Sunday, December 14, 2014

Bill De Blasio takes heat from Police Unions - Responds to former mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments on handling of Eric Garner Issue

Bill De Blasio
New York City mayor Bill De Blasio is coming under fire from NYC police unions after he made comments critical of the police in the wake of the grand jury decision in the case of Eric Garner. Garner was choked to death by Officer Daniel Pantaleo, after police confronted him about selling loose cigarettes on the street.

New York State, and NYC in particular have steep and overbearing taxes on tobacco which has led to a thriving black market for cigarettes that spans a good portion of the North Eastern US. Criminals are getting rich and NY is losing hundreds of millions in tax revenue because of their war on tobacco.

Because of this caustic environment many smokers and entrepreneurs are turning to the black market to save or make money. One such aspiring capitalist was Eric Garner who was selling loose cigarettes on the street to make some cash. The police accosted him about his actions and an argument ensued at which point he was set upon by officers who took him to the ground while Officer Pantaleo held him by his neck using his forearm to keep him in a choke hold. There were many ways this simple disagreement could have played out, instead one man is dead and the officer who overreacted will not be indicted in his murder.

Mayor Bill De Blasio is with the people on this issue. He believes that the police were wrong, and is proposing retraining of officers to help avoid incidents like this in the future. Much of the news we have seen in recent months dealing with police violence; especially against African Americans, stems from two fundamental problems.

1.Poorer black communities have an alarmingly higher rate of crime, particularly violent crime in contrast with other lower class neighborhoods. These issues are ongoing and black leaders and politicians have failed to properly address this issue, or offer possible solutions. Civil rights leaders are silent on the issue, and politicians like De Blasio believe the violence is not the issue, but the police response to it. De Blasio said in an interview with ABC news George Stephanopoulos:

"I think he fundamentally misunderstands the reality. There is a problem here. There is a rift here that has to be overcome. You cannot look at the incident in Missouri; another incident in Cleveland, Ohio; and another incident in New York City all happening in the space of weeks and act like there's not a problem."

"There's something fundamental we have to get at here, and it's not going to be helped by accusing either the community or the police of having bad intention or not doing their job. In fact, I think everyone is trying to do their job."

2.Officers who deal with the criminal element in these areas are more worried about violence and therefore take a stance that is more aggressive than otherwise would be necessary. They fear for their lives on a daily basis and their actions reflect that fear. There is also an underlying element of racial bias attached to this fear. These officers have become hardened by their experience in these crime ridden neighborhoods and their has now turned to anger that is reflected back brutally on the communities they were hired to protect.

De Blasio sounds like the issue is only about mending the gap between the community and law enforcement and that somehow just giving the police a little 'sensitivity' training will fix the issue. Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani contends that we need to correct the problems plaguing the black community to get the police to relax. Both of them are half right.

We need to correct the problems of crime in black communities and change the perceptions of the minds of the young men and women of these communities that has been driving them to destroy the very communities they live in whenever a perceived injustice takes place. Just as important however is the need for police to understand their role in serving the community better, learn new techniques to subdue or arrest criminals-or defuse a situation without using lethal force, and also that they be held accountable and fiercely prosecuted should they fail to live up to those standards we set for them.

Transparency and accountability coupled with proper limitations on the authority given to police will go a long way in solving that issue. There does need to be changes made in the communities these men and women are serving as well.

The fact that black leaders are refusing to openly discuss or diverting the conversation from the issue of the decaying state of black communities all over this country is appalling. Their deflection from this issue only serves to increase the problem and does more harm to these communities than good. The issue is always diverted to racial bias; and I get that, but most cops aren't racist and even black police officers commit the same kinds of violations on the citizenry as their white counterparts.

Let us not forget the fact that black police violence on whites also exists. It will be argued that violence is always worse when the officer is white and the criminal black, but white on black crime is reported far more often than the reverse and even police statistics and criminal databases don't always reflect the race of the individuals involved.

Police Unions are reacting poorly to De Blasio's comments after the grand jury verdict and are calling for De Blasio to be banned from attending funerals for fallen officers. They claim his remarks are disrespectful and don't reflect the views of the public at large. De Blasio defends the statements he made by saying:

"I make it a point not to talk about any element of the judicial process per se, I'd talk about what we have to do to fix the relationship between police and the community... As an executive in public service, I think it's important to respect the judicial process."

The real test for De Blasio will come after he has had time to make changes to the role of law enforcement and look at the results. Will his retraining of officers lead to a better relationship between police and the community, and will police officers actually be held accountable for their actions when the cross the boundary of their station and commit assault or murder on a citizen they are charged to protect?

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Ferguson And Police Brutality – Lessons We Need To Learn

I'm angry about unchecked black crime, but just as angry about unchecked police crime. Ferguson has two lessons for America to learn.

Just outside Ferguson-large group of teenage(under 18) Black and Hispanic kids beat a white guy to death with a hammer. This probably won't garner any news attention.
It won't be the hot topic for the next month, just like the half a dozen other crime stories I've seen this week from around the country of purely brutal and inhuman actions by black youth on white people that do not get any attention from the media.

