument, feel free, but the burden is on you to explain all of the above.

Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn't care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.

Who cares if I think I'm morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.

Earlier I was told I shouldn't think I know resistance to oppression better than the oppressed. I mocked that, and rightly. People who know how to resist oppression end up not oppressed anymore. You don't ask obese people for diet advice. You as formerly obese people. Having a problem doesn't magically gift you with insight into how to successfully solve it. The very fact you still have it suggests you lack that insight.

So, let me ask: What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting? Did Asian-Americans go from a ghettoized, oppressed minority, routinely discriminated against, to so successful they're routinely discriminated against, by rioting?

No. They were the targets of riots, not the instigators. They escaped poverty by hard work, not burning buildings down.

Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn't care about.

prove it. show us the poll data that says the individual "rioters" do not have legitimate concerns about police brutality.

Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don't care what legitimate grievances they might have.

I'm sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn't what distinguished them from the non-rioters.

Rioting was.

What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?

The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!

:)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Examples of riots that led to constructive results might include the Stonewall riots, Attica (although most of the reforms that came out of that are probably gone now), the Haymarket riot.

A lot of the early gains of organized labor were the result of violent direct action, including literal warfare.

So, it's better if people don't break stuff and light it on fire, but sometimes they do, and sometimes it actually furthers a constructive result.

I'm making no such claim in this case, I'm just answering your broader question.

What oppressed people, in a mostly free nation, ever managed to end their oppression by rioting?

the Boston Tea Party was a planned riot, complete with destruction and looting against merchants. these days, it would be called terrorism under the law.

"The (R) election canvassers of Miami-Dade country, on November 19, 2000!

:)

Sorry, couldn't resist."

I know, but you're surely aware that the polling station didn't get burned down. More of a demonstration than a riot.

Heck, they didn't even make off with the paperclips. A pity the rioters in Baltimore weren't so restrained.

But, fair enough, apparently riots do help, if you're doing other things, too.

As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.

At various times, people were physically seized and imprisoned or had their homes and property destroyed, by pissed-off colonists.

Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.

Rioting as a form of civil disturbance has quite a long history in the US.

just for starters, civil war draft riots, which see.

More of a demonstration than a riot.

The intent was to stop the recount, not to steal paper clips. The recount was suspended.

Who cares if I think I'm morally superior to looters? Hairshirthedonist, would be my impression.

I was talking about your sense of moral superiority over me, Brett, because I was too cowardly, in your opinion, to call the rioters "evil."

Yeah, the rioters had grievances people other than the rioters didn't care about. Like sporting goods stores not handing out Nike shoes for free.

and

I'm sure the rioters might have had some legitmate concerns about police brutality, especially given that they were inclined to go about attracting the hostile attentions of the police. This isn't what distinguished them from the non-rioters.

Rioting was.

It is interesting how you write this sort of stuff that completely elides the question at hand. I (We?) get what distinguishes the rioters from the non-rioters. What I'd like to know is what you think of the legitimate grievances the non-rioters have, even if they happen to be some of the same ones the rioters have. Do you ignore them because of the rioters, or do you address them because of the non-rioters?

Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have? Or do you think everyone who lives in those places deserves what they get, whether they rioted or not?

Try responding to the actual question this time, not some question in your head that kinda, sorta looks like the actual question.

As violent direct actions go during the pre-revolutionary period go, the Tea Party was kind of small-ish beer.

still, it's the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.

still, it's the one conservatives chose to use as the name for GOP v2.008.

Probably a good choice, I'm not I'd want to see what they'd make of tar and feathers.

In other news, it's apparently not just humans who rise up against their oppressors.

"Do you give a crap about the grievances people in poor, black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore have?"

Sure do. Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.

One of the reasons I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.

I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.

"People fleeing them" is one of the primary reasons for how they got to be the way they are.

Among other things, that's billions of dollars of built infrastructure you're throwing away, there.

I advocate making them better places to stay.

I advocate giving people a better chance to flee them.

Gosh, I wonder what on earth could be keeping them there?

Nonetheless, yet another argument for reparations.

