DrafterX
9 years ago
Someone woulda just smacked them around a little bit.... 🤐



Colin Kaepernick’s National Anthem protest has started a ripple effect across the sports spectrum, reaching other NFL players, soccer stars and even high school student athletes. On Wednesday, his protest trickled into the Missouri Legislature.

State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat, refused to stand while her colleagues recited the Pledge of Allegiance in the state Capitol. She said her silent protest on the Senate floor was intended to show solidarity with the San Francisco 49ers quarterback.

Kaepernick has kneeled for the National Anthem in protest of police brutality and what he has described as social injustice against minorities in the U.S. Nasheed, who is black, said she wants to call attention to those issues and isn’t “anti-America.” Nasheed’s protest was met with silence in the chamber.

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a former GOP candidate for governor who presided over the Senate Wednesday, released a statement calling Nasheed's protest an "occasion for great sorrow." He said he worried about "the example she is setting, particularly for our young people."



Film at 11.... 🤐
gummy jones
9 years ago
bet she'll still cash her check

they all still cash their checks
DrafterX
9 years ago
Didn't she take some sort of oath..?? If she can't fulfill that oath she needs to step down... 😟
MACS
9 years ago
Interesting FBI statistic about 'police brutality'. Police officers are 18 times more likely to be killed by a black man than they are to kill an unarmed black man.
DrafterX
9 years ago
Did Victor approve that stat..?? 😕
gummy jones
9 years ago
some light reading recommendations from a brilliant man (not me)

Election year politics generates much rhetoric and confusion. And the media often adds its spin. But, fortunately, there are some books around that deal with reality and can cut through the nonsense. Most of these books were not written during this election year, but what they presented can be very eye-opening on the issues raised by politicians this year.

If you are concerned about issues involved when some people want to expand the welfare state and others want to contract it, then one of the most relevant and insightful books is "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple. It was not written this year and is not even about the United States, much less our current presidential or other candidates.

What makes "Life at the Bottom" especially relevant and valuable is that it is about the actual consequences of the welfare state in England -- which are remarkably similar to the consequences in the United States.

Many Americans may find it easier to think straight about what happens, when it is in a country where the welfare recipients are overwhelmingly whites, so that their behavior cannot be explained away by "a legacy of slavery" or "institutional racism," or other such evasions of facts in the United States.

As Dr. Dalrymple says: "It will come as a surprise to American readers, perhaps, to learn that the majority of the British underclass is white, and that it demonstrates all the same social pathology as the black underclass in America -- for very similar reasons, of course." That reason is the welfare state, and the attitudes and behavior it promotes and subsidizes.

Another and very different example of the welfare state's actual consequences is "The New Trail of Tears" by Naomi Schaefer Riley. It is a painful but eye-opening account of life on American Indian reservations.

People on those reservations have been taken care of by the federal government for more than a hundred years. They have lived in a welfare state longer than any other minority in America. What have been the consequences?

One consequence is that they have lower incomes than any other minority -- including other American Indians, who do not live on reservations, and who are doing far better on their own.

The economic plight of people on the reservations is by no means the worst of it. The social problems are heart-breaking. As just one example, the leading cause of death, among American Indian boys from 10 to 14 years of age, is suicide.

As regards black Americans, there is much talk about the role of police. If you want a book that cuts through the rhetoric and confusion, and deals with hard facts, then "The War on Cops" by Heather Mac Donald does precisely that.

On racial issues in general, the best economic survey is "Race and Economics" by Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University. Just the table on page 35, showing unemployment rates among black and white teenagers, going all the way back to 1948, should demolish all the rhetoric and spin that tries to conceal the deadly effects of minimum wage laws on unemployment among black teenagers.


No community is better off for having large numbers of idle young males, hanging around with nothing to do except getting into trouble. Many other issues are covered in Professor Williams' book, including racial discrimination in general and the effects of various government interventions in the economy which disproportionately create problems for low-income minorities.

Among my own books, "Basic Economics" is probably best for people who want to look up a variety of economic issues, ranging from rent control to tax policies and international trade policies. It is written in plain English and has been translated into 7 foreign languages, so apparently many people find it useful and understandable.

For those who are especially interested in issues revolving around income distribution or the concentration of wealth, my "Wealth, Poverty and Politics" covers those issues and cuts through much political rhetoric on that subject.

So does another book on that subject: "Who's the Fairest of Them All?" by Stephen Moore. It was written four years ago, but it has a special relevance this year because Stephen Moore is now one of Donald Trump's economic advisors. That is one of the very few hopeful signs this election year.



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/09/14/election-year-books-n2216610 
Buckwheat
9 years ago

bet she'll still cash her check

they all still cash their checks

gummy jones wrote:



Just like Mitch McConnell even though he hasn't done his job since Obama became president. [ram27bat]
gummy jones
9 years ago

Just like Mitch McConnell even though he hasn't done his job since Obama became president. [ram27bat]

Buckwheat wrote:



the list goes on and on

but protesting the very government which you are a part of seems a little different than sitting idle
MACS
9 years ago

Did Victor approve that stat..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:



I'm sure he's furiously researching it.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Report has all the numbers... he'd just need to do the math, I guess. 🤔
Krazeehorse
9 years ago
Hopefully she gets "traded" at the earliest opportunity.
DrafterX
9 years ago

I'm sure he's furiously researching it.