Even prominent members of the black community are standing up and saying that it's time for black America to wake up and start taking responsibility for the children that are being raised to be thug wanna be gangsters. 
It needs to stop now. Seriously.

But let me finish by saying this. Police are a protected group and we need to tear down every police organization in this country and rebuild them from the ground up and make EVERY officer responsible for the clear violations of the civil rights of individuals of ALL COLORS. In most places in this country officers have never been charged after an investigation of brutality or murder even if their is compelling and overwhelming evidence.

Video tape every police encounter. If you feel an individuals life is in danger do what is necessary to stop the police. If need be in your area form gangs of good Samaritans whose job it is to protect the citizens from the police. File lawsuits, put their crimes all over the internet, organize, demonize, and tear down corrupt law enforcement any where you see it.

Indiana even recently changed the wording of their "Castle Doctrine" to include using force against 'public servants' who try to enter your home illegally, or harm your property or family. People are waking up, perhaps not fast enough, but it's happening.

The police have become reckless and  power mad and the people of this nation are suffering for it. They work for us, this is our country, and if they can't get that into their heads then we need to force that change no matter how daunting or painful a task it might be. Police Brutality has to end, and only we can do it.

Battle of the Sexes Gets Real Feminist Stranglehold Complete

I saw this coming, but to speak is to be misogynistic hence this story rings truer than true. Such is life, and it’s a shame that the battle of the sexes comes down to this.

Men want to be men, and some women want men to be gay men that love them, other women just want men to be men, but the former shouts louder than the latter and so we have hipsters in tight pants and pink shirts, and men who don’t conform shouted down for being ‘normal.’ This really is a shitty country to be living in right now.

Equality must allow for for both sexes to maintain their identity, however some of the more extreme forms of feminism reject much of what constitutes a mans identity, making it criminal and relegating men who want simply to be themselves to outcast status. This is not equality.

Men who do not conform to this new ideal are not misogynistic, do not constitute a patriarchy, nor does their identity create a ‘rape’ culture. Bad people with bad intentions exist everywhere, and there are far too many factors that determine who will commit what heinous act.

To make male bravado or even the ill-thought out catcalls or late night bar comments a prime suspect in a contributing factor to female abuse or rape is nothing short of ludicrous. Saying you want to kill a cat does not make you a murderer, killing your cat does.

A man might comment on your breasts, but more than likely it is because he is lonely and feeling in need to love or perhaps coitus to make his evening complete. There needs to be the desire and the lack of moral compass in place before he would take those affections by force.

Categorizing men in such a fashion puts even the most banal aspects of relationships in a position of undue strain from the beginning. The woman constantly in fear that her man will disappoint or offend her. Then man scared that an innocent word or gesture could be twisted and distorted until his words constitute abuse and his affections violation.

This does not mean that this is the only outcome possible, but it seems that putting mental regulations on good old courtship makes it too much hassle when the best course of action is communication, empathy and mindfulness take care of these requirements just fine. Don’t assume there is a problem prior to the problem actually existing. Your hair will fall out.

I know I don’t have all the answers; some of what I say may not get to the heart of the matter, but I think it needs to be said. Men need to fight back against attacks on our manhood regardless of the current sociopolitical climate. We deserve better, but we also need to do better by women . This isn’t optional.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Living in the new Progressive Era

The 21st century has ushered in so many great changes and advances in all areas of science, communication, entertainment, and medicine. It does however trouble me that we have over the last 14 years become a nation so polarized, so divided, and so skittish and politically correct that it amazes me we can even function at all.

There seems to be no middle ground in the arenas of health care, abortion, women's rights, racism, sexism, gay name it, you are on one side or another; and even if you aren't taking sides, you are bombarded with the nonsense all day, every day. How is it that we are doing so little progressing in the new era of progressive politics?

If you aren't for gay marriage you are homophobic. It's an opinion on a definition of a concept that has both legal and religious ties. Having and opinion on it doesn't make you afraid of gay people. This whole argument seems to hinge on the fact that there seems to be an unspoken law that dictates that you must be an unwavering fan of homosexuality and all it entails or else you are clearly against them and therefore branded under the catch-all term if 'homophobic.' What a ridiculous sentiment.

If you think a black man screaming "kill whitey" is wrong, you are a racist because the new sentiment is that black people are incapable of being racist because they 'don't have the power'. Really? Have you heard of Barack Obama? Condoleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan are both highly influential and both are BILLIONAIRES! Black CEO's are starting to be been not just in every area of business, but in fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft , Merck, American Express, and McDonald's.

John W. Thompson is the current independent chairmen of the board of directors of Microsoft and has served as chairman of such companies as Virtual Instruments and Symanctec Corp. The list is not extensive, but it does show that the notion that black people have no power is nonsense. Sure there are millions of black who live in poverty and have no power...welcome to America. I Am a white man who is also not in the millionaires club nor do I have any power other then the lights in my apartment.

