"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" . . . "Pants Up, Don't Loot" (wage, ethic)

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by MStoAZ

I understand what you're saying, but my problem is that when I hire people and when people I know hire people we don't look at color so that is never a factor, not to mention do we rarely get applications from people of color. For example, a police department in Ohio deliberatly tries to hire minorities, however the last time they hired policemen, they had two black people apply and both failed their background checks. This isn't someone putting them down, this is not pulling themselves up. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but it remains true nonetheless. To truly help someone, they have to help themselves as well

Interesting topic.

Word on the street is many African Americans don't want to go into LE due to the dirty reputation police officers have established for the profession. (I know I wouldn't want to be a police officer). KSDK in St. Louis did a special on it right after the Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown.

But there again, I've heard similar stories to yours. At one point when I was living in Chicago, less than 50% of the candidates could pass a background check for a regional sales position. That include criminal, professional reference and Credit Check. Regardless of color when an individual pass the extensive interview process of 3 managers, they would recommend them for the position and less than half would be considered after that. Even with that type of thorough background investigation, they still managed a diverse work place. I guess it depends on the industry.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MStoAZ

A police department in Ohio deliberatly tries to hire minorities, however the last time they hired policemen, they had two minorities apply and both failed their background checks. This isn't someone putting them down, this is not pulling themselves up. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but it remains true nonetheless. To truly help someone, they have to help themselves as well. I hope I don't come off as racist, because I'm well aware that people of all races are very successful and people of all races are in bad situations, but all people need to help themselves to better their situation rather than relying on someone else.

I don't see what this is supposed to be evidence of, other than that there aren't many successful blacks out there. Hiring minority officers is a good step (and having one StL PD instead of sixty would help on that account, as well), but I think true change requires more comprehensive social reform.

I say "comprehensive social reform", but really we just need a modest social safety net that actually gives the poor the resources to invest in their own futures, rather than merely subsisting.

[MStoAZ]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I don't see what this is supposed to be evidence of, other than that there aren't many successful blacks out there. Hiring minority officers is a good step (and having one StL PD instead of sixty would help on that account, as well), but I think true change requires more comprehensive social reform.

I say "comprehensive social reform", but really we just need a modest social safety net that actually gives the poor the resources to invest in their own futures, rather than merely subsisting.

If we're giving them more resources, do we give them more money? If we're giving them more money, what's to keep them from being complacent, like many already are (not talking about race, more economic status)? I agree that social reform should be put in to place, but I don't think more money is the solution.

[hodgemo2]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

The fact is Darren Wilsons name will naturally be a symbol for hate and a violent action in the minds of many. When the Ferguson Police Officer who grew up in mostly White St. Charles County with a messed up mom and lives in all White Crestwood Missouri gets remembered it wont be good regardless if he is acquitted or not.

The fact is that, for many, Darren Wilson's name will naturally be a symbol for someone who was just doing their job and got called racist and violent.

I know people of all races and economic arenas that think he was either completely in the right or at least not the one mostly to blame.

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

This is about people treating other people fair.

And how was it fair that MB just committed a robbery and manhandled that clerk minutes before? Was HE treating everyone fairly?

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

He started off on my bad side being a cop who lied. He didn't have to kill Michael Brown.

You don't know that.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MStoAZ

If we're giving them more resources, do we give them more money? If we're giving them more money, what's to keep them from being complacent, like many already are (not talking about race, more economic status)? I agree that social reform should be put in to place, but I don't think more money is the solution.

I see a couple options. One is job guarantees: anybody who wants a low-paying job can get one, from the government if necessary. Some of them might be crappy make-work, but at least you don't have to worry about complacency.

The other is to acknowledge that maybe we don't need everyone working 40 hrs a week, and basically just pay everyone a small income (sorta like Social Security for all ages). Some people probably won't work full-time or at all, but society has always had a leisure class and has fared ok. The only difference is that instead of the leisure class being hereditary and enjoying the finest things in life, they'll have to balance their leisure with limited consumption.

Both tactics would not only address unemployment and put a floor on poverty, but also put upward pressure on working-class incomes. After all, if corporations can't threaten their workers with starvation and homelessness, those workers can demand a larger share of the profits. But that might be getting into Economics-forum territory.

[KrazeeKrewe]

Ferguson Protest Leader Has Car Stolen During “F*ck the Police” Rally

Elizabeth Vega is one of the Ferguson protest leaders. She protested at sports venues and attempted a banner drop. She co-led the St Louis Symphony interruption, was arrested at the pumpkin smashing, yelled at the St Louis Post Dispatch protest, and helped block traffic with her freakshow in Clayton yesterday.

While yelling “F*ck the Police!” apparently her car got stolen. :lol:

Do you think she’ll file a police report requesting they help her now?

[KrazeeKrewe]

No Justice, No Peace! – Take 2… #Ferguson Protest Leader Has House Looted

Alexis Templeton has been on the front lines of the Ferguson protest movement since its inception.
KCUR reported:

Twenty-year-old Alexis Templeton has been on the front lines of protests since she arrived in Ferguson, five days after Brown was shot.

“I was in Phoenix, Arizona, when Michael Brown was shot and killed. When I got back, I immediately hit the ground, standing at the front of riot lines, being face to face with the police,” she said. “That was me for the last 89 days. Tomorrow, it will be three months, the days start to blend together.”

She is a member of Millennial Activists United, a group that was founded in the aftermath of Brown’s death to unify younger Ferguson residents who are fighting to make their voices heard. She says her fellow protesters have become her new family. Trying to create change in her community has become her everyday life.

Templeton, a prominent protester, was recently tapped to help with one of the city’s proposed reforms to its police department: a civilian review board.

Alexis Templeton often leads chants at protests. She lost her voice for a while from screaming. Her yells can be heard on many of the livestreams.

[MStoAZ]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I see a couple options. One is job guarantees: anybody who wants a low-paying job can get one, from the government if necessary. Some of them might be crappy make-work, but at least you don't have to worry about complacency.

The other is to acknowledge that maybe we don't need everyone working 40 hrs a week, and basically just pay everyone a small income (sorta like Social Security for all ages). Some people probably won't work full-time or at all, but society has always had a leisure class and has fared ok. The only difference is that instead of the leisure class being hereditary and enjoying the finest things in life, they'll have to balance their leisure with limited consumption.

Both tactics would not only address unemployment and put a floor on poverty, but also put upward pressure on working-class incomes. After all, if corporations can't threaten their workers with starvation and homelessness, those workers can demand a larger share of the profits. But that might be getting into Economics-forum territory.

I think where we are disagreeing is that I think that some of these people don't want jobs. We can offer them jobs, but can we make them want to work? Why do some people get paid for nothing? What is the value we're placing on education if everyone gets a job or gets free money?

[BerkeleyKid]

Well, as a Ferguson native-born, my earliest memory of the Ferguson Police was back when I was 5 y/o attending afternoon Kindergarten at Central School. I managed to get off the bus while it was still loading and walked a few blocks down Carson Rd. for candy at the Confectionary Store then onward on Dade towards Airport Rd. A Ferguson Police Officer located me and safety drove me home.
So, after all these years later, I still Salute you. Being a Cop is a tough job and chit happens. Best Wishes Ferguson.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MStoAZ

I think where we are disagreeing is that I think that some of these people don't want jobs. We can offer them jobs, but can we make them want to work? Why do some people get paid for nothing? What is the value we're placing on education if everyone gets a job or gets free money?

I think the 1930s make-work programs largely disproved these concerns. But if you guarantee a job, you can tie food and housing aid to those jobs, and so on. Presumably people would want an education because it would afford them better opportunities than making minimum wage digging holes. And if nobody takes mediocre jobs, I guess you'd be proven right.

If we give people free money, I think we would be recognizing that we don't necessarily want or need everyone to work, to make society function. In which case, the people who would rather stretch their weekly pittance than get a job would likely be our least productive workers anyway. But admittedly this is getting into more hypothetical socioeconomic territory. Job guarantees fit in much better with the Puritan "no free lunch" work ethic.