"I can't breathe!" I retract my previous statement asking for police officers to wear cameras. It wouldn't make a difference. Clearly, some police are comfortable murdering people on film, and they're seemingly always going to get away with it.
"I can't breathe!" I retract my previous statement asking for police officers to wear cameras. It wouldn't make a difference. Clearly, some police are comfortable murdering people on film, and they're seemingly always going to get away with it.
Possibly but it would probably help a little in making a case against them. Also it could be used as a teaching tool for new officers to see some scenarios and how to spot them before they happen.
Just want to say that the Eric Garner case is very disturbing.
Before saying anything else, I should admit.... after reading about the evidence presented to the grand jury in the Michael Brown case, I think we were all wrong on that one. Most of what was being reported in the early days of the story was based off of lies from supposed eye-witnesses (:/) and made the officer look a lot, lot worse than he probably was. Not that he handled things wisely, but it wasn't the cold blooded killing it was presented as.
That said... the Eric Garner story is just as horrible as it sounds. 100%. Watching the video is extremely disturbing. And to think... this was all over selling untaxed cigarettes. Not a violent crime. Not even selling hard drugs. Absolutely ABSURD prioritization for using police resources, never mind how unforgivably excessive the use of force was.
While the individual officer in this case is largely to blame, there are institutional changes that can be implemented to help prevent future tragedies like this. Video cameras are a good idea, despite, as @jackjack said, the widely distributed recording in this situation did not lead to an indictment. Still, even if this policy might not have made a big difference in this one case, it could only help reduce bad behavior on the part of police officers even if just by a little.
"if the NYPD has the resources to deploy plainclothes officers on Staten Island that keep an eye out for loose cigarettes, it surely has the resources to put a body camera on every cop."
Another hot topic of the day: Obama's executive orders regarding immigration policy.
For me, I agree with the policy (indeed, I would make additional reforms and expand the work visa programs)... however the way in which it is being implemented is dangerous and disrupts the system of checks and balances that is so fundamental to the system in ways that I am absolutely not comfortable with. This is something that should have been done in 2008 when the president had both houses behind him... but as we all know, that wouldn't have been as beneficial to his reelection campaign (or, big surprise, to the reelection hopes of the nativist wing of the Republican party)
Problems existing make people upset. Upset people vote. Actually solving the problem with immigration would mean that each party won't have this issue to hold over the heads of their constituencies come November, and therefore an impasse is more beneficial to both sides's hopes for reelection. I have often expected that the same logic is used by the pro-life right (Reagan nominating Sandra Day O'Connor despite being pro-life and her being pro-choice is one example).
This kind of thing reminds me of a very interesting quote by Thomas Sowell: "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems... of which getting elected and re-elected are Number One and Number Two. Whatever is Number Three is far behind"
Bloomberg say that oil’s decline is proving to be the worst since the collapse of the financial system in 2008 and threatening to have the same global impact of falling prices three decades ago that led to the Mexican debt crisis and the end of the Soviet Union.
And I have to say that among Russian people it's fealt this way: our currency is collapsing with literally every day...
Today I can buy 1 EUR for 64.5 roubles while exactly the same time last year (only a year ago) I could buy 1 EUR for 44.5 roubles ... If the oil's price will be less than 50 USD it would mean the end of Russia. Literally.
Well... We are getting there, one barrel is now 61 USD
We have it really bad in The Netherlands we have 2 items that are really inportant in the news.
Untill december 5 it was the "Zwate Pieten" (Black Pete) discussion, racism of a childerens celebration. We have Sinterklaas in The Netherlands (since the 1600's ) and he has black helpers. The story goes that he (Saint Nicholas) bought slaves (or 1) and set them free, but the slave(s) dicided to stay to help the Saint with his good work. 400 years later (he is not as old as @elminster ) we still celebrate his birthday with giving presents to childeren (and we welcome him as he arrives with his steamship). He brings his servants, who where black for 400 years. And now it's racism
Now after 5 december fireworks are heavely discussed, it's only legal on 31 deceber 18:00 to 1 january ~4:00. But more and more cities they don't want fireworks in the city center.
The Black Monday has happened in Russia. During the last evening alone, our currency lost 10% - ten percents in several hours...
It's just too much.
The government must offer a clear plan of reforms, they must act ASAP. But they don't do it. They seem to do nothing, in fact. The 2015 budget is balanced on the assumption of selling oil at $95 per barrel (!) - that's ridiculous - the current level is hovering around $60 and we know from the estimations that it could be $50 or even less in 2015.
@bengoshi I know this is very bad for you and your fellow citizens. And it's a shame Russia is almost in War with Europe after the shit in the Ukrain and murdering 298 people (and a lot of animals). Almost everyone in the Netherlands knows someone that knows someone on board of the MH17.
I think the only solution comes with a new government.
murdering 298 people (and a lot of animals). Almost everyone in the Netherlands knows someone that knows someone on board of the MH17.
I can only give my condolences to all the relatives and friends!
And the most depressing thing for Russia is that the chance of getting a new government is zero. The current authority have everything at their disposal, including army.
The Russian people can do nothing about these international problems, we know that. It's really a shame, the international community can do nothing to hurt the govermnment, without hurting the civilians
Just out of curiosity, just how popular is Putin with the common man on the street? We've seen news articles that say he's really quite popular among the average working class. Pictures of his face on tee shirts and hats and a Vodka brand named after him?
News here can be rather unreliable, we have friends in a handful of European countries and they often contradict the news, we're beginning to distrust the mainstream media on the whole.
To be fair, the country has changed quite considerably during his presidency-premiership-presidency, and his approval never went below 65%, even at it lowest. He's gained a massive boost in approval after the Crimea incident, so generally he's quite popular indeed, although it's not like you would see his face on tees, or what have you, every day. The chap also has some class, I can give him that much.
@FinneousPJ Among Russian economists it's clear the crisis will last for at least 3 years and it will only get worse. Nobody wants to help our isolated country beause of the stupid Putin's politics. Personally, I think it will take 10 years. I'm afraid of the next year.
@CaloNord I can't answer for everyone but among the most intelligent and progressive circles he's considered the reason of all the troubles. All my friends who are lawyers and economists can't stand him.
I'm glad this thread is still going - I always think it's important to get other peoples perspectives on a situation.
I think Western politicians live in a bubble and are way out of their comfort zone when dealing with societies and cultures that don't fit their template of a civilised, First World country.
I know (from 20 years of personal experience) that the West doesn't understand Africa, so I can be reasonably certain that they/we don't understand other places such as the Middle East or in this case Russia.
Should the West get involved at all? Sanctions didn't work with South Africa, I was there at the time and all they did was fast track a culture of reverse engineering that produced brilliant innovators and ultimately a South African nuclear deterrent - along with an increased feeling of 'them against us'. Would the Russian people benefit if Putin fell from power? Do we have any idea who would replace him and would that person be better or worse?
So many questions and I can't help but think that the answers should be sought inside Russia and not imposed from outside.
The uncomfortable truth is that it is normally easier to appeal to the masses by beating the drums of war than appealing for calm and understanding. This is especially true in unequal societies where people are accustomed to intense competition in their daily lives, and translate some of that into their political views. It is no coincidence that Putin's popularity rose after Crimea, or that as the Chinese economy slowed, the Communist Party decided to hold massive commemorative ceremonies for the Nanjing Massacre, to direct the peoples' attention to an external foe, instead of internal problems.
For example I have been in the UK for over a decade. Back in the 90s, I hardly noticed any racism. Sure society wasn't perfect (e.g. Stephen Lawrence murder), but on the whole, Britain was prosperous, tolerant and welcoming, and as the Communist Party in China keeps banging on about, it was more or less a "harmonious society". 9/11 brought out some bigots and Islamophobes, but the general consensus was that "we must rise above the terrorists and protect our inclusive and tolerant society".
The real change came with the financial crisis of 2007/8, suddenly peoples' real income declined, many lost their jobs and financial security, and more importantly, thanks to greater media reporting of economics-related news, they realised just how unequal Britain really was. As hardship increased, coupled with the awareness that others have it better than you, there was a noticeable change in the British psyche, and not for the better.
Suddenly people are looking for excuses and people to blame, rightly or wrongly, for their dissatisfaction in life. Bankers, politicians and ... yes you guessed it, immigrants. Despite all serious academic studies stating categorically that immigration has been a net boon to the British economy, the simple lie that "immigrants are taking our jobs, scrounging off our benefits and leeching our public services" is seductively powerful. A few years ago the rise of UKIP would be unthinkable. Now UKIP has been tacitly accepted as a mainstream political force, and both Labour and the Conservatives trip over one another to prove "how tough we are on immigration", without holding an honest debate about the merits and faults of immigration.
A few years ago supporting UKIP would be something you would be embarrassed to tell your friends. Now "multiculturalism" has become a dirty word.
UKIP focuses on the "scrounging off our benefits and leeching our public services" part, as far as I can tell. And that actually is a major problem for Britain and many other european states.
