Hey Seattle and Portland.....

[UNI88]

I'm not saying that unions aren't part of the problem. I'm saying that I think there are other bigger factors in educational performance. How strong do you think teacher unions are in Alabama and how do they rank in educational performance?

Federal requirements, student/teacher ratios (which unions justifiably fight to keep low), socio-economic status, culture, etc. have a huge impact on educational outcomes.

I grew up in the hood, went to many shitty public schools. Care to guess where most of the shitty teachers get stashed? But sure put it on the socio-economic status though.

But hey to paraphrase Biden: sometimes the poor kids can be just as smart as the whites kids.

Is that the union's fault or does the district that assigned the shitty teachers to the schools in the hood share some of the blame? Why was it easier for the district to assign the shitty teachers to those schools? Where were the parents least and most likely to complain about shitty teachers?

I spent 5 years substitute teaching in a district that served mostly lower socio-economic class families, the majority of whom were of Latino descent. Teachers' unions may be part of the problem but blaming everything on them is a cop-out and won't lead to effective solutions.

[SDHornet]

I grew up in the hood, went to many shitty public schools. Care to guess where most of the shitty teachers get stashed? But sure put it on the socio-economic status though.

But hey to paraphrase Biden: sometimes the poor kids can be just as smart as the whites kids.

Is that the union's fault or does the district that assigned the shitty teachers to the schools in the hood share some of the blame? Why was it easier for the district to assign the shitty teachers to those schools? Where were the parents least and most likely to complain about shitty teachers?

I spent 5 years substitute teaching in a district that served mostly lower socio-economic class families, the majority of whom were of Latino descent. Teachers' unions may be part of the problem but blaming everything on them is a cop-out and won't lead to effective solutions.

The whole public education system is to blame. Burn it all down.

[UNI88]

Is that the union's fault or does the district that assigned the shitty teachers to the schools in the hood share some of the blame? Why was it easier for the district to assign the shitty teachers to those schools? Where were the parents least and most likely to complain about shitty teachers?

I spent 5 years substitute teaching in a district that served mostly lower socio-economic class families, the majority of whom were of Latino descent. Teachers' unions may be part of the problem but blaming everything on them is a cop-out and won't lead to effective solutions.

The whole public education system is to blame. Burn it all down.

Thank you, you just highlighted the similarity between defunding the police and devaluing public education (What and when do you replace it with? Are you burning it down before you have a replacement? What are the "unintended" consequences?).

[SDHornet]

The whole public education system is to blame. Burn it all down.

Thank you, you just highlighted the similarity between defunding the police and devaluing public education (What and when do you replace it with? Are you burning it down before you have a replacement? What are the "unintended" consequences?).

It's nuanced, you wouldn't understand.

And my "burn it down" post was in jest. Public education is hopeless so long as the teachers unions yield the power they do. The wifey and I will likely opt for private school when the time comes for our little one.

[UNI88]

Thank you, you just highlighted the similarity between defunding the police and devaluing public education (What and when do you replace it with? Are you burning it down before you have a replacement? What are the "unintended" consequences?).

It's nuanced, you wouldn't understand.

And my "burn it down" post was in jest. Public education is hopeless so long as the teachers unions yield the power they do. The wifey and I will likely opt for private school when the time comes for our little one.

Socialisdiots would say the defunding the police is nuanced too.

Hopefully, someday we can discuss this in more depth over a beer or two. Good luck to you with your little one!

[SDHornet]

It's nuanced, you wouldn't understand.

And my "burn it down" post was in jest. Public education is hopeless so long as the teachers unions yield the power they do. The wifey and I will likely opt for private school when the time comes for our little one.

Socialisdiots would say the defunding the police is nuanced too.

Hopefully, someday we can discuss this in more depth over a beer or two. Good luck to you with your little one!

We'll be fine because we have the means to do so. The biggest driver is that the public school district we live in is bankrupt and the state is likely to take it over within the next year or so.

I'd give charter schools a more serious look but they are essentially the same as public schools thanks the the lobbying the teachers unions did to legislate away their effectiveness.

[UNI88]

Socialisdiots would say the defunding the police is nuanced too.

Hopefully, someday we can discuss this in more depth over a beer or two. Good luck to you with your little one!

We'll be fine because we have the means to do so. The biggest driver is that the public school district we live in is bankrupt and the state is likely to take it over within the next year or so.

I'd give charter schools a more serious look but they are essentially the same as public schools thanks the the lobbying the teachers unions did to legislate away their effectiveness.

