iamshack

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 06:30 AM) Young love is hilarious. We've all been there. Still doesn't make the above any less hilarious. Move along, plenty of babes out there. Hah, I thought the exact same thing while I was reading Joe's story on the s***ter this morning. Thank goodness I am not dealing with that nonsense anymore.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 07:57 PM) He didn't have to say s***. He didn't have to pretend it was intentionally spiked by someone who had to be the collector to get off. It was selfish and hurt somebody just for his personal gain. I'm glad he's getting his public shame now Haha...he was protecting his multimillion dollar image. It's really easy to sit here as a normal schlep and criticize a guy that has all that for trying to keep it.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 07:52 PM) If you're Ryan Braun, of course not. Because he's a dirty, lying, piece of s***. Anyone would do the same in his position, especially if you were Ryan Braun.

You guys are f***ing nuts...wth did you expect the guy to say? "We'll, I can get off on a technicality here but I'm not going to pursue it because I'm an honest guy. You caught me...I'm guilty."

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 21, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) Regardless of Hawk's fate, I hope we see the last of Stone soon. ? Just watched the Hawk documentary. I don't know how you could be a man and not enjoy that.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) The Brewers should absolutely be able to void his contract, and have Braun go away forever. I'm so sick of these s***heads. Why would they possibly want to do this?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 02:16 PM) It doesn't happen as often now but when I was younger, being outside at night wearing dark clothes and a Sox hat, talking to my friend on the corner at night was reason enough to be spread eagled on the hood of a cop car. Well that's inexcusable. It did happen to white kids too though.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) Yes. Based off both my the experiences of several people I know, and my own life experience to a lesser degree. I know that all police aren't the same too. Why? Well, I don't think it is that bad...maybe I am wrong (newsflash, I am not black)...but while I think being black or hispanic or just poor in general is a factor in whether a police officer will become suspicious, I don't think it is the main one. I think if you are going about your business and don't act like a goof, the cops will leave you alone. There are obviously some instances where a cop is a rogue racist cocksucker and looks to hassle minorities just for s***s, but I think those are extremely rare these days. Usually where it gets messy is if someone is in a place and a time where criminal activity tends to occur frequently, and you fit the profile of someone who might be involved. Is that wrong? Yes. Is it easy to fix and yet still maintain order and provide a police officer with a chance to protect himself? I'm not sure that one is so easy...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) Me either. Um I'm going to go ahead and try anyway 1. Reasonable suspicion is being black. Not officially, but in practice 2. Reasonable suspicion is communicating with known or suspected foreign terrorists All sarcasm aside, do you really believe that?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) I'm sure there's a pretty substantial cross-section of people in this country support stuff like stop-and-frisk but they will freak the f*** out about electronic surveillance and the Patriot Act (which actually have far less direct impact on your life individually). Kinda sucks when that shoe is on your foot right? (I didn't name anyone's name on purpose, but a dog tends to holler when it's hit and so on.) I'm not even saying I support stop and frisk, and I am also on record as saying I could give a s*** about electronic surveillance and the Patriot Act. And to be even more honest, I don't particularly like police officers. I've had my fair share of hassle from them for simply knowing my rights and not putting up with their nonsense over the years. But we have to be realistic, at the same time. It's almost like the rant Jack Nicholson used in A Few Good Men: There is a bit of truth to that, and I know people will laugh at this example, but that line always strikes a chord in me. We ask these officers to protect us from some of the worst of ourselves, and while it would be wonderful if they could always do it without abusing anyone's civil liberties, I just don't know if that is being realistic. Anyone who's been in that line of fire will attest to the difficulty in performing the duties expected of them while also always doing what those who sit around in leather chairs might tell them they should perform them. It's not that simple. It's very difficult, in fact. Unless I am in their shoes and putting my life on the line every day, I am just not sure I feel particularly comfortable criticizing them when the solution isn't simple.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) Not that I'm surprised, but that "study" (it's just numbers) reports a seasonal change. That's not analysis, that's just reading off numbers. If it's anything like the municipalities I've studied in my work, crimes usually go up significantly in the summertime anyway. Someone should have taken the time to look at these numbers over a longer span of time instead of just spewing out nonsense No one is claiming that it should be published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but aren't most studies just observations about a bunch of data collection?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) That also reads quite readily as "Crime increases during summer months", which I'm also pretty sure is true. Conveniently, it took me 1 google search to find that the 12% increase in crime is right in line with the 10-13% increase in crime recorded normally during the summer according to FBI statistics. Now let me tell you what I really think about citing the NY Post after their wondrous performance and hyper-attention to accuracy and detail demonstrated during the boston bombings... Except the period discussed in the NY Post piece is April 1 to June 30th.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) Some sort of study that comes to that conclusion. Every one that I know of comes to the opposite conclusion. Crime up after Stop and Frisks Decline