@Heindrich It's the same in the Netherlands, some parties (especially Geert Wilders) are blaming immigants of Africa, Bulgaria and Poland. Thank God that Geert Wilders makes to much mistakes to be taken seriously.
Some people see similairities in the recent crisis and the crisis in Germany at the start of WW2. And Geert Wilders is often compared to Hilter. I think thats one of the main reasons his party never got enough votes to really do something.
In the Netherlands we are climbing out the crisis. We have much unemployment and still many companies struggeling but its getting better, not worse.
UKIP focuses on the "scrounging off our benefits and leeching our public services" part, as far as I can tell. And that actually is a major problem for Britain and many other european states.
No offense, but this is precisely an example of an seductive lie told a hundred times makes the truth irrelevant.
I cannot speak for other European countries (though I am pretty sure it will be similar), but the fact is that on the whole, immigrants in the UK are younger and better educated than the native population as a whole. This is not at all surprising, because immigrants are (in the majority) young people moving away from a poor country, trying to find a better life elsewhere. (If you are 50 years old, there's little point enduring such upheaval in your life.) They also tend to be the cream of the crop, because those who take that leap tend to be the more ambitious and hardworking types who are not content with their lot at home and willing to work for a better future.
So yes, immigrants use public services, yes some take benefits, but the fact remains that the vast majority contribute far more via taxes than they take from benefits. Simply put, young working people are a net-benefit to society, old age pensioners are a burden (that a healthy society has a moral responsibility to bear).
Hence the UKIP argument that somehow immigrants are to blame for your economic hardship is socially poisonous and factually incorrect.
What should be up for debate is whether Britain wants to be more culturally diverse than it already is. One should not be accused of racism just for stating that they would prefer the country to remain mostly white and Christian. Britain belongs to the British people, and they absolutely have the right to determine what it should look like for generations to come.
Immigrants are a boon to the British economy, but mass immigration is changing the cultural makeup of the country and changing what it means to be British. That is where the debate should be.
Regarding the current situation in Russia, both Putin and the West are playing a very dangerous game and going down a very uncertain road. Although @bengoshi is Russian, he is clearly in the minority of liberal and educated Russians. (careful you don't draw too much attention to yourself mate, the FSB don't mess about...) On the whole Putin enjoys a level of popularity that Western leaders would kill for. You can blame media restriction, state propaganda etc, but that would be ignoring the fact that many Russians do desire a strong leader who can restore their country's prestige and place in the world.
It would be simplistic to blame Putin for all the problems between Russia and the West. Political decisions are often driven by geopolitics and constrained by political realities as much personal leadership. It is striking how similar the presidency of Obama has been to Bush, even though I do believe that Obama did intend to do things differently, he has been forced to behave like any other American president by the hand dealt to him.
Here is a really interesting article that offers an unconventional perspective on the current state of affairs, from a very interesting individual...
We have a poor economics that becomes worse and worse with every passing day. We have human rights violations on every possible stage. The only one thing I see is a long and inevitable fall.
I have a question for you. How did you feel when Europe was doing their trade embargo thing. I'm dutch (you know, everyone mad about that civilian airliner russia shot down) and over here our media went cold war style almost immediately and pretended russia was some kind of big threat to us.
However, I just dont understand what Putin was thinking. 90% of their export is to europe, and the biggest part of that is basic resources like Gas. Sure, he got some short term political gain in his home country by acting all big and tough in the Ukraine question, but seriously what a dumb move. I just dont get it, what was he thinking? Now the Rubble, which was already weak during the economic crisis and Russia's recovery is under such heavy stress. It might collapse alltogether... What kind of ruler does this?
I was on a holiday when it happened. I remember returning to the hotel from the beach and reading that in the newspaper... In a minute I was already imagining this whole thing will take years ... The prices wouldn't stip going high, I thought. Of course I couldn't expect 1 EUR for 100 RUB as it's today (it was 1 EUR for 50 RUB then) but I understood it was time to act fast.
The next week I was already searching for the foreign real estate and the ways to stay in a foreign country permanently.
A collapse like this is a result of a warrior's rule - I wish he was an economist and not an army-man.
Comments
I retract my previous statement asking for police officers to wear cameras. It wouldn't make a difference. Clearly, some police are comfortable murdering people on film, and they're seemingly always going to get away with it.
Just want to say that the Eric Garner case is very disturbing.
