Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas.
“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves”
really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police.
There are numerous "abolish the police" suggestion floating around. That kind of talk is only going to cause more division. No one is going to abolish the police. It's unfortunate to hear this kind of rhetoric but really, it only comes from the fringe. For example: I recently signed on to a El Dorado Progressives, a local progressive Facebook group (I was mildly surprised to be accepted because when applying, I told them I agree with many perspectives of progressives but do not use labels for myself including "progressive".) Someone on that page posted an "abolish the police" article and the vast majority of the progressives there thought otherwise, some strongly protesting the post. That conversation post was eventually shut down. Only the fringe are behind this idea.
So, no, most people do not see abolishing the police as an option. But most clear thinking and aware people (including me) believe that a LOT need to be done to revamp police procedures and screening to reduce abusive and racist police. A lot needs to be done to restore respect, faith in, and trust of police because right now it is very low.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
To further my point, if you are going to try to prove the necessity of police, don’t use an example when they are at their worst and their least effective.
You would need to spend a lot more money on police and security if you expect a flawless handling of mass looting nationwide. I imagine it is difficult to enforce the law when there are 300 protesters and 280 of the 300 are innocent, peaceful protesters and 20 are doing damage and hiding amongst the other 280 so cops have to stand down.
We have seen plenty of examples though in the last 10 days of cops going too far in their enforcement.
Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas.
“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves”
really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police.
Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact.
So then you are for abolishing the police?
That's quite a leap to make from my statement.
No. Just pointing out the incongruency in the post I responded to.
Some of these protestors are really out of control with their ideas.
“Abolish the police, we can protect ourselves”
really?? Am I the only one who is blown away by this? How is this even a solution? The lawlessness that took place over a few nights was very scary to witness. That’s just a tiny look at what would happen with no police.
Well, since that “lawlessness” took place with the police fully present as they currently operate, I don’t see that as a any sort of argument for what would happen in the absence of police. Almost the contrary, in fact.
So then you are for abolishing the police?
That's quite a leap to make from my statement.
No. Just pointing out the incongruency in the post I responded to.
It's just a question, not a leap. Weird.
The phrasing "so thenyou are for abolishing the police?" implies that you believe that's my position. If it was simply a question, you would have said "Are you for abolishing the police?"
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing
More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans
A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)
Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.
“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.
But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.
The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.
Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.
A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.
Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.
It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.
The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.
Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.
It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.
Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.
Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.
It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business. And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?
No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance. I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.
I happen to be a negative net worth person myself. I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening. I'm going for a walk.
To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core.
Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).
The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.
The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself.
I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state.
Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet.
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,377
edited June 2020
I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct. I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here. Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations. This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter. Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.
‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing
More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans
A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)
Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.
“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.
But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.
The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.
Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.
A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.
Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.
It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.
The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.
Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.
It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.
Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.
Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.
It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business. And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?
No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance. I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.
I happen to be a negative net worth person myself. I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening. I'm going for a walk.
To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core.
Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).
The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.
The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself.
I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state.
Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people ultimately want from police. It's not simply about defending property. We want someone to call if we're under the threat of physical violence. We want someone with authority to find a missing or kidnapped person. Not every law that we want upheld involves theft or burglary. And it's not that they're necessarily more capable than the average citizen, but we want an empowered third party that is acting with the law on their side. The fact that the last part is upside down at this point is why we see a massive protest movement.
I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct. I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here. Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations. This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter. Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.
I appreciate the response. I am far from an All Lives Matter person. I'm just steeped in some reading right now about the intersection of policing, race, and capitalism and the way we have criminalized poverty in this country, how the ownership elites turned poor whites against the welfare function of government by connecting welfare to being black, etc. One of the first things one of my African American friends said to me when I talked to her about current events was "I'm so angry. Between the virus killing us, the economy killing us, and now this [meaning G Floyd], I'm so angry." She herself connected the dots. So yes, you're right, the protests are immediately about specific police brutality. But when you listen to African Americans talk about crime, like I heard Kamala Harris say again today, economic justice and opportunity is the first thing they will talk about.
‘Protecting property’ is an abstraction to the growing share of Americans who own nothing
More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have zero or negative net worth, and the share is even larger among black and young Americans
A woman looks Thursday at artwork on plywood covering a window shattered in La Mesa, Calif., during protests over the death of George Floyd. (Gregory Bull/AP)
Authorities criticizing demonstrations against police brutality in the past week have often cited the need to protect property as one of the justifications for cracking down on protesters.
“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” as President Trump put it Monday in a Rose Garden speech. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) similarly exhorted New York City to “use the police, protect property and people” after a night of looting.