I understand and don't blame you. The district I taught in almost went bankrupt until the state appointed a financial overseer (can I use that word?). I just don't want those who can't afford private schools not to have an opportunity.

[kalm]

It's nuanced, you wouldn't understand.

And my "burn it down" post was in jest. Public education is hopeless so long as the teachers unions yield the power they do. The wifey and I will likely opt for private school when the time comes for our little one.

Socialisdiots would say the defunding the police is nuanced too.

Hopefully, someday we can discuss this in more depth over a beer or two. Good luck to you with your little one!

It is.

SD, did you go to private school?

[SDHornet]

Socialisdiots would say the defunding the police is nuanced too.

Hopefully, someday we can discuss this in more depth over a beer or two. Good luck to you with your little one!

It is.

SD, did you go to private school?

[catbooster]

I can't explain the folks that say "defund and dismantle" - those are the folks that are flat out crazy and think all policing in this world started with slave catcher patrols in the 19th century (ignoring the centuries of policing and other public safety measures that came before that).

I can certainly understand the gripe with policing, though. I think I may have been stopped by cops once in my life when I wasn't doing something patently illegal (like speeding or running a stop sign). The one time I got pulled over by a cop because she said my brake light was out - it was a Sunday morning, a mile from my house, and she even gave me a warning on it. And I was annoyed about that. I can't imagine the Black folks who have been pulled over or stopped by the police 20, 30, 40 times in their lives. And I know it has to be at least mostly true. There's no way they were speeding or running lights that many times. That has to be incredibly disconcerting, especially when you also look at the number of violent interactions with cops that some of these stops result in. If there's a 1 in 1000 chance an encounter with a cop ends up in a violent outcome, of course you're going to be concerned when you get pulled over 30 or 40 times throughout your life. I've been pulled over once for really nothing, and that one time pissed me off. I think I read the other day that Will Smith said growing up in Philly he got stopped by the cops on numerous occasions, and he lost track of how many times cops used the n word when dealing with him. That's just patently unacceptable and until we clean that up we'll never get anywhere.

Policing has to change for us to get past this. You can't stop a person in a vehicle or just walking down the street simply because they're Black, yet I'm sure it happens every day. And I'm good with the idea that not every incident deserves police presence. If you're dealing with drug abuse or a homeless person or mental illness then even if the cop is there someone else who's not a cop should probably take the lead. If that's what defunding means, then by all means, call it something else and talk about doing that. Talk about being able to not have police stop Blacks 30-40 times in their lifetimes, or more even, and then we can make some progress.

None of that changes the fact that a 50% reduction in funding/staffing is gonna result in an absolute free-for-all in those cities. Drugs. Sex trafficking. Armed robbery. B&E. Random killings...Seattle couldn’t self-police a 6-square block area for 2 weeks without there being 2 shooting deaths. Think “Chicago” on steroids.

Hell, just look at what’s happened in NYC since the cops basically said “fuck it”.

Do there need to be changes in the way police forces work/profile? No doubt. But it’s a fine line between a semblance of law and order and anarchy. We’re about to find out exactly where that line is....

There's a broad range of what people mean by "defund the police". Those who mean a shift of a portion of the police funding to other programs that are arguably better equipped to handle certain types of problems, and taking those problems off the plate of the police, might have a valid argument.

However, it's naive at best to think that should be the first step of the process. Until they have defined what other programs the money goes to, how they will operate, how much of the budget gets shifted, etc. along with getting those systems in place, it is a bad idea. You don't defund and reduce law enforcement without having those other programs in place.

Sure, look at other solutions that end up reducing police funding/numbers. Come up with a concrete proposal. Then we can talk. But this would be a long process.

In the mean time, it seems to me that addressing police unions and contract clauses that make it extremely hard to get rid of the bad apples will get the most benefit.

[UNI88]

None of that changes the fact that a 50% reduction in funding/staffing is gonna result in an absolute free-for-all in those cities. Drugs. Sex trafficking. Armed robbery. B&E. Random killings...Seattle couldn’t self-police a 6-square block area for 2 weeks without there being 2 shooting deaths. Think “Chicago” on steroids.

Hell, just look at what’s happened in NYC since the cops basically said “fuck it”.

Do there need to be changes in the way police forces work/profile? No doubt. But it’s a fine line between a semblance of law and order and anarchy. We’re about to find out exactly where that line is....

There's a broad range of what people mean by "defund the police". Those who mean a shift of a portion of the police funding to other programs that are arguably better equipped to handle certain types of problems, and taking those problems off the plate of the police, might have a valid argument.