Before saying anything else, I should admit.... after reading about the evidence presented to the grand jury in the Michael Brown case, I think we were all wrong on that one. Most of what was being reported in the early days of the story was based off of lies from supposed eye-witnesses (:/) and made the officer look a lot, lot worse than he probably was. Not that he handled things wisely, but it wasn't the cold blooded killing it was presented as.
That said... the Eric Garner story is just as horrible as it sounds. 100%. Watching the video is extremely disturbing. And to think... this was all over selling untaxed cigarettes. Not a violent crime. Not even selling hard drugs. Absolutely ABSURD prioritization for using police resources, never mind how unforgivably excessive the use of force was.
While the individual officer in this case is largely to blame, there are institutional changes that can be implemented to help prevent future tragedies like this. Video cameras are a good idea, despite, as @jackjack said, the widely distributed recording in this situation did not lead to an indictment. Still, even if this policy might not have made a big difference in this one case, it could only help reduce bad behavior on the part of police officers even if just by a little.
And besides, as this article states
"if the NYPD has the resources to deploy plainclothes officers on Staten Island that keep an eye out for loose cigarettes, it surely has the resources to put a body camera on every cop."
For me, I agree with the policy (indeed, I would make additional reforms and expand the work visa programs)... however the way in which it is being implemented is dangerous and disrupts the system of checks and balances that is so fundamental to the system in ways that I am absolutely not comfortable with. This is something that should have been done in 2008 when the president had both houses behind him... but as we all know, that wouldn't have been as beneficial to his reelection campaign (or, big surprise, to the reelection hopes of the nativist wing of the Republican party)
Problems existing make people upset. Upset people vote. Actually solving the problem with immigration would mean that each party won't have this issue to hold over the heads of their constituencies come November, and therefore an impasse is more beneficial to both sides's hopes for reelection. I have often expected that the same logic is used by the pro-life right (Reagan nominating Sandra Day O'Connor despite being pro-life and her being pro-choice is one example).
This kind of thing reminds me of a very interesting quote by Thomas Sowell: "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems... of which getting elected and re-elected are Number One and Number Two. Whatever is Number Three is far behind"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stephanie-thorne-mother-of-5-year-old-boy-killed-in-police-car-crash-wants-justice-1.2856245
http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/serpico-wedge-driven-police-society-article-1.2034651
Untill december 5 it was the "Zwate Pieten" (Black Pete) discussion, racism of a childerens celebration.
We have Sinterklaas in The Netherlands (since the 1600's ) and he has black helpers. The story goes that he (Saint Nicholas) bought slaves (or 1) and set them free, but the slave(s) dicided to stay to help the Saint with his good work. 400 years later (he is not as old as @elminster ) we still celebrate his birthday with giving presents to childeren (and we welcome him as he arrives with his steamship). He brings his servants, who where black for 400 years. And now it's racism
Now after 5 december fireworks are heavely discussed, it's only legal on 31 deceber 18:00 to 1 january ~4:00. But more and more cities they don't want fireworks in the city center.
It's just too much.
The government must offer a clear plan of reforms, they must act ASAP. But they don't do it. They seem to do nothing, in fact. The 2015 budget is balanced on the assumption of selling oil at $95 per barrel (!) - that's ridiculous - the current level is hovering around $60 and we know from the estimations that it could be $50 or even less in 2015.
And it's a shame Russia is almost in War with Europe after the shit in the Ukrain and murdering 298 people (and a lot of animals). Almost everyone in the Netherlands knows someone that knows someone on board of the MH17.
I think the only solution comes with a new government.
And the most depressing thing for Russia is that the chance of getting a new government is zero. The current authority have everything at their disposal, including army.
Just out of curiosity, just how popular is Putin with the common man on the street? We've seen news articles that say he's really quite popular among the average working class. Pictures of his face on tee shirts and hats and a Vodka brand named after him?
News here can be rather unreliable, we have friends in a handful of European countries and they often contradict the news, we're beginning to distrust the mainstream media on the whole.
@CaloNord I can't answer for everyone but among the most intelligent and progressive circles he's considered the reason of all the troubles. All my friends who are lawyers and economists can't stand him.
>lawyers and economists
*chuckles*
I think Western politicians live in a bubble and are way out of their comfort zone when dealing with societies and cultures that don't fit their template of a civilised, First World country.
I know (from 20 years of personal experience) that the West doesn't understand Africa, so I can be reasonably certain that they/we don't understand other places such as the Middle East or in this case Russia.
Should the West get involved at all? Sanctions didn't work with South Africa, I was there at the time and all they did was fast track a culture of reverse engineering that produced brilliant innovators and ultimately a South African nuclear deterrent - along with an increased feeling of 'them against us'.
