Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for BLM, this is a movement who has attacked and tried to embarrass Hillary Clinton, the only candidate standing up for blacks against police killings, and haven't done a thing against racist, bigot Donald Trump. They riot and start trouble and retaliate against innocent people when something happens. There are better ways of dealing with these tragedies, BLM is a disorganized group of trouble makers.
I wouldn't say they've done nothing to protest Trump, I would say quite the opposite actually. You do have a point about their protesting of Clinton, and I feel the same way about when they protested Sanders.
Let me open with stating that I do believe that BLM has plenty of legitimate grievances and reason for the movement as a whole to exist. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is discussed, but I can say that I generally agree that there are problems with our nation's law enforcement and justice systems that require overhaul.
The reason I don't align with BLM as a group, though, is the same reason I don't align with Occupy. There is no leadership. There is no core. There are no rules or common beliefs to define who is or isn't part of the movement. The only real requirement is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the way blacks are treated in the country, more specifically in the hands of police officers.
Without a core - without leadership - the movement becomes nothing more than good intentions clouded by those who can yell the loudest and put forth the most passionate actions. I do believe that the instances of violence and antagonism that have come from people using the name are far more isolated incidents than they are made out to be.
That said, without any true organization, there is no one to disown these people and their actions. There is no way to say, definitively, that these people do not represent the movement as a whole, and so they are made the representatives at the hands of the media. They are made the example, and as moderates leave for fear of being associated with that image, only the more and more fanatic remain.
I wish there was leadership. I wish there was a solid organization. I wish there was a core set of values by which you could define the movement and from which you could guide actions to real change.
But there isn't.
Instead, we get a patchwork of any number of groups of different, ideologies, refinement, control, and effectiveness. That leads to things like protesting politicians who are actually on the side of the overall idea of the movement. That leads to things like jumping to conclusions at every report before the facts are in. That leads to choosing martyrs who really aught not be models for reform. That leads to actually hurting those who would have otherwise allied with them, sometimes literally.
Here in Atlanta, we were competent enough as a city (everyday citizens and law enforcement alike) to keep from anything bad happening, but when the Mayor sought to hear the terms of reform that the group of people claiming to be BLM wanted, we got this mish-mash of inconsistent, contradictory, unrealistic, and even irrational wants. There were good ideas in the list, don't get me wrong, but there were some equally terrible ones as well.
So, while there are tenants of what those under the banner 'BLM' claim to want that I can agree with, there is just not nearly enough consistency, organization, or discipline for me to consider joining as an ally.
I wouldn't say they've done nothing to protest Trump, I would say quite the opposite actually. You do have a point about their protesting of Clinton, and I feel the same way about when they protested Sanders.
Let me open with stating that I do believe that BLM has plenty of legitimate grievances and reason for the movement as a whole to exist. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is discussed, but I can say that I generally agree that there are problems with our nation's law enforcement and justice systems that require overhaul.
The reason I don't align with BLM as a group, though, is the same reason I don't align with Occupy. There is no leadership. There is no core. There are no rules or common beliefs to define who is or isn't part of the movement. The only real requirement is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the way blacks are treated in the country, more specifically in the hands of police officers.
Without a core - without leadership - the movement becomes nothing more than good intentions clouded by those who can yell the loudest and put forth the most passionate actions. I do believe that the instances of violence and antagonism that have come from people using the name are far more isolated incidents than they are made out to be.
That said, without any true organization, there is no one to disown these people and their actions. There is no way to say, definitively, that these people do not represent the movement as a whole, and so they are made the representatives at the hands of the media. They are made the example, and as moderates leave for fear of being associated with that image, only the more and more fanatic remain.
I wish there was leadership. I wish there was a solid organization. I wish there was a core set of values by which you could define the movement and from which you could guide actions to real change.
But there isn't.
Instead, we get a patchwork of any number of groups of different, ideologies, refinement, control, and effectiveness. That leads to things like protesting politicians who are actually on the side of the overall idea of the movement. That leads to things like jumping to conclusions at every report before the facts are in. That leads to choosing martyrs who really aught not be models for reform. That leads to actually hurting those who would have otherwise allied with them, sometimes literally.
Here in Atlanta, we were competent enough as a city (everyday citizens and law enforcement alike) to keep from anything bad happening, but when the Mayor sought to hear the terms of reform that the group of people claiming to be BLM wanted, we got this mish-mash of inconsistent, contradictory, unrealistic, and even irrational wants. There were good ideas in the list, don't get me wrong, but there were some equally terrible ones as well.
So, while there are tenants of what those under the banner 'BLM' claim to want that I can agree with, there is just not nearly enough consistency, organization, or discipline for me to consider joining as an ally.
Here's an excellent post from Jim Galloway, including some insights from former Mayor Massell on the mayoral race.
Quote:
The year has barely begun. Even so, Wednesday could produce a pair of turning points in the 2017 race for mayor of Atlanta.