However, it's naive at best to think that should be the first step of the process. Until they have defined what other programs the money goes to, how they will operate, how much of the budget gets shifted, etc. along with getting those systems in place, it is a bad idea. You don't defund and reduce law enforcement without having those other programs in place.

Sure, look at other solutions that end up reducing police funding/numbers. Come up with a concrete proposal. Then we can talk. But this would be a long process.

In the mean time, it seems to me that addressing police unions and contract clauses that make it extremely hard to get rid of the bad apples will get the most benefit.

So it's nuanced?

[CID1990]

You don’t “take things off the plate” for police. Somebody has to enforce laws and ordinances and people are going to resist.

Take Eric Garner - some tax ordinance enforcement guy goes to write him a ticket for selling singleton cigarettes out of a pack. Garner says “fuck you” and walks away. What does the state of NY do? The officer doesn’t know who he is, can’t compel him to identify himself.

In other words, if you want to have a bunch of petty, illiberal, statist laws, then you need police to enforce them.

So if you don’t want encounters with the police over cigarettes or turn signals to go south on you, then stop fucking criminalizing things.

You don’t take the enforcement of laws off the plate of law enforcement... you take stupid laws off the books.

Think of it as defunding the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catbooster]

There's a broad range of what people mean by "defund the police". Those who mean a shift of a portion of the police funding to other programs that are arguably better equipped to handle certain types of problems, and taking those problems off the plate of the police, might have a valid argument.

However, it's naive at best to think that should be the first step of the process. Until they have defined what other programs the money goes to, how they will operate, how much of the budget gets shifted, etc. along with getting those systems in place, it is a bad idea. You don't defund and reduce law enforcement without having those other programs in place.

Sure, look at other solutions that end up reducing police funding/numbers. Come up with a concrete proposal. Then we can talk. But this would be a long process.

In the mean time, it seems to me that addressing police unions and contract clauses that make it extremely hard to get rid of the bad apples will get the most benefit.

So it's nuanced?

Nuance - schmuance. All governance, rights and social ills should be able to be solved within the limits of a tweet. Maybe a few of the thornier issues can require two tweets.

[catbooster]

You don’t “take things off the plate” for police. Somebody has to enforce laws and ordinances and people are going to resist.

Take Eric Garner - some tax ordinance enforcement guy goes to write him a ticket for selling singleton cigarettes out of a pack. Garner says “fuck you” and walks away. What does the state of NY do? The officer doesn’t know who he is, can’t compel him to identify himself.

In other words, if you want to have a bunch of petty, illiberal, statist laws, then you need police to enforce them.

So if you don’t want encounters with the police over cigarettes or turn signals to go south on you, then stop fucking criminalizing things.

You don’t take the enforcement of laws off the plate of law enforcement... you take stupid laws off the books.

Think of it as defunding the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I was assuming "take things off the plate" included eliminating some rules and regulations. That's certainly a way of eliminating the need for police to deal with them.

That's also part of why it's silly to think a city commission can meet next month and vote to defund the police without huge negative impacts. I'm skeptical that it would work regardless. But right now it's just a slogan without any meaning.

[UNI88]

So it's nuanced?

Nuance - schmuance. All governance, rights and social ills should be able to be solved within the limits of a tweet. Maybe a few of the thornier issues can require two tweets.

That was lightheartedly meant for SD.

[BDKJMU]

Can Trip, Kalm or someone else explain the reasoning behind this so that a toxic, straight, white, middle-aged male can understand?

It seems to me that there is an underlying belief that cops are bad and that criminals are just misunderstood and if they were treated differently we wouldn't have as great of a need for the police. It belies the reality that there are evil people in this world.

I can't explain the folks that say "defund and dismantle" - those are the folks that are flat out crazy and think all policing in this world started with slave catcher patrols in the 19th century (ignoring the centuries of policing and other public safety measures that came before that).

I can certainly understand the gripe with policing, though. I think I may have been stopped by cops once in my life when I wasn't doing something patently illegal (like speeding or running a stop sign). The one time I got pulled over by a cop because she said my brake light was out - it was a Sunday morning, a mile from my house, and she even gave me a warning on it. And I was annoyed about that. I can't imagine the Black folks who have been pulled over or stopped by the police 20, 30, 40 times in their lives. And I know it has to be at least mostly true. There's no way they were speeding or running lights that many times. That has to be incredibly disconcerting, especially when you also look at the number of violent interactions with cops that some of these stops result in. If there's a 1 in 1000 chance an encounter with a cop ends up in a violent outcome, of course you're going to be concerned when you get pulled over 30 or 40 times throughout your life. I've been pulled over once for really nothing, and that one time pissed me off. I think I read the other day that Will Smith said growing up in Philly he got stopped by the cops on numerous occasions, and he lost track of how many times cops used the n word when dealing with him. That's just patently unacceptable and until we clean that up we'll never get anywhere.