But the people making these appeals often overlook the simple, uncomfortable fact that, for a large and growing share of Americans, “property rights” are just an abstraction: More than 1 in 5 U.S. families have no wealth to speak of. Among black families and young Americans — the core protest demographics — the share is even larger.
The graphic above charts the share of Americans with zero or negative net worth from 1983 to 2016, as measured by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances and analyzed by New York University economist Edward N. Wolff. “Net worth” is a measure of what you own (real estate, stocks, business equity, savings) minus what you owe (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans). When net worth is negative, it means that an individual or family’s debts are greater than their assets.
Back in 1983, a little more than 15 percent of households had zero or negative net worth. As of 2016, more than 21 percent of households fall into that category, an increase of roughly one-third. Any change since then won’t be known until later this year, when the 2019 survey data is released. And even that data won’t illustrate the effects of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, which have cost more than 40 million Americans their jobs.
A positive net worth means safety and security. It means you can grow your wealth by investing or starting a business. It means you can make a down payment on large purchases such as homes. It means you have assets to pass on to your children when you die. It means that if you fall on hard times, you have financial reserves to draw on.
Families with zero net worth have none of those things. And families with negative net worth have to worry about paying down debts before they can even think about building a nest egg. If financial hardship strikes, they may be in serious trouble.
It’s worth noting that many families with zero or negative net worth do have financial assets of some sort — savings or 401(k) retirement accounts or perhaps a house on which they have a mortgage. These assets could be liquidated, with varying degrees of difficulty, in the event of a job loss or an unexpected financial burden. But doing so would put them even more in the hole, taking value from the positive side of their ledgers and adding it to their debts.
The 21 percent figure cited above is just a national average. Among key protest demographics, the share is much higher.
Among black families, for instance, the share with zero or negative net worth is 37 percent, according to Wolff’s calculations. In 2011, the Pew Research Center reported that a similar share of households headed by someone younger than 35 fell into this category.
It’s difficult to make an appeal to the sanctity of property ownership when you’re addressing people who don’t own any property to speak of. For many younger Americans, especially nonwhite ones, the traditional American Dream of homeownership and building a nest egg to pass on to your heirs seems increasingly out of reach.
Perhaps most worrying in the Survey of Consumer Finances data is that the percentage of Americans who own nothing is increasing. Couple that trend with the explosion of wealth-hoarding at the top of society and you arrive at a very concerning picture of a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.
Asking the people at the bottom of such a hierarchy to respect the property rights of the those at the top is only likely to become more difficult if these trends continue.
It's not an abstraction for those who make a modest or even very modest living through their small business. And what, I'm supposed to consider used bookstore or record shop owners as "those at the top"?
No, I would think you would be one of those people whom the article says could sell your property if you found yourself in a bind. I'm assuming you own the building that houses your bookstore. I'm also assuming you have insurance. I'm not entirely comfortable getting into a debate with you about it because I don't think it's personal. Sorry if I offended you.
I happen to be a negative net worth person myself. I have never attachment to material things, cars, clothes, phones, none of it. I just chose to have a different life experience than buying a house or acquiring other assets. I don't go around smashing people's things, but I can understand the conclusion of this article from the perspective of people with an anger that I don't have about being denied access to that pathway. I tend to believe that property and ownership are concepts that divide people, cause them to look on suspicion and jealousy of others, do things that harm the earth, like plowing perfectly beautiful fields and farms to build more condos. So . . . anyway. Have a good evening. I'm going for a walk.
To be fair, I own my home but don’t possess the qualities associated above ascribed to myself or others in a similar position. And we’re not wealthy, though if we were, I don’t believe it would change our core.
Again, I'm not making a personal indictment of individuals. My beliefs are beliefs, generalized. The world is actually more complicated, including the fact that I own a cell phone and don't have to post from a public library (snarky comments noted).
The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.
The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself.
I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state.
Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people ultimately want from police. It's not simply about defending property. We want someone to call if we're under the threat of physical violence. We want someone with authority to find a missing or kidnapped person. Not every law that we want upheld involves theft or burglary. And it's not that they're necessarily more capable than the average citizen, but we want an empowered third party that is acting with the law on their side. The fact that the last part is upside down at this point is why we see a massive protest movement.
Agreed those instances you speak of are important law enforcement functions. I'd have to go back and review all the prominently reported killings of African Americans to see what the initial call or stop was for. In the Floyd case, it was a financial transaction. Eric Garner, financial transaction, selling contraband cigarettes, if I remember correctly. Henry Louis Gates, trying to get inside his own house (came out alive, of course). Curious what the others were and if there is a pattern.
I keep wondering what the shop owner who called the cops on Floyd is thinking right now. I know he made a statement at one point about how sorry he was for the consequence. I bet he's really struggling.
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,377
I think that you have some very interesting points....however I think that this unrest is about race and police misconduct. I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue. This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here. Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations. This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter. Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.
I appreciate the response. I am far from an All Lives Matter person. I'm just steeped in some reading right now about the intersection of policing, race, and capitalism and the way we have criminalized poverty in this country, how the ownership elites turned poor whites against the welfare function of government by connecting welfare to being black, etc. One of the first things one of my African American friends said to me when I talked to her about current events was "I'm so angry. Between the virus killing us, the economy killing us, and now this [meaning G Floyd], I'm so angry." She herself connected the dots. So yes, you're right, the protests are immediately about specific police brutality. But when you listen to African Americans talk about crime, like I heard Kamala Harris say again today, economic justice and opportunity is the first thing they will talk about.
Makes more sense (and more about the black experience vs all experience) reading this.
My little town had a nice couple days of protest. First day, a couple dozen very peaceful and quiet but a few young wise asses decided to mess with some of the protestors. Nothing crazy but one of the pester asses ended up dragged to the cop shop to help around the office cleaning and stuff. Mostly harmless but there were definitely some that went all out to agitate and one on particular had some pretty vile things to say.
A few things happened that resulted in the rounding up of a posse and the next day there was a crowd of probably 100-120 in full out call and response mode. Seemed pretty intense for this tiny town and it honesty gives me chills to even think about. Laid back small town but hopefully got some mol people thinking.
So Jimmy Johnson got a bunch of drivers together to put out a grass roots message via social media. He told them all "this doesn't work unless you all press send a 2pm"
Bubba Wallace wore an "I can't breathe" shirt and his crew held it up before the race and he said he was moved to tears to see that. Incased you didn't know, Bubba is the only African American in the NASCAR driving series.
The president of NASCAR says to the 40 drivers before the race over their radios "our sport must do better. Our country needs to do better"
I am very proud of my sport right now.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,285
So Jimmy Johnson got a bunch of drivers together to put out a grass roots message via social media. He told them all "this doesn't work unless you all press send a 2pm"
Bubba Wallace wore an "I can't breathe" shirt and his crew held it up before the race and he said he was moved to tears to see that. Incased you didn't know, Bubba is the only African American in the NASCAR driving series.
The president of NASCAR says to the 40 drivers before the race over their radios "our sport must do better. Our country needs to do better"
I am very proud of my sport right now.
I've never been a big NASCAR fan but that was cool! Well done, guys!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
So Jimmy Johnson got a bunch of drivers together to put out a grass roots message via social media. He told them all "this doesn't work unless you all press send a 2pm"
Bubba Wallace wore an "I can't breathe" shirt and his crew held it up before the race and he said he was moved to tears to see that. Incased you didn't know, Bubba is the only African American in the NASCAR driving series.
The president of NASCAR says to the 40 drivers before the race over their radios "our sport must do better. Our country needs to do better"
I am very proud of my sport right now.
I am not surprised. For the most part NASCAR has it shit together...
Their drivers and crew are some of the finest people in sports and when one misbehaves NASCAR generally acts quickly and decisively. Jimmie Johnson is such a class act ... well done JJ and NASCAR.
did you guys see that that nascar driver today announce that he is retiring after this season due to the confederate flag ban? he has been in 31 races and never won. way to rep the confederacy there, guy.
also, with the roll cage, helmet, neck protector, and fireproof suit i would have thought he would have been better protected from all that butthurt.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
did you guys see that that nascar driver today announce that he is retiring after this season due to the confederate flag ban? he has been in 31 races and never won. way to rep the confederacy there, guy.
also, with the roll cage, helmet, neck protector, and fireproof suit i would have thought he would have been better protected from all that butthurt.
Ouch!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
My first thought when I read the story was exactly this. I don't doubt that he actually feels this way, but I guarantee he or someone in his camp positioned it this way.
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
Invited up to the podium and allowed to say a few words about how his freedoms are being taken away at the next Team Trump Treason rally.
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
My first thought when I read the story was exactly this. I don't doubt that he actually feels this way, but I guarantee he or someone in his camp positioned it this way.
Everyone, please welcome your new Secretary of the Department of Transportation!
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
My first thought when I read the story was exactly this. I don't doubt that he actually feels this way, but I guarantee he or someone in his camp positioned it this way.
Maybe. I doubt being a middle-of-the road truck series driver is outrageously lucrative. So why not roll the dice on filling some conservative niche like Tommi, the Kent State Gun Woman, or whoever? There's a ready-made audience ready to tout him as some kind of victim forced out by political correctness.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Focus on Bubba Wallace and the rest of the drivers and NOT this clown. I don't know his name and don't want to know his name.
Don't give him anymore press.