Life can be hell for downtrodden minorities living in big cities that have been exclusively run by the Democratic party for almost half a century.

Forgive my ignorance. Could you, perhaps, supply some examples of cities which have been run by the Republican party for the past half century? Or even cities where administration has varied back and forth? Just so we can evaluate how much might be the problem of which party was running things, vs. how much might be a problem endemic to cities in general.

Thanks.

Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving? Walls? Machine gun nests? Secret police disappearing their relatives if they walk?

Ok, granted that last is vaguely plausible in Chigago, given recent revelations.

Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.

Sure, a case for reparations, but I doubt the DNC is going to pay up.

"Among other things, that's billions of dollars of built infrastructure you're throwing away, there."

Yeah, I'm a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.

were cities just awesome before this half-century of Democratic rule?

2015 - 50 = 1965.

yes indeed. everything was A.O.K. in US cities in 1965. no problems there. nothing at all like we have today. no sirree.

Is the Republican mayor an endangered species? Saying so for sure would be futile, but they are certainly rare in America’s biggest cities these days. Of the nation’s 35 most populous cities, 28 have Democratic mayors and 22 have had them for a very long time.

More strikingly, of the 13 big cities that were led by a Republican mayor at some point in the 21st century, just five still have one.

Indianapolis, which consists of both a city and a county, has elected Republican mayors for 36 out of the last 48 years. Miami, another city-county hybrid, has elected numerous Republicans thanks in part to a longstanding Republican lean among Cuban-Americans. The other three are Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego.
[...]

Bye, Bye GOP Mayors?: Republican mayors are rare in America’s big cities today. The few surviving ones have tips for getting into and staying in office.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of throwing away infrastructure instead of people.

A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one.

Mesa, Arizona, for instance.

Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it's clear Democrats don't have the cure, and Republicans aren't the problem.

Yet another opinion.

Indeed, what on earth could be keeping them there, that they could be justified in rioting, instead of just leaving?

What percentage of the people in Baltimore rioted? What percentage of those who rioted were old enough to decide for themselves where to live?

Nothing but being inculcated with a culture of hopelessness, and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse.

Seriously? Being told to fear Republicans keeps people living in crappy neighborhoods?

Have you considered the option that they don't have enough money to move or that they can't afford to live anywhere else, even if they could move? Or even that they'd like to improve where they live, given that it's their home, warts and all, rather than giving up and leaving?

"A magnanimous pose, for sure, but as an actual choice, a false one."

Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.

Ghost towns from the Depression say, no.

I have no idea what your point is here.

"I have no idea what [Brett's] point is here."

The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.

Yeah, we know your answer Brett; we just like to see you twisting in the wind, hoist by ideology and hypocrisy.

Might be a problem endemic to cities, but if it is, it's clear Democrats don't have the cure, and Republicans aren't the problem.

Perhaps I misread your words. I thought you were arguing, with respect to city government, that Democrats were the problem. Rather than merely arguing that Republicans were not the problem and Democrats not the solution -- a thesis that I do not recall being put forward here.

It is an interesting phenomenon that so many city governments are (D).

Even in conservative areas - Cincinnati, for example - the governments at the city level tend to be (D).

I don't know what it means, or if it means anything. It's just curious, as a data point.

"I have no idea what your point is here."

Don't doubt that a bit. The problem isn't on my end.

"The point is to distract from having to answer the question, posed over and over, of whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police."

I'm not sure why I have to answer that question yet again.

I think violence against the police is very frequently justified, rarely prudent, and irrelevant in the context of looting and arson. But, yeah, plenty of things have been going down in our major, Democrat controlled cities, which represent ample justification for violence against selected police officers, particularly in as much as those Democratic city administrations don't seem interested in fixing the problem.

Might be better directed at the people in control of the police, though that might not be prudent, either.

Again, don't see what this has to do with looting stores, or beating up innocent bystanders.

Charles, that's a great link.

