Riots in England - Rats who sh#t in thier own nests...

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Richard

...at a time when this same merger of globalization and I.T. is creating huge wages for people with global skills (or for those who learn to game the system and get access to money, monopolies or government contracts by being close to those in power) — thus widening income gaps and fueling resentments even more.

There is an equally troubling phenomenon where skilled I.T. workers here are being replaced by those brought in on H1/L1 programs, thanks to the all regulation, the American worker has become too expensive

See http://www.networkworld.com/news/201...rs-249780.html

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Is it your contention that Martin Luther King, Jr. participated in a shake down of the U.S. government?

Clearly.

Others did it before he did. Yet others did it afterwards. That does not change the fundamental character of the transaction.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

Clearly.

Others did it before he did. Yet others did it afterwards. That does not change the fundamental character of the transaction.

Please name your sources. What is your proof that Reverend King sought a pay off? Who are these "others"?

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Please name your sources. What is your proof that Reverend King sought a pay off? Who are these "others"?

OK, I'll name one of the sources "Ralph", and another one "Jill".

If you go back to post 26, you will find a link to the source. Notice that there is a difference between a shakedown and a pay off.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

OK, I'll name one of the sources "Ralph", and another one "Jill".

If you go back to post 26, you will find a link to the source. Notice that there is a difference between a shakedown and a pay off.

nmap--

First, I read the source you linked when you posted it. The only way it supports your interpretation is if one imagines it to say something entirely different than what it actually says.

Second, what you say in post #32 contradicts what you say in post #34.

Third, for the second time this year, you've presented a very controversial interpretation of two exceptionally volatile topics in American history. As with your musings about slavery, your comments about the civil rights movement in the 1960s in this thread, cynicism seems to trump critical thought.

It is well known that towards the end of his life, Dr. King was increasingly concerned with the connection between poverty and the plight of African Americans. Yet, your take--however you phrase, rephrase, and then unphrase it--is not very credible given your lack of evidence. Innuendo and insinuation do not contribute to intellectually responsible discussions about our past.

My $0.02.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I submit that you might want to disabuse yourself of that notion - certainly for the first couple of nights in London the police could not, or would not, stop the violence.

Old news, even here in the US, see: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html for a quick synopsis; Now, I have the utmost respect for LEO, and I am sure many of them wouldn't think twice about going above and beyond their "legally defined" duties, however, as legally defined by the cases in the above link, their job is to enforce the law and not necessarily protect you from those breaking it, and we know that the law moves with the ever shifting political winds. Additionally, LEO is generally limited to a reactionary role by law of nature(there was a movie that was based on preventing crimes before they happened, reading people's minds remotely and that sort, forgot the name), and while they will try to respond as fast humanly possible, you may very well be dead at that point.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by BOfH

Old news, even here in the US, see: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html for a quick synopsis; Now, I have the utmost respect for LEO, and I am sure many of them wouldn't think twice about going above and beyond their "legally defined" duties, however, as legally defined by the cases in the above link, their job is to enforce the law and not necessarily protect you from those breaking it, and we know that the law moves with the ever shifting political winds. Additionally, LEO is generally limited to a reactionary role by law of nature(there was a movie that was based on preventing crimes before they happened, reading people's minds remotely and that sort, forgot the name), and while they will try to respond as fast humanly possible, you may very well be dead at that point.

Old news to some, perhaps, but not to all.

The longer you are here the more you might observe that some guests have yet to acquire or use their first weapon and that many arrive here seeking advice on the subject of proper firearms usage from the QPs.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Old news to some, perhaps, but not to all.

The longer you are here the more you might observe that some guests have yet to acquire or use their first weapon and that many arrive here seeking advice on the subject of proper firearms usage from the QPs.

That is true, I have a neighbor who is former cop(NYPD and Nassau) and he was not aware of these cases, I guess they aren't discussed much. The "old news" bit wasn't intended to say "Everyone knows this, your an idiot if you don't" it was more of "Everyone should know this, and you might be on the short end of the stick if you don't".

On the topic of firearms, I am still working on my NYC long gun license, and I have a long way to go with regards to proper firearms handling, so I fall into that category as well .

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

nmap--

First, I read the source you linked when you posted it. The only way it supports your interpretation is if one imagines it to say something entirely different than what it actually says.

Let's review.

Here's the link: LINK. You will note further citations at the link.

Here's the excerpt:

King told reporters that the Watts riots were ‘‘the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade’’ (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about ‘‘dignity and work,’’ rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that ‘‘the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot’’ (King, 19 August 1965). These expressions concerned King, and before he left Los Angeles he spoke on the phone with President Lyndon B. Johnson about what could be done to ease the situation. King recommended that Johnson roll out a federal anti-poverty program in Los Angeles immediately. Johnson agreed with the suggestion, telling King: ‘‘You did a good job going out there’’ (Branch, 308).

The meaning seems quite clear. King coerced the Federal Government to make payoffs in order to avoid riots and insurrection. Johnson agreed to it.

Was King above such behavior? There are allegations of extensive plagiarism, which may well be suggestive of character issues.

Here's a link: Ralph

(See? I named the reference!)

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by dennisw

On slightly elevated note, are we all looking too much to government? Any trending towards liberalism only happens if we allow it. Is it really the Obama administration that's the problem or is it Us who allowed this administration to come into office to begin with. Maybe the Obama administration is a reflection of who we really are, and how we got to where we are is the real issue.

For better or worse, central governments are losing power.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Problems will have to be fixed at the local level.

Government can't legislate morality.
You can't polish a turd.

Originally Posted by Richard

I was listening to the BBC report on this and they offered the following:

Extremely high youth unemployment (under 25 crowd) + lengthy on-going severe economic recession + govt reducing unemployment benefits combined with newly enacted tax increases which have hit those occupying the lowest rungs on the economic ladder the hardest + opportunity = the current mayhem.

UK unemployment = 7.7%
UK youth unemployment = 21%

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Richard

Here or there?

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

You can't polish a turd.

Mythbusters episode 113

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by BOfH

Mythbusters episode 113

I stand corrected.
Then again...the president actually appeared competent to many in 2008 (that might also qualify).

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Then again...the president actually appeared competent to many in 2008 (that might also qualify).

They needed a lot of extra polish to make that "ball" shine, and there's definitely a need for more, he is losing his luster.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by nmap

To add to Richard's post from Friedman...it may be worthwhile to also consider the trend of global food and fuel prices. Not only are a lot of people being squeezed on the income side, they also face problems on the cost side.

I can agree with some of your doomerism here when it comes to food.
(Not from a technical standpoint, but from a political one)

In the US, Canada, Australia, and a few others, there doesn't appear to be a pressing problem.
Agricultural technology is ahead of the "power curve".

In many other nations, resources are probably being misallocated in order to protect those in power.
Sufficient excess capacity probably exists in net food exporters to feed the world, but this presents a political problem.

Will these food-dependent nations willingly trade away their wealth to feed their people?
Will they take to raiding their weaker neighbors in order to access arable land, water supplies, and fertilizer components?

China is on borrowed time.
Mercantilism will eventually crash their economy, and they have been overpumping their aquifers.

The combination of soil deterioration and reversion towards totalitarianism will probably reduