Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[BackInTheNewYorkGroove]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You don't know that. The effectiveness of broken windows and its successor programs is in dispute. And I say this as someone sympathetic to your position

I disagree (and I voted for Comrade de Blasio). I think what bothered New Yorkers enough to elect a guy who was number 11 in a 10 candidate poll at the start of the campaign was the abuse of stop and frisk (one of the tools in the broad concept of broken windows).

The focus on quality of life issues (squeegee men, turnstile jumping, open container/open drug use, etc.) helped stop more dangerous crimes - the turnstile jumper who had a .45 in his backpack, the pot smoker who had an open warrant for assault, the squeegee guy serving as distraction for robbery, etc.

But the continued focus on precincts meeting goals and numbers led to harassment and under reporting more recently. Street cops had a quota (denied by the NYPD but confirmed on recordings) and captains were hassled if they had too many higher level crimes in their precincts.

This current brouhaha is underlined by a combination of the union trying to strong arm the mayor on their contract talks (the cops have done this sort of thing to every mayor since Peter Stuyvesant), anger that the guy who campaigned as a police reformer won, and the people who hate de Blasio (the Post, Rudy, the 1% who didn't like his tax proposal).

And as to Adder's question, I think that the police union may be overplaying their hand - ignoring the request of the family of the second murdered cop not to turn the funeral into a political protest was bad enough, but the slowdown is pissing people off. I think the union's request to have Bill Clinton mediate is a sign that they realize that, too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Actually you can because notwithstanding the fairy tale part, one religion is currently involved in a mass murder spree. But I am not.

With that adjustment, I am inclined to agree that, yes, moderate Islam should be more vigilant in shaming its fundamentalists.

But then, consider moderate Christians all over this country. They're appalled and embarrassed by fundamentalists, but what are they supposed to do about it? If a man wants to believe the Earth is 6000 years old, or the Bible the inerrant word of God, there's no reasoning with him. All one can do is distance himself. So yes -- moderate Muslims could mock and marginalize the crazies a bit more, but it's hard to criticize them much for not doing so. Ultimately, the best rejection of Islamic fundamentalism will be the overwhelming majority of Muslims remaining moderate and assimilated.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by BackInTheNewYorkGroove

I disagree (and I voted for Comrade de Blasio). I think what bothered New Yorkers enough to elect a guy who was number 11 in a 10 candidate poll at the start of the campaign was the abuse of stop and frisk (one of the tools in the broad concept of broken windows).

The focus on quality of life issues (squeegee men, turnstile jumping, open container/open drug use, etc.) helped stop more dangerous crimes - the turnstile jumper who had a .45 in his backpack, the pot smoker who had an open warrant for assault, the squeegee guy serving as distraction for robbery, etc.

But the continued focus on precincts meeting goals and numbers led to harassment and under reporting more recently. Street cops had a quota (denied by the NYPD but confirmed on recordings) and captains were hassled if they had too many higher level crimes in their precincts.

This current brouhaha is underlined by a combination of the union trying to strong arm the mayor on their contract talks (the cops have done this sort of thing to every mayor since Peter Stuyvesant), anger that the guy who campaigned as a police reformer won, and the people who hate de Blasio (the Post, Rudy, the 1% who didn't like his tax proposal).

And as to Adder's question, I think that the police union may be overplaying their hand - ignoring the request of the family of the second murdered cop not to turn the funeral into a political protest was bad enough, but the slowdown is pissing people off. I think the union's request to have Bill Clinton mediate is a sign that they realize that, too.

Stop and frisk is indefensible. Quotas are indefensible. But technically, their emergence does dovetail with a drop in crime. Other factors are of course part of that decrease, but Adder's suggestion that broken windows has been proven not to have been a contributing factor is not true. However much I want Adder to be right on this point, that debate is not settled.

The Union's behavior came off as that of petulant children -- bitching and whining because they were being reprimanded. Turning their backs on DeBlasio did nothing but reinforce the public's suspicion far too many cops are far too many rungs down the IQ and maturity ladders than public servants carrying pistols ought to be.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

People becoming bored with crack did.

Maybe. Or maybe it was on demand abortion. Or reduced lead exposure. Or something we haven't figured out yet.

Crime fell off a cliff with or without broken windows policing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe. Or maybe it was on demand abortion. Or reduced lead exposure. Or something we haven't figured out yet.

Crime fell off a cliff with or without broken windows policing.

That's not proven. Even the authors of Freakonomics, from which you've borrowed the abortion argument, didn't assert that position.

The truth is it's probably a combination of these factors. But you cannot and never will be able to say that broken windows was not a contributing factor in NY.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

How do you feel about the police work slowdown?

Does it make any difference?

It makes life easier for deliverymen and turnstile-hoppers. The cops aren't completely stupid. They're not going to endanger people's safety and make any voters mad at them. They're trying to put pressure on the mayor by shorting the city of funds raised through ticketing.

Of course, if they want increases in pay, once they're done with their little tantrum, they'll have to make up for that revenue, which will mean they'll be hitting people with all types of summonses, which will make people pissed off at cops even more than they currently are.

They seem to overestimate the love and respect people have for them because of years of Giuliani and Bloomberg blowing smoke directly up their asses. They think that because of the recent murders that everyone in the city who isn't subject to stop-and-frisk thinks they're heroes who can do no wrong. They're mainly incorrect.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not proven. Even the authors of Freakonomics, from which you've borrowed the abortion argument, didn't assert that position.

The truth is it's probably a combination of these factors. But you cannot and never will be able to say that broken windows was not a contributing factor in NY.