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) In the meantime, we stop enacting racist policies like S-A-F. That's it. I don't need an alternative beyond that in order to criticize S-A-F. We aren't facing some crime epidemic (we're at 50-year lows), but when you increasingly target a certain community for policing, it means more marginalization, more incarceration and that means more poverty. S-A-F makes things worse now and in the future. There are volumes of writings on this out there and I won't pretend that I, personally, know the sure-path forward. But that doesn't mean I can't tell when we're heading in the wrong direction. tl;dr we stop smashing our hands with the hammer and then we worry about fixing the broken bones. See that premise assumes that people just decided to put in a policy like this for fun. Or because they are racist. Do you really think that is the case?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-...new?id=19735432 Oh that is just too rich to even be true!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) There is no evidence that racial profiling is actually effective in reducing crime and plenty of evidence that it leads to negative outcomes for the profiled communities, both from the official profilers and from society at large. You get at this below, that it marginalizes these communities and perpetuates the problems. I think this is a reasonable comment. I think that, as you noted, the reality is that poverty is a vicious cycle that leads to more poverty and more violence. This is multiplied when we have public policy that results in systemic racism, as S-A-F does, further marginalizing people. The alternative is to stamp out these policies where we see them, stop marginalizing communities, and work to end poverty. S-A-F will never do anything but send more black men to jail or the grave and harass countless others. That will only make things worse in the long run, not better. What exactly would be evidence, in your mind, that racial profiling does reduce crime? I agree with you generally about the stopping of marginalization, but you are not facing the actual problem in the first place. We do have all this gun violence. We do have a disproportionate amount of minorities of the male gender committing violent crimes. We do have a gang and drug and gun culture in our ghettos. How does that get solved in the meantime? How do our police officers police those neighborhoods? I would guess that your solution would be to attack this problem at it's root, by trying to improve the situation of those in poverty before they have to make the decision between the straight and narrow and not having food to eat, or a life of crime and possibly becoming rich...but what do we do in the meantime? What do we have our law enforcement folks do?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 12:54 PM) Shouldn't Peavy's value be closer to James Shields' rather than Matt Garza's? Quite a few people think the Royals should have never included Wil Myers in that deal, so it just depends on whether you are among the group that counts that trade or chalks it up to Dayton Moore being an idiot