The notion that racism happens to blacks more than whites may or may not be true; but I live in a pretty diverse area and have heard a very large amount of anti-white sentiment come from the mouths of African Americans, so I find this notion hard to believe.  Also, the constant picking apart of peoples speech and actions to try and find some kind of hidden racism in seemingly innocuous things only serves to exaggerate and inflame the situation, not alleviate it.

Abortion rights activists have become especially vocal in the age of Obamacare and their arguments range from speculative to downright absurd. I have heard every kind of argument from the highly flawed 'violinist' theory to the morphing of the language to remove pro-choice to become 'women's rights' to one woman arguing on a blog about abortion claiming that 'you can't kill something that isn't even alive.' What the hell is your definition of alive lady???

Do women have a right to control their own bodies? Yes.

Do they have the right to have an abortion? Yes.

Should they have the right to kill a fully formed, sentient fetus? I don't believe so as I do not believe in the killing of sentient beings. But hey that's just me..and Buddha, and his 500 million+ followers, so there's no need to take us seriously.

Should women have the right to use abortion as a form of birth control? NO! Use a little common sense and responsibility instead of a closed mind and an open vagina.condoms, birth control, and other contraceptives are cheap and readily available in most drug and grocery stores. We can't simply ignore personal responsibility in the name of convenience. Sure, we have the freedom to do so, but we as a moral people should be opposed to such behavior.

The worst is yet to come. However, without sounding too pessimistic we are going to endure many more years of this nonsense until it is finally balanced out with reason and the eventual weariness of the public to an all too gargantuan war cry of intolerance, hatred, racism, sexism, and homophobia; when in reality most of us just want to live in peace, or be left alone, and the rest will continue to pretend that their weak words or deeds will ever give rise to the 'Old South' again and we will laugh and continue about our business in a world free of progressive diatribes that stink of hypocrisy and tired agendas.

Have we had enough intolerance? Sure, unless their is wedding cake involved
Have we had enough racism? Absolutely, unless white people are to blame
Have we had enough sexism? I guess, unless you're confused about your gender 

You get the idea. It's reaching a boiling point and the recent Ferguson protests are a prime example of Americans waking up to the ongoing issues plaguing the black community and the unwillingness of the black leadership and the media to offer solutions instead of the endless coverage of events that only seems to make matters worse.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Net Neutrality : A Bad Idea or Freedom for All?

I've written extensively on Net Neutrality in the past. But this thing just keeps cropping up and frankly it's getting quite annoying. I'm afraid that too many people simply do not understand the implications behind the innocuous sounding bill. It doesn't keep the internet free for all, it simply opens another portal for the federal government into the free range internet that we need to keep fighting to keep free.

Forget the phrase' Net Neutrality.' It's just a buzz word meant to illicit a passionate response. It is, in essence simply a piece of legislation designed to prohibit ISP's from holding bandwidth hostage unless a particular target group pays more money. Also the concept of Net Neutrality would prevent ISP's from simply oppressing bandwidth on protocols such as Torrents or P2P file sharing. The problem is not in the idea, it's in the implementation. In the past few years numerous bills, under the guise of net neutrality has come and gone including the failed 2010 FCC penned 'open internet' order.

The content of any piece of legislation is key to making a final determination on if it should be implemented or not. While on the surface it may seem benign, there may be parts of the bill or vague wordings therein that could allow the government or a particular private company to bend or break the rules for their own gain. This is an all too common issue with such types of legislation and is the reason bills like SOPA and PIPA were shot down, and why many people were disgusted with the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' touted by butt-hurt Democrats whose radio shows were miserable failures and needed a way to try and limit the Conservative dominance of the airwaves.

Before anyone gets all giddy because porn stars are making viral videos to try and explain the awesomeness of net neutrality, it might be in your best interest to actually read the content of an proposed internet bills and see if it sounds as fair in meat as it is in skin. You can title a bill anything you want and the content can be completely different. That is how Washington works and you'd do well to remember it.

I have always been vehemently opposed to any legislation that restricts, prohibits, expands, or contracts any of the rights inherent in the wide open wilderness of the world wide web. I don't care what criminal activity you are trying to curb, governments should have no more than cursory access to any data on the internet that is not meant to be public.

If you bust a company for selling child porn  over the internet you should have access to the data on their machines and any information that can be obtained from those assets. You should be able to subpoena the phone and internet records for the named defendants only, and you should never have access to the whole of any data owned by any ISP or hosting provider that is not an indicted party. Even if say- GOOGLE was indicted in a lawsuit about pirated material, the brunt of user data should be off-limits. Search histories and sites accessed for non-defendants should be sealed and unusable.

No government should ever have the right to turn off or otherwise restrict internet access even in an emergency situation like we saw in the highly improbable action film 'Live Free or Die Hard.' The problem in America however is peoples lack of interest in the actual working of government. They hear the call of their political masters and do what they say without much thought of their own. They are ignorant of the content of the bills they helped to get passed nor are they fully aware of the rights and freedoms they sign away on a regular basis in the name of 'fairness' 'equality' or the 'common good.' All words that have hidden meanings in the minds of very rich men with only their own interests at heart. Money and power motivate these people and not your rights or freedoms.