Well, what I can say is that crime fell in places that didn't do broken windows too.

But yes, you're right that we don't know and there are likely many factors.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

While you're at it, you could also call on other people of Algerian descent, people who drive black cars, and foster children to denounce the aggression and reassure the European community. The killers were members of those groups too, and it makes just as much sense.

Jesus. This is such bullshit. They are not commiting violence in the name of Algeria or black cars.

If you don't think that reducing the safe-harbor of soft support (or the absence of outright condemnation) from others in the religion will make a difference, then I don't know what to say. If you are able to persuade, from the inside, the parts of the muslim community who feel like people who denounce the prophet should be punished severely but who are unwilling to actually pull the trigger, maybe you decrease the number of muslims in the community who look the other way when it occurs. Maybe you reduce the monetary support.

Let me ask you a question. If a bunch of mormons started killing muslims, would you not want the mormon church and mormons generally to speak out against it--to try to convince other mormons that it was wrong, even though you knew the vast number of mormons didn't go out killing people?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Tell wonk Cuz he thinks all groups would kill for that. Only 1 did.

And a member of only one group died trying to protect someone else's right to insult them, right? Je suis Ahmed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Jesus. This is such bullshit. They are not commiting violence in the name of Algeria or black cars.

If you don't think that reducing the safe-harbor of soft support (or the absence of outright condemnation) from others in the religion will make any difference, then I don't know what to say. If you are able to persuade, from the inside, maybe the parts of the muslim community who feel like people who denounce the prophet should be punished severely, but are unwilling to actually pull the trigger, you decrease the number of muslims in the community who look the other way when it occurs. Maybe you reduce the monetary support.

Let me ask you a question. If a bunch of mormons started killing muslims, would you not want the mormon church and mormons generally to speak out against it--to try to convince other mormons that it was wrong, even though you knew the vast number of mormons didn't go out killing people?

TM

People of what religion have put virtually all of the boots on the ground in opposition to ISIS?

Maybe people should listen a little harder. Maybe the problem isn't a lack of people speaking; there are lots of condemnations out there (the earlier link included a few).

I do have some trouble with us continuing to cozy up to some of the ultra-conservative Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, that don't speak because they happen to agree with elements of what ISIS stands for. But real moderate Muslims have been and continue to be quite vocal - they just aren't usually people who have as many ties to the US government or get as much voice over here. And they are often the first people the terrorists want to kill (see, for example, the terrorism that happened in Yemen the same day as the shooting in Paris).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sorry, but does the police backing the fuck off have any negative effects? Seems entirely positive.

They (and Giuliani) think they are responsible for the drop in crime in NY through their 'broken window' policing campaign that happened to correlate precisely with the change in the economy and the influx of foreign cash that changed the face of this city. So they believe that if they stop arresting people for minor shit and serving up summons and pushing minorities out of 'good' neighborhoods (and being constantly on their backs in 'bad' ones) using stop-and-frisk, that the city will go to hell. It won't.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

People becoming bored with crack did.

I honestly have no idea what you've been trying to say.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Jesus. This is such bullshit. They are not commiting violence in the name of Algeria or black cars.

If you don't think that reducing the safe-harbor of soft support (or the absence of outright condemnation) from others in the religion will make a difference, then I don't know what to say. If you are able to persuade, from the inside, the parts of the muslim community who feel like people who denounce the prophet should be punished severely but who are unwilling to actually pull the trigger, maybe you decrease the number of muslims in the community who look the other way when it occurs. Maybe you reduce the monetary support.

Let me ask you a question. If a bunch of mormons started killing muslims, would you not want the mormon church and mormons generally to speak out against it--to try to convince other mormons that it was wrong, even though you knew the vast number of mormons didn't go out killing people?

TM

This article deals with both sides better than we ever will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/wo...=fb-share&_r=0

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This article deals with both sides better than we ever will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/wo...=fb-share&_r=0

TM

Very interesting article. Thanks for the link.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I do have some trouble with us continuing to cozy up to some of the ultra-conservative Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, that don't speak because they happen to agree with elements of what ISIS stands for. But real moderate Muslims have been and continue to be quite vocal - they just aren't usually people who have as many ties to the US government or get as much voice over here. And they are often the first people the terrorists want to kill (see, for example, the terrorism that happened in Yemen the same day as the shooting in Paris).

I think part of the problem is that to be the voice opposing violence in the name of Islam, as a muslim in the Middle East, you become a target of violence in the name of Islam. We want people to stand up and say that other muslims who believe that anyone speaking against factions of Islam should be punished as infidels are wrong.

Seems to me it's the same issue over and over and over again, throughout history. If you lived in Hitler's Germany and you disagreed with what was going on, you best not say a fucking word. You don't know who you're talking to and what they might do. Stalin's Russia? Fidel's Cuba? The examples don't fit exactly because it's not always a government-imposed problem. But the article I just posted included:

“When a person comes out and promotes his heresy, promotes his debauchery, and justifies his apostasy on the basis that ‘Islam is not good,’ then there is the judiciary,” Sheikh Abdel-Gelil said. “The judiciary will get him.”

If moderate muslims believe that people who criticize muslims should be punished and extremists trade off of that sentiment to espouse crazier and crazier shit while labeling any dissent as anti-muslim, you end up with a group of people who are not going to speak out. And when you weave the idea that Islam is beyond reproach into law, you end up where we are right now.*

How does any moderate muslim go about changing the idea that one can never criticize Islam (whether it's your version of the religion or not) if the government outright states and/or the guy sitting next to you believes that any form of criticism amounts to a fucking crime?

TM

*Especially when you combine that with bombing campaigns from the West.