Post that again, SS...I'd like to respond.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) Yeah I agree. Shack, just admit you're a member of the privileged white majority (i.e., a filthy racist). Then we can have a REAL discussion about race in America and how it's all the GOP's fault. Honestly, talk to almost any cop in a metro area and they will tell you how difficult a spot you put them in by throwing all this profiling crap on them. One of my fiancee's bridesmaids is married to an African American police officer here in Las Vegas (yes, to prove I am not a racist, I am going to throw out the "I have a black friend!" story) and he has told us time and time again how he started out thinking he was never going to profile anyone and he would always be fair, etc., only to realize how incredibly naive he was. That after being exposed to this crap day-in and day-out, it just becomes second nature to look at certain people a certain way, and he thinks it has actually saved his own life several times. I know that is just anecdotal evidence, but I have heard the same story time and again from police officers.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) It seems pretty simple. End SAF and quit punishing large groups of people for sins of a few people. It's inefficient and even if it did make some dent in crime (as SS pointed out, it doesn't appear to even do this), it wouldn't be worth the costs anyway. The problem of crime isn't solved by simply removing SAF and doing nothing else, but the overall situation is improved by just ending SAF. As far as political will goes, I tend to think that SAF either is very unpopular with people who live in cities or it can certainly become unpopular with a little bit of effort. Is it that simple? If it was so simple, do you think the Mayor of NY would be convinced that this program is working for NYC? We have a massive issue with the gun culture in this country. In major cities, we often have several murders a weekend which are being carried out with illegally-obtained guns. We have a problem with gangs and drugs as well, which only proliferates the use of these illegally-obtained guns. I really don't think there is a disproportionate amount of racist people in the law enforcement industry and I really don't think our municipal and state leaders want to put in place racist programs. The reality is we have many disadvantaged minorities that turn to crime because the honest path is either too harrowing or perhaps even nearly impossible and so getting involved in criminal activities is the only reasonable method of survival they foresee. Then you have a police force and a law enforcement industry that is made up of human beings that gets constantly exposed to the reality of seeing many of these same minorities as the offenders. They get conditioned to expecting others that might exhibit some of these same characteristics or behaviors to be offenders as well. This conditioning manifests itself in profiling. It isn't fair and it isn't right, but honestly, I am not sure what the alternative is. What do you guys think?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) This is a boring cliche that appeals to tradition in support of the status quo, allowing the person to never actually have to put forth a defense of the policy or ideology in question. If you want to criticize TNC or his article for being elitist, too intellectual, or naive, go ahead. Make an argument. Point out what he's missing, why he's wrong, why Cohen's right. So far you've said essentially nothing other than "while how would he solve crime?!" I made an argument in my second or third post on the topic, which was conveniently ignored. I'm confused here, because I've made a general statement here saying that these commentators need to do more and whine less. You've now accused me both of specifically attacking this article while also not specifically attacking this article and the author. I've tried to point out several times now that my ire isn't necessarily directed at this particular article, author, or topic, but rather, this type of journalism or commentating. Why should I be compelled now to make an argument about this particular author, article, or topic?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:52 AM) That's politics in America, man Which is why I stay out of it for the most part...but sometimes it just gets tiring...I've found that most of the times I thought there was an answer to a problem of which I didn't have much experience with, it became clear that the answers weren't as obvious as my experience level with that problem increased. With age, I think most people would generally agree that things aren't as simple or easy as one might think most of the time, and that there actually were smarter people that came before you and noticed these same things you did....it's why many people begin on the left and slowly drift to the right as they age.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:40 AM) Ok with all due respect this makes no sense at all. Ta-Nehisi Coates is a writer for the Athantic Monthly (or senior editor, something like that). What's he supposed to do, NOT write for the Atlantic Monthly? You just admitted you don't even know who he is, how do you know what other action he takes in addition to writing articles, i.e., doing his job? My most sincere apologies to TNC and all his fans. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be more action taken and less pontificating. There are too many commentators on the left who think they know everything and express as much in constant television appearances and in columns for various "intellectual" publications. I understand there is a need for there to be intellectual debate, and I appreciate that. But there is often a level of pompousness in these writings that really bothers me. I would like to see these same folks do a ride along in some of these inner-city neighborhoods and then lecture the officer on how he is profiling...I think there is a disconnect between many of these commentators and those in the real world trying to deal with some of these issues, and I find it a bit unfair to sit up on your pulpit and criticize others, when let's face it, many of these intellectuals don't know jack s*** about the realities of what or whom they are criticizing. I'd like to see many of them do less lecturing and more doing, or else just shut the hell up.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) Not trying to put myself into this particular argument, but "concern trolling" has a specific meaning to it and intent behind it. When Rush Limbaugh brings up Chicago's crime rate on his show, he has no intention whatsoever of actually suggesting anything to help, he only brings it up as a means to stifle a topic of debate he doesn't like. Another example (one that I do sometimes) is a liberal talking about how Republicans shouldn't elect someone like Sanford because it undermines their "family values" platform (when in reality, they don't give a s*** and actually get off on that kind of flagrant hypocrisy). Well, I don't think I am "concern trolling" then. It is altogether different to suggest there needs to be an emphasis placed on getting off the sideline and taking action rather than writing fancy articles in the Atlantic Monthly that only your other friends that write in the Atlantic Monthly understand. And if you don't have the energy to actually do something about it, then maybe you're a bit of a hypocrite for spending so much time crying foul about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2013 -> 10:12 AM) This is an easy argument to make when you're not part of the targeted class. [citation needed] S-A-F is akin to hand-smashing precisely because it's so dumb, pointless and harmful. Believe it or not, SS, I have been part of this type of profiling. I was actually arrested and jailed for it in New Orleans. But because I am not black, I have no idea what it is like to be profiled by a cop, right?