Policing has to change for us to get past this. You can't stop a person in a vehicle or just walking down the street simply because they're Black, yet I'm sure it happens every day. And I'm good with the idea that not every incident deserves police presence. If you're dealing with drug abuse or a homeless person or mental illness then even if the cop is there someone else who's not a cop should probably take the lead. If that's what defunding means, then by all means, call it something else and talk about doing that. Talk about being able to not have police stop Blacks 30-40 times in their lifetimes, or more even, and then we can make some progress.

I'm pretty sure in the state of PA (and probably about every state) its a code violation to be driving around with a brake light out. How far you were from your house is irrelevant. So your vehicle was out of compliance, you stopped & simply given a warning, and yet you got pissed off.
I could understand being pissed if she stroked you a ticket, or was rude, but otherwise, would be no reason to.

If you don't like the law, petition your state reps to have the law changed so they can't stop you for a brake light out.
I would actually prefer to be stopped and get a warning if my brake light is out, because I'm not as likely to notice that (as opposed to a taillight), and ride around for who knows how long with it out.

[GannonFan]

I can't explain the folks that say "defund and dismantle" - those are the folks that are flat out crazy and think all policing in this world started with slave catcher patrols in the 19th century (ignoring the centuries of policing and other public safety measures that came before that).

I can certainly understand the gripe with policing, though. I think I may have been stopped by cops once in my life when I wasn't doing something patently illegal (like speeding or running a stop sign). The one time I got pulled over by a cop because she said my brake light was out - it was a Sunday morning, a mile from my house, and she even gave me a warning on it. And I was annoyed about that. I can't imagine the Black folks who have been pulled over or stopped by the police 20, 30, 40 times in their lives. And I know it has to be at least mostly true. There's no way they were speeding or running lights that many times. That has to be incredibly disconcerting, especially when you also look at the number of violent interactions with cops that some of these stops result in. If there's a 1 in 1000 chance an encounter with a cop ends up in a violent outcome, of course you're going to be concerned when you get pulled over 30 or 40 times throughout your life. I've been pulled over once for really nothing, and that one time pissed me off. I think I read the other day that Will Smith said growing up in Philly he got stopped by the cops on numerous occasions, and he lost track of how many times cops used the n word when dealing with him. That's just patently unacceptable and until we clean that up we'll never get anywhere.

Policing has to change for us to get past this. You can't stop a person in a vehicle or just walking down the street simply because they're Black, yet I'm sure it happens every day. And I'm good with the idea that not every incident deserves police presence. If you're dealing with drug abuse or a homeless person or mental illness then even if the cop is there someone else who's not a cop should probably take the lead. If that's what defunding means, then by all means, call it something else and talk about doing that. Talk about being able to not have police stop Blacks 30-40 times in their lifetimes, or more even, and then we can make some progress.

I'm pretty sure in the state of PA (and probably about every state) its a code violation to be driving around with a brake light out. How far you were from your house is irrelevant. So your vehicle was out of compliance, you stopped & simply given a warning, and yet you got pissed off.
I could understand being pissed if she stroked you a ticket, or was rude, but otherwise, would be no reason to.

If you don't like the law, petition your state reps to have the law changed so they can't stop you for a brake light out.
I would actually prefer to be stopped and get a warning if my brake light is out, because I'm not as likely to notice that (as opposed to a taillight), and ride around for who knows how long with it out.

My wife got pulled over one day 5 minutes before the official sunrise time - she was driving with her daytime running lights on but not the official headlights. Cop kept her there for a good 20 minutes berating her on the lumens power of the two different lights. Given how much light there is 5 minutes before sunrise and at sunrise (it wasn't a cloudy day) and sure, that was time well spent by that cop. I'm sure he was following procedure. I'm also sure he was acting like an arse.

[AZGrizFan]

Buddy of mine was a cop in Scottsdale, worked the night shift. He always requested to work South Scottsdale (was the bar scene and lower income section)….he used to say that after about 10:00 at night, if he saw a car with a taillight out, a headlight out, or who did a rolling stop or failed to use a turn signal there was about a 50/50 chance that the driver had an outstanding warrant.

[AZGrizFan]

You don’t “take things off the plate” for police. Somebody has to enforce laws and ordinances and people are going to resist.