Eight of the top candidates will make their first side-by-side debut at an invitation-only Buckhead Coalition lunch. The audience will be small – the room will hold only 180 or so. It will also be largely white, monied, and more than slightly Republican.
Gift bags for the candidates will include a copy of Donald Trump’s “The Art of the Deal.” The paperback edition.
Elsewhere in the city, at about 4 p.m., a more somber note will be struck. That’s when E.R. Mitchell Jr., 63, owner of a prominent construction company, is scheduled to make an appearance before a federal judge.
Mitchell is expected to plead guilty to paying more than $1 million in bribes to secure city of Atlanta contracts. Sentencing is likely to be delayed, while Mitchell works with prosecutors to build cases against the recipient, or recipients, of his cash blandishments.
Don’t kid yourself. Should Mitchell name names, an already unpredictable mayoral race could be pitched into a blender and pureed.
I wouldn't say they've done nothing to protest Trump, I would say quite the opposite actually. You do have a point about their protesting of Clinton, and I feel the same way about when they protested Sanders.
Let me open with stating that I do believe that BLM has plenty of legitimate grievances and reason for the movement as a whole to exist. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is discussed, but I can say that I generally agree that there are problems with our nation's law enforcement and justice systems that require overhaul.
The reason I don't align with BLM as a group, though, is the same reason I don't align with Occupy. There is no leadership. There is no core. There are no rules or common beliefs to define who is or isn't part of the movement. The only real requirement is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the way blacks are treated in the country, more specifically in the hands of police officers.
Without a core - without leadership - the movement becomes nothing more than good intentions clouded by those who can yell the loudest and put forth the most passionate actions. I do believe that the instances of violence and antagonism that have come from people using the name are far more isolated incidents than they are made out to be.
That said, without any true organization, there is no one to disown these people and their actions. There is no way to say, definitively, that these people do not represent the movement as a whole, and so they are made the representatives at the hands of the media. They are made the example, and as moderates leave for fear of being associated with that image, only the more and more fanatic remain.
I wish there was leadership. I wish there was a solid organization. I wish there was a core set of values by which you could define the movement and from which you could guide actions to real change.
But there isn't.
Instead, we get a patchwork of any number of groups of different, ideologies, refinement, control, and effectiveness. That leads to things like protesting politicians who are actually on the side of the overall idea of the movement. That leads to things like jumping to conclusions at every report before the facts are in. That leads to choosing martyrs who really aught not be models for reform. That leads to actually hurting those who would have otherwise allied with them, sometimes literally.
Here in Atlanta, we were competent enough as a city (everyday citizens and law enforcement alike) to keep from anything bad happening, but when the Mayor sought to hear the terms of reform that the group of people claiming to be BLM wanted, we got this mish-mash of inconsistent, contradictory, unrealistic, and even irrational wants. There were good ideas in the list, don't get me wrong, but there were some equally terrible ones as well.
So, while there are tenants of what those under the banner 'BLM' claim to want that I can agree with, there is just not nearly enough consistency, organization, or discipline for me to consider joining as an ally.
I agree with your premise, and the fact that they aren't organized, that's part of the reason I have a hard time being anymore than understanding. I agree there are problems, but not good order to try to fix them.
However, of note, ATL had bad things happening, a few police shootings, though none on the publicity level of the others. There was a police shooting at least one in Cobb I believe and I believe maybe a second in south ATL, the one thing is the city did do something quickly.
I agree with your premise, and the fact that they aren't organized, that's part of the reason I have a hard time being anymore than understanding. I agree there are problems, but not good order to try to fix them.
However, of note, ATL had bad things happening, a few police shootings, though none on the publicity level of the others. There was a police shooting at least one in Cobb I believe and I believe maybe a second in south ATL, the one thing is the city did do something quickly.
At the time of that post, I was talking rather specifically of the demonstrations. I would agree that there have been issues with APD, but I think you're on the right point in that we have, at least as much as I can remember, been rather good about disciplining our officers.
I can't speak to other departments, and I can't really speak to APD, but I think Atlanta has been doing alright.
I remember reading a piece from our Chief a bit ago about his efforts in maintaining a diverse police force. He commented that he was proud that APD had a force that very greatly mirrored the general population. This wasn't any of the stereotypical affirmative action stuff either, he and his recruiters were actively seeking out people from colleges, preferably local, to bring into the rank and file. He was doing his best to grab people capable of fulfilling the role while also trying to maintain the force as a reflection of the city it served.
Of course that hasn't solved all the problems, heck, even a generally police ignorant punk like me has a few ideas on how to improve things, but I think it's helped. I think it's gone a long way to keep the ideas of an 'ism' burdened force away from ours.
Here's an excellent post from Jim Galloway, including some insights from former Mayor Massell on the mayoral race.
It will be interesting to see which names fall out of the trial, and where that puts us.
Unfortunately I'll likely not be able to vote in this one, since I'll probably be a permanent resident of Florida by then, and no longer an Atlantian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