Would the Russian people benefit if Putin fell from power? Do we have any idea who would replace him and would that person be better or worse?
So many questions and I can't help but think that the answers should be sought inside Russia and not imposed from outside.
For example I have been in the UK for over a decade. Back in the 90s, I hardly noticed any racism. Sure society wasn't perfect (e.g. Stephen Lawrence murder), but on the whole, Britain was prosperous, tolerant and welcoming, and as the Communist Party in China keeps banging on about, it was more or less a "harmonious society". 9/11 brought out some bigots and Islamophobes, but the general consensus was that "we must rise above the terrorists and protect our inclusive and tolerant society".
The real change came with the financial crisis of 2007/8, suddenly peoples' real income declined, many lost their jobs and financial security, and more importantly, thanks to greater media reporting of economics-related news, they realised just how unequal Britain really was. As hardship increased, coupled with the awareness that others have it better than you, there was a noticeable change in the British psyche, and not for the better.
Suddenly people are looking for excuses and people to blame, rightly or wrongly, for their dissatisfaction in life. Bankers, politicians and ... yes you guessed it, immigrants. Despite all serious academic studies stating categorically that immigration has been a net boon to the British economy, the simple lie that "immigrants are taking our jobs, scrounging off our benefits and leeching our public services" is seductively powerful. A few years ago the rise of UKIP would be unthinkable. Now UKIP has been tacitly accepted as a mainstream political force, and both Labour and the Conservatives trip over one another to prove "how tough we are on immigration", without holding an honest debate about the merits and faults of immigration.
A few years ago supporting UKIP would be something you would be embarrassed to tell your friends. Now "multiculturalism" has become a dirty word.
Some people see similairities in the recent crisis and the crisis in Germany at the start of WW2. And Geert Wilders is often compared to Hilter. I think thats one of the main reasons his party never got enough votes to really do something.
In the Netherlands we are climbing out the crisis. We have much unemployment and still many companies struggeling but its getting better, not worse.
I cannot speak for other European countries (though I am pretty sure it will be similar), but the fact is that on the whole, immigrants in the UK are younger and better educated than the native population as a whole. This is not at all surprising, because immigrants are (in the majority) young people moving away from a poor country, trying to find a better life elsewhere. (If you are 50 years old, there's little point enduring such upheaval in your life.) They also tend to be the cream of the crop, because those who take that leap tend to be the more ambitious and hardworking types who are not content with their lot at home and willing to work for a better future.
So yes, immigrants use public services, yes some take benefits, but the fact remains that the vast majority contribute far more via taxes than they take from benefits. Simply put, young working people are a net-benefit to society, old age pensioners are a burden (that a healthy society has a moral responsibility to bear).
Hence the UKIP argument that somehow immigrants are to blame for your economic hardship is socially poisonous and factually incorrect.
What should be up for debate is whether Britain wants to be more culturally diverse than it already is. One should not be accused of racism just for stating that they would prefer the country to remain mostly white and Christian. Britain belongs to the British people, and they absolutely have the right to determine what it should look like for generations to come.
Immigrants are a boon to the British economy, but mass immigration is changing the cultural makeup of the country and changing what it means to be British. That is where the debate should be.
It would be simplistic to blame Putin for all the problems between Russia and the West. Political decisions are often driven by geopolitics and constrained by political realities as much personal leadership. It is striking how similar the presidency of Obama has been to Bush, even though I do believe that Obama did intend to do things differently, he has been forced to behave like any other American president by the hand dealt to him.
Here is a really interesting article that offers an unconventional perspective on the current state of affairs, from a very interesting individual...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30483873
However, I just dont understand what Putin was thinking. 90% of their export is to europe, and the biggest part of that is basic resources like Gas. Sure, he got some short term political gain in his home country by acting all big and tough in the Ukraine question, but seriously what a dumb move. I just dont get it, what was he thinking? Now the Rubble, which was already weak during the economic crisis and Russia's recovery is under such heavy stress. It might collapse alltogether... What kind of ruler does this?
I was on a holiday when it happened. I remember returning to the hotel from the beach and reading that in the newspaper... In a minute I was already imagining this whole thing will take years ... The prices wouldn't stip going high, I thought. Of course I couldn't expect 1 EUR for 100 RUB as it's today (it was 1 EUR for 50 RUB then) but I understood it was time to act fast.
The next week I was already searching for the foreign real estate and the ways to stay in a foreign country permanently.
A collapse like this is a result of a warrior's rule - I wish he was an economist and not an army-man.