Take Eric Garner - some tax ordinance enforcement guy goes to write him a ticket for selling singleton cigarettes out of a pack. Garner says “fuck you” and walks away. What does the state of NY do? The officer doesn’t know who he is, can’t compel him to identify himself.

In other words, if you want to have a bunch of petty, illiberal, statist laws, then you need police to enforce them.

So if you don’t want encounters with the police over cigarettes or turn signals to go south on you, then stop fucking criminalizing things.

You don’t take the enforcement of laws off the plate of law enforcement... you take stupid laws off the books.

Think of it as defunding the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Buddy of mine was a cop in Scottsdale, worked the night shift. He always requested to work South Scottsdale (was the bar scene and lower income section)….he used to say that after about 10:00 at night, if he saw a car with a taillight out, a headlight out, or who did a rolling stop or failed to use a turn signal there was about a 50/50 chance that the driver had an outstanding warrant.

Mine was at 10AM on a Sunday. The odds were probably much less.

[BDKJMU]

You don’t “take things off the plate” for police. Somebody has to enforce laws and ordinances and people are going to resist.

Take Eric Garner - some tax ordinance enforcement guy goes to write him a ticket for selling singleton cigarettes out of a pack. Garner says “fuck you” and walks away. What does the state of NY do? The officer doesn’t know who he is, can’t compel him to identify himself.

In other words, if you want to have a bunch of petty, illiberal, statist laws, then you need police to enforce them.

So if you don’t want encounters with the police over cigarettes or turn signals to go south on you, then stop fucking criminalizing things.

You don’t take the enforcement of laws off the plate of law enforcement... you take stupid laws off the books.
Think of it as defunding the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo. Quit taxing the piss out of cigarettes (NY & NYC), then people would quit smuggling them, you wouldn't have donk pols telling law enforcement to take actions against cigarette smuggling, and there would be no Eric Garners selling bootlegged cigarettes on the street.

Don't blame the police for enforcing laws you don't like. Blame the politicians for enacting the laws in the 1st place.

[BDKJMU]

I'm pretty sure in the state of PA (and probably about every state) its a code violation to be driving around with a brake light out. How far you were from your house is irrelevant. So your vehicle was out of compliance, you stopped & simply given a warning, and yet you got pissed off.
I could understand being pissed if she stroked you a ticket, or was rude, but otherwise, would be no reason to.

If you don't like the law, petition your state reps to have the law changed so they can't stop you for a brake light out.
I would actually prefer to be stopped and get a warning if my brake light is out, because I'm not as likely to notice that (as opposed to a taillight), and ride around for who knows how long with it out.

My wife got pulled over one day 5 minutes before the official sunrise time - she was driving with her daytime running lights on but not the official headlights. Cop kept her there for a good 20 minutes berating her on the lumens power of the two different lights. Given how much light there is 5 minutes before sunrise and at sunrise (it wasn't a cloudy day) and sure, that was time well spent by that cop. I'm sure he was following procedure. I'm also sure he was acting like an arse.

Ok, your wife's stop as you described it was uncalled for.
But doesn't changed the fact that if you got stopped & a warning for a brakelight out, there was no reason to be pissed.

[AZGrizFan]

Buddy of mine was a cop in Scottsdale, worked the night shift. He always requested to work South Scottsdale (was the bar scene and lower income section)….he used to say that after about 10:00 at night, if he saw a car with a taillight out, a headlight out, or who did a rolling stop or failed to use a turn signal there was about a 50/50 chance that the driver had an outstanding warrant.

Mine was at 10AM on a Sunday. The odds were probably much less.

If your taillight was out, you could have gotten a ticket. All you got was a warning?

[GannonFan]

My wife got pulled over one day 5 minutes before the official sunrise time - she was driving with her daytime running lights on but not the official headlights. Cop kept her there for a good 20 minutes berating her on the lumens power of the two different lights. Given how much light there is 5 minutes before sunrise and at sunrise (it wasn't a cloudy day) and sure, that was time well spent by that cop. I'm sure he was following procedure. I'm also sure he was acting like an arse.

Ok, your wife's stop as you described it was uncalled for.
But doesn't changed the fact that if you got stopped & a warning for a brakelight out, there was no reason to be pissed.

Sounds good, let's just tell people upset about police issues to just stop being pissed off and to write their representatives. Cops are just doing their jobs. I'm sure that will work out fine.

[SDHornet]

Nuance - schmuance. All governance, rights and social ills should be able to be solved within the limits of a tweet. Maybe a few of the thornier issues can require two tweets.

That was lightheartedly meant for SD.

I just saw it as you seeing the light and agreeing with me.