And it fits what I know of another Republican (relatively) big city mayor. Mayor Ashley Swearengin has not only done a good job of starting to revive her city. She also holds positions on a variety of issues well to the left (center, actually) of the California Republican Party's recent stances. As a result of which, she became the first Republican candidate for statewide office** in some years to actually come close to winning an election.

** Arnold Schwartzeneger gets an asterix, because he won the first time only by being the best known name on an open ballot, with no run-off required. Other than him, it's been a couple of decades of drought.

whether the violence would have been justified if directed at the police.

In recent history, probably the most significant example of Those People - urban blacks - arming themselves in response to perceived police oppression was the Black Panthers, in CA, in the middle 60's.

Concerned about police abuse, the Panthers would apparently monitor police band radio and go to places where cops would be confronting blacks. The purpose was more or less what the purpose of taking pictures and videos of police actions is now - to create a record of what happened. The goal wasn't to shoot cops, but they would openly carry firearms when they did this.

This led to laws restricting open carry, and the Panthers responded by openly carrying firearms at the CA state capitol.

Which, in turn, prompted the passage of the Mulford Act.

I'm curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther's use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities. With or without firearms.

Don't doubt that a bit. The problem isn't on my end.

I'm filing this under "non-responsive".

"I think violence against the police is very frequently justified"

Good, we'll just have to make sure you're on the jury of accused cop-killers.

Like I've got any chance of getting on a jury in such a case. 5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case. I'm a jury nulification advocate, remember?

Yeah, I'd have no problem at all with self defense against a police officer.

Again, what's this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise? They didn't stage a riot at the police station, they did it at the mall.

More stuff to walk away with there.

I'm curious to know the thoughts of anyone here, regardless of your position on the gun thing in general, about the Panther's use of civilian patrols specifically monitoring police activities.

I think it was a good thing, although honestly I'm a little at a loss as to how to measure overall effectiveness.

Civilian oversight of the government is essential. That includes the police.

Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.

Yeah, I've got a lot less problem with the Black Panthers carring guns while confronting police, than carrying billy clubs while confronting voters.

I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either. I didn't feel like bothering to ask, but the problem wasn't on Brett's end, so there.

Again, what's this got to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise?

Nothing. It has nothing to do with a riot against innocent store owners with portable merchandise.

It was a different question.

As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you.

The rest of us appear to be interested in other things.

Carrying guns? Honestly, given how well some officers respond to oversight, that was probably prudent.

Perhaps.

and perhaps not.

the problem wasn't on Brett's end

No, it's no longer in Brett's lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away.

Screw that.

I had no idea what the comment about ghost towns from the depression was supposed to mean, either.

I believe it was cited as precedent for people up and leaving when there's no longer economic opportunity in an area. Not sure that really maps to a city the size of Baltimore/Detroit, etc.

"As far as I can tell, the person most intent on discussing rioting and destruction of private property is you."

Well, sorry, I thought we were talking about the Baltimore riots.

"No, it's no longer in Brett's lap, because he dropped it in our laps and walked away."

You seriously don't see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns? Here's a clue: Ghost towns are infrastructure.

How many lives got wasted in Detroit, because people stayed there, instead of leaving? Screw all that infrastructure. If the parents and grandparents of the poor in Detroit had left when the getting was good, they'd be better off now.

The people running cities don't like losing population, even if it's population so poor they cost more in services than they produce in tax revenues. Because they'll be compensated for those losses by the larger society.

The result is we have a system for dealing with the poor that's mostly intended to keep them where they are, even if that keeps them poor, instead of helping them leave for someplace where they'd have better prospects.

No, nothing was keeping those people to suffer in Baltimore, except that they were being paid, badly, to stay there. But enough that Newton's 1st law kept them there.

Didn't have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost towns, and people living someplace else with their dignity and independence preserved.

Don't think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, "Smart choice!"

and perhaps not.

You're going to have to connect the dots for me between an armed raid, which according to your link was extremely one-sided, and the situation russell described.

5 minutes googling me, and no prosecutor in the country would permit me on a jury in his case.

What would a prosecutor have against a hockey player? :)

Wow.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.

