More than that I cannot ask…

To put in another way: If I used the same methods as Michelle Alexander, I could very easily write a 300 page book “proving” that society is at war with young men of all colors, because…

…it’s young men we put prison, it’s young men we send to Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s young men who have to pay the most for car insurance, it’s young men who beat each other up in gladiatorial contests on pay-per-view, it’s young men who have a median net worth that is X% less than elderly widows, it’s young men who so often play the fool on television sitcoms, it’s young men who have their self esteem destroyed by minstrel stereotypes like David Spade and Charlie Sheen, it’s young men who get killed on the street corners, young men who get beat up in the bars, etc.

Now just look at all those negative consequences. They must be intentional. They must!

Can you see what’s wrong with that reasoning?

Fair enough. If you want a more detailed discussion, check out this thread: http://www.theagitator.com/2012/05/13/watch-them-explode/. It had a pretty good exchange on the “New Jim Crow” thesis.

The short version is this:

No one doubts that the drug war and the criminal justice system today hit with a racially disparate impact. But there is no evidence that the disparate impact is anything other than one more in a seemingly endless series of unintended consequences. The burden of proof is on the positive, and anyone claiming that racism is the “real” reason why we have a drug war would have to produce direct evidence of that. No one has.

Indeed, check out reason.com’s article yesterday on the evolution of Charlie Rangel from drug war hawk to legalization dove. They point out that, 40 years ago, it was considered racist NOT to support the drug war, because the harm of drugs was said to have a disparate impact on minorities and the urban poor.

A sign of the apocalypse for sure. Along with the murder charges filed against the Fullerton, CA police in the Kelly Thomas beating death, this is the only other instance I have read about where an on-duty cop acting in the line of duty has been charged with murder.

Let’s hope it’s the beginning of a trend.

And, as always, fuck all cops everywhere.

I have observed that a number of agencies have very strong passive-aggressive tendencies, immigration-related ones more so than most. Whenever there’s a clamor for them to do their job, they will go out of their way enforce the laws against the people who would be most worthy of waivers. Then when there’s a public outcry against that, they use that as an argument that the law shouldn’t be enforced against anyone.

BTW, many agencies also employ passive-aggressive budgeting: assign things that the public doesn’t want cut the *lowest* priority. That way, when there’s a call for budget cuts, the cuts will fall upon things that people don’t want cut. Then, since the public won’t let those things be cut, nothing will get cut.

Bloomberg out-Bloombergs himself.

The tyranny of good intentions run amok in NYC.

Rules are made to be broken, especially those rules that are chickenshit in nature so as to allow qubbiling bureaucrats the power to deny Elizabeth Olivas a high school homecoming queen and class salutatorian the ability to return home (she has been in Mexico for six weeks).

She has lived in the US since age 4 and is now being punished for the “sins” of her parents.

That book will set you back years in any serious attempt to understand the war on drugs and the problems of race and criminal justice in America.

If you must read it…read it carefully and critically. I think you’ll find it falls apart under even a mild dose of scrutiny.

Yeah, I know. Pretty much said that. Geez. (kicks pebble)

Shit! I missed the “used to”. Apologies. (eats pebble).

Yeah, I know. Pretty much said that. Geez. (kicks pebble)

Bloomberg is an idiot. I assume he used to have half a brain when he was actually running a business, or was that all based on kissing the right butts? Did something fall on his head?

At any rate, if I ran a restaurant in NYC I’d want to be the first guy to offer “buy two medium sodas, get the second one for half off”.

I understand that the ban won’t apply to diet sodas. So does that mean that McDonald’s will give me a big cup as long as I swear at the register not to fill it with regular Coke? And if I do, will they have to forcibly restrain me from drinking it to avoid getting fined by the city?

RE: defamation.

True but then again the couple of sites that I looked at make no attempt to remove pictures of people who are innocent. And there are quite a few people who assume being arrest means you committed a crime. (it worked when Arpaio had his opponent arrested). Then demanding money to remove the picture suggests their intent is to shame/embarrass people so that they pay to have it removed.

But perhaps you’re right. Sleezy as this is, it wouldn’t hold water in court.

—————

What I meant by deleting mugshots was, taking them for internal identification purposes only. Keep them for private use only. Then once the person served their time (or found not guilty/charges dropped) delete the photo. No press released photos.

Again, whether that would/could actually work i’m not sure but then again it would require actual professionalism not “new professionalism”

and again that would never happen because press releases are so much better when you can pin a crime to a face. simply saying “John smith, 32, was arrested for possession of 3 grams of cannabis” isn’t nearly as impressive or useful. Posting a picture of some guy with messy hair and splotchy skin sends a great message that “we’re not arresting nice people. Only undesirables”