This is what I was thinking, too. He's a Truck Series driver with one Top 10 finish. This is the most publicity he has ever had.
he probably believes he will be held up in high regard by the far right. may get his own fox news show or something. maybe join a show with curt schilling or something.
My first thought when I read the story was exactly this. I don't doubt that he actually feels this way, but I guarantee he or someone in his camp positioned it this way.
Maybe. I doubt being a middle-of-the road truck series driver is outrageously lucrative. So why not roll the dice on filling some conservative niche like Tommi, the Kent State Gun Woman, or whoever? There's a ready-made audience ready to tout him as some kind of victim forced out by political correctness.
but the easiest attack, that has been proven by screenshots, it that he retired because nascar banned the flag. he was forced out of nothing, so it can be completely debunked.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
forgot to add that tommi and kent state gun girl are pretty girls with guns. there is a demographic that is in to that kind of thing. i am not sure that anybody would be attracted to this guy that was essentially in the nascar minor leagues. it does not look like any women would be particularly attracted to him the way the guys are to tomi and gun girl.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
forgot to add that tommi and kent state gun girl are pretty girls with guns. there is a demographic that is in to that kind of thing. i am not sure that anybody would be attracted to this guy that was essentially in the nascar minor leagues. it does not look like any women would be particularly attracted to him the way the guys are to tomi and gun girl.
Incels are attracted to him. Very much so. He’ll do well on the incel circuit.
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You would need to spend a lot more money on police and security if you expect a flawless handling of mass looting nationwide. I imagine it is difficult to enforce the law when there are 300 protesters and 280 of the 300 are innocent, peaceful protesters and 20 are doing damage and hiding amongst the other 280 so cops have to stand down.
We have seen plenty of examples though in the last 10 days of cops going too far in their enforcement.
The phrasing "so then you are for abolishing the police?" implies that you believe that's my position. If it was simply a question, you would have said "Are you for abolishing the police?"
The article makes a point . . . There are people in this world who don't have the same respect for property rights because this beloved concept of the American Dream, of owning property, has systematically been denied them. I don't find it hard to understand that.
The article also addresses that there are people, like you and Brian, with positive net worth who still live precariously. That's part of the problem, too. Everyone except a handful are being squeezed, and there is no radical shift in our future whatsoever for this to improve. I read in another book this afternoon that the top 20% of income earners account for 60% of consumer spending. Our economy no longer even needs a middle class to sustain itself.
I don't know how long anyone thinks we can maintain this system without the working class and the abject poor, the other 80% that would be us, exploding. Like people are right now. These protests, in my view, are about economic repression as much as they are about police brutality. Race and class are intricately connected, and the police are the intermediaries between those who have all the power and the rest of us. Defending the institution simply because they defend our property upholds the system, in my view. I know it's not a popular one, and it's evolving as I read more about the challenges of our racialized capitalism, our debt economy, our security state.
Jackie Wang, in this book I'm reading, asks, "How can we imagine ourselves outside a box that we don't even know we're stuck inside?" I'm tired of being stuck in this box. It's killing people. It's starving people. It's destroying our planet.
I think the idea that there is economic repression is a separate issue.
This is mixing ideas - I think the focus needs to stay on the real issue here. Intentionally or not, my read on your post is to take something black and broaden it to include everyone in a certain economic status vs. a race of people dealing with extraordinary situations.
This, to me, is the same as saying All Lives Matter.
Just because the statement is correct doesn't mean it is following what is happening, and applies.
So yes, you're right, the protests are immediately about specific police brutality. But when you listen to African Americans talk about crime, like I heard Kamala Harris say again today, economic justice and opportunity is the first thing they will talk about.
I keep wondering what the shop owner who called the cops on Floyd is thinking right now. I know he made a statement at one point about how sorry he was for the consequence. I bet he's really struggling.
So Jimmy Johnson got a bunch of drivers together to put out a grass roots message via social media. He told them all "this doesn't work unless you all press send a 2pm"
If you missed it here it is.
I will listen and learn
Bubba Wallace wore an "I can't breathe" shirt and his crew held it up before the race and he said he was moved to tears to see that. Incased you didn't know, Bubba is the only African American in the NASCAR driving series.
The president of NASCAR says to the 40 drivers before the race over their radios "our sport must do better. Our country needs to do better"
I am very proud of my sport right now.
I've never been a big NASCAR fan but that was cool! Well done, guys!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
also, with the roll cage, helmet, neck protector, and fireproof suit i would have thought he would have been better protected from all that butthurt.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ray-ciccarelli-leaving-nascar-after-sport-banned-confederate-flag-its-n1229926?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2G_jDek0TsYHzNSuJ4W7B6biGAqZsZZZrTcq8oCliKW7Sf71G9xGu48qg
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What an idiot.
Ouch!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Don't give him anymore press.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©