It's not that cities like Baltimore and Detroit don't have the potential for economic opportunity. It's that the current stakeholders in the status quo have and will fight it tooth and nail.

Wow

it gets even better.

Didn't have that during the Depression, so people left when a place had no jobs, and you got ghost town

and where are all these jobs today? where are the millions of unfilled jobs? where are the hundreds of thousands of employers itching to hire all these presumably-low-skill workers?

nowhere, that's where.

You seriously don't see the connection between chosing to sacrifice infrastructure instead of people, and ghost towns?

That connection is clear.

What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one.

Rather than explain why it's better encourage people to simply leave blighted areas, rather than invest in those areas, you cite examples, from 80 years ago, of people responding to depressed economic circumstances by leaving wherever it is they lived.

So, we end up with this sequence of comments:

Brett: the best solution to blighted urban areas is for people to leave them.

russell: I disagree, IMO it makes more sense to rejuvenate the blighted areas.

Brett: Yeah, but people left blighted areas during the Depression.

Hence, my comment that your point was obscure. In other words, how does the fact that people moved away from poverty stricken areas 80 years ago make the case that the best path forward for people in, for instance, Baltimore is to move somewhere else?

For one thing, it wasn't always so great for people to move from wherever they lived to somewhere else 80 years ago.

Do you know any people who did that? I do. It wasn't always so great. Dignity and independence were not always preserved.

And presenting it as a choice between "saving people" vs "saving infrastructure" is a false choice. At best it's a self-serving attempt to reframe the issue so as to flatter yourself by making it sound like you, uniquely, are concerned about the people involved.

"What your reply fails to do is address my comment, which was that the choice between preserving infrastructure and helping people is a false one."

No, I don't think it's a false choice. With different people in charge of those areas, it might be. But getting up and walking away isn't a coordination problem, putting good people in charge when the bad people want to stay in charge, is.

I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement. Especially when they're long standing problems, which suggests agreement won't be achieved.

Don't think tragedy when you see a ghost town. Think, "Smart choice!"

I don't think you understand what russell means by "false choice." Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren't the only two. That some people at some point did choose to abandon towns (i.e. infrastructure), rather than stay and, supposedly, be abandoned themselves, doesn't change the fact that there are other options, even if there weren't other options in towns that turned out to be ghost towns because of the Great Depression.

We're not talking about smaller towns (some of which may have sprung up almost as fast as they were abandoned), and it isn't the Great Depression.

So the relevance still eludes me.

Late to the party again. I really need to refresh, after reading a bunch of comments, before I comment.

I really dislike solutions to problems that require agreement to implement.

That's fine. And, your policy preferences reflect your personal preferences, which is also fine.

The range of options that are available that will address things like "this entire industry moved to another continent" which also don't require agreement are fairly limited.

So, those of us who aren't averse to having agreement be part of the mix will likely be inclined to cast a wider net.

Wow, indeed. It's like the Governor of Texas didn't consider that, if there was a plan for a military takeover of Texas, nationalizing the National Guard (i.e. moving them under control and command of the Army) would be the first thing the Federal government would do.

But then, perhaps Texas doesn't teach much detail about the history of the Civil Rights movement. And how the Feds dealt with governors who were attempting to use the National Guard to enforce segregation in defiance of Federal law.

Brett: Honestly, once somebody starts attacking innocent people, I don't care what legitimate grievances they might have.

I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?

(And no, you can't justify attacking innocent people because somebody else was throwing rocks or smashing windows. Innocent is innocent.)

Gang warfare

*href

Not, for example, hraf. Fixed.

thanks. it looked wrong, so i posted it then took a nap. now it looks ok! strange, that.

"Abandoning infrastructure or abandoning people, as you put it, are two of the available options, but they aren't the only two."

Who's making the choice? It ain't you. Or me.

Because for fifty years, they've been abandoning the people. And you expect that, suddenly, they're going to switch to the optimum solution, that preserves both? (Assuming they have the slightest idea what it is.) Why do you believe this?

I believe they've been making the choice that abandons the people for fifty years, because they see it as in their own interests, and they're not going to suddenly change, so the realistic thing to do is aid those people in removing themselves from being subject to those hostile choices.