MACS wrote:




ya think.. he normally disputes it first... 🤔
gummy jones
9 years ago

Hopefully she gets "traded" at the earliest opportunity.

Krazeehorse wrote:



you kidding
she just got a taxpayer funded job for life
DrafterX
9 years ago
Colin Kaepernick’s very public protests against the national anthem have inspired other NFL football players to take similar stands against what they consider to be a “racist” and “oppressive” song, one emblematic of social injustice.

But while Kaepernick and his colleagues have been lauded by some members of the press, and defended by others—even in some cases financially rewarded for their principled stands—students who choose to replicate Kaepernick’s protests on high-school campuses are facing harsh punishments.

High-school football players in New Jersey, Alabama and Massachusetts, replicating Kaepernick’s stand, are facing suspension from school, harassment from their peers and even, they claim, threats against their physical well-being.

A Catholic school in Camden, New Jersey, has told coaches to discipline players who fail to stand for the national anthem, saying that football players are expected to “demonstrate appropriate respect,” for the flag. Students who choose not to might be suspended from the team, or may have to miss games.

The quarterback of a Massachusetts public school football team said on Twitter that he received a one-game suspension after saying he’d kneel during the national anthem. Fearing civil-rights litigation, it seems, the school district immediately reversed the decision when word got out. And a California high school lowered one Native American student’s grade when she refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

But while schools claim to have extenuating circumstances the NFL does not—keeping peace and order among younger and more impressionable people—the impulse to punish non-conforming students may actually be illegal. As long as student protests aren’t seen as “threatening,” students are likely within their rights to engage in political expression, according to the ACLU.

Students have a Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech, even on school grounds, during school hours, though there are some exceptions, like agreed-upon dress codes.


Film at 11... 🤔 🤔





well I hope Kaepernick feels bad for getting kids beat up & suspended from school... 🤐
victor809
9 years ago
MACS... We have two problems. First - misapplication of data, that stat is meaningless without reference... Ie what's the likelihood of an officer being killed by a white person (in relation to the likelihood of them killing one)... It's a standard scare tactic stat with nothing to ground it to reality.

Second - Where did you get that stat? I know you're referencing the FBI data, but that doesn't pass the sniff test, someone has been playing with those numbers.

Your own data source for 2014 says 51 officers were killed by 59 suspects (that's fine)... 42 of those suspects were white and 13 black (the rest are other races). If your stat holds true, then we would expect 1 or less black person to be killed by the cops in 2014. I'm pretty sure that's gonna be higher. Clearly the number they're kicking around comes from another year or an average of years or is just wrong.

More importantly if you look at that data and compare number of whites killing cops vs number of whites killed by cops you're going to see that the stat you threw out is going to be way higher for whites. They're already killing over 3x the number of cops as blacks and they're getting shot less. And everyone loves to use the "well the blacks get arrested more, that's why they get shot by cops more" excuse... If you take that into account, then the whites are practically law enforcement officer serial killers....

Anyway, it's a dumb statistic on a couple different levels. Could be useful if you compared it to something equivalent... And if you can show me where they got that number.
DrafterX
9 years ago
victor809
9 years ago
Caveat... I'm assuming a close to 1:1 ratio of suspects to kills... It's possible all 42 white people were in on a single police officer kill... And the other blacks killed all the others. But that's unlikely
DrafterX
9 years ago
maybe it happened in a small town... 😟
Gene363
9 years ago
Going back to the OP, I am pretty confident that all of you have or currently work under workplace rules that do not allow discussing politics and religion on the job. These overpaid game players are "on the clock" so if the owners approve, they can protest all they want, heck if they are really serious, they should do it during the game. If the team owner does not approve, they should do as they are told or quit.
Gene363
9 years ago

MACS... We have two problems. First - misapplication of data, that stat is meaningless without reference... Ie what's the likelihood of an officer being killed by a white person (in relation to the likelihood of them killing one)... It's a standard scare tactic stat with nothing to ground it to reality.

Second - Where did you get that stat? I know you're referencing the FBI data, but that doesn't pass the sniff test, someone has been playing with those numbers.

Your own data source for 2014 says 51 officers were killed by 59 suspects (that's fine)... 42 of those suspects were white and 13 black (the rest are other races). If your stat holds true, then we would expect 1 or less black person to be killed by the cops in 2014. I'm pretty sure that's gonna be higher. Clearly the number they're kicking around comes from another year or an average of years or is just wrong.

More importantly if you look at that data and compare number of whites killing cops vs number of whites killed by cops you're going to see that the stat you threw out is going to be way higher for whites. They're already killing over 3x the number of cops as blacks and they're getting shot less. And everyone loves to use the "well the blacks get arrested more, that's why they get shot by cops more" excuse... If you take that into account, then the whites are practically law enforcement officer serial killers....

Anyway, it's a dumb statistic on a couple different levels. Could be useful if you compared it to something equivalent... And if you can show me where they got that number.

victor809 wrote:



Huh, Maybe that sideways shooting thing isn't working too well. [sarcasm]
DrafterX
9 years ago

Going back to the OP, I am pretty confident that all of you have or currently work under workplace rules that do not allow discussing politics and religion on the job. These overpaid game players are "on the clock" so if the owners approve, they can protest all they want, heck if they are really serious, they should do it during the game. If the team owner does not approve, they should do as they are told or quit.

Gene363 wrote:




they have overseers tho... the NFL was talking about fining some players last weekend for wearing patriotic cleats... 😟
Users browsing this topic