You can change Baltimore, Detroit, Flint, and so forth. It doesn't violate any laws of physics I know of. But you haven't in half a century, so why do you expect to?

Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don't need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.

Why sacrifice all those people to your determination to achieve the improbable optimum solution? Save them, instead.

This, I've long been convinced, is the real divide between liberal and conservative. One side is fighting to achieve the best possible outcome, at the cost of making the worst possible outcome more likely. The other is fighting to prevent the worst possible outcome, at the cost of making the best possible outcome less likely.

Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I'm firmly in the latter camp.

"I assume this applies to the police in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other American cities. Right, Brett?"

Why did I even bother posting this comment? Of course it does. I've been saying this over and over: Violence against police is frequently justified. Why? Because they frequently are violent themselves for no good reason.

Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don't need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.

How, exactly? Serious question.

Also, where are the conservative communities champing at the bit to accept a large influx of jobless and completely destitute (remember, they're abandoning any real estate they might have, and very possibly don't have the resources to move their household possessions, but abandoning them is better than staying put, right? Even when you're living at best paycheck to paycheck and have no savings?) inner-city urban refugees, primarily of other-than-European extraction? Because if there's no place for them to go where their life won't be significantly worse than it is now, telling them that they need to leave is laughable.

NV, are you seriously arguing that it isn't their fault for staying where they are, rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn't want them? And will probably roll out their own police forces to keep them away?

I mean, look at it logically. If people moving from where they have no prospects to where they have better prospects is the right thing to do for those in inner city slums, then it would have to be the right thing to do for would-be immigrants. And so any talk about "securing our borders" would be obviously just wrong. Wouldn't it?

So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?

Yeah, I'm also wondering where those generous, tidy, ordered communities are, that have been saying "Man, if we only had some URBAN POOR, we'd be doing so much better!"

I'm probably just not reading the right magazines.

"rather than tying to move to somewhere that absolutely doesn't want them?"

And I was made fun of for that, "and being told that everywhere the evul Republicans rule is worse." remark. Yet, here it is, in it's full glory. Stay where you are, urban poor, no matter how hopeless the situation is: Nobody anywhere else will accept you!

What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who's in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.

Granted, the urban poor have been crafted into a culture of poverty by the elite of the areas they're currently mired in. They really do need some help in doing something about that. And, haven't I made proposals of how to accomplish that?

"So anyone who argues for securing our borders to keep out those with minimal skills must, to be consistent, oppose encouraging the poor to move out of cities which are disaster zones. Right? Right?"

Wrong. Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity, while the poor who are citizens of other countries are NOT members of our polity. They have their own society that's supposed to have that relationship with them.

Just because we should help our own downtrodden, doesn't mean we should import other countries' downtrodden, just to make the job harder.

Since the worst possible outcome precludes any future positive outcomes, I'm firmly in the latter camp.

Like climate change?

What bunk. Conservative areas will generally accept anybody who's in the country legally, and is willing to work for a living, instead of expecting others to support them.

That is absolute utter bullshit.

I'm not the one telling poor people living in hopeless situations to stay there, now, am I?

If I had a clue what Brett was actually proposing, as a matter of policy, I'd be less befuddled. As it stands, not so much. What I can gather is that somehow Democrats are keeping the urban poor from moving, and that Democrats should stop whatever it is they're doing to that end.

The rest about best and worst outcomes is a load of meaningless horse excrement.

Why is it "somehow", when I described how? By paying them just enough support that inertia can take over, and telling them tales about how they wouldn't be welcome anywhere else, so they have no hope that they can escape to something better.

Because the poor who are American citizens are already members of our polity

But I think part of the problem is that they are not at all sure that they are seen as part of our polity by the rest of us.

That's ridiculous. What's your policy prescription? Democrats knock it off?

Or you can help people escape. THAT you can do tomorrow, and you don't need the power structures of those cities to agree with you to do it.

How, exactly? Serious question.

wj, that's only because Democrats poisoned their minds. It's all part of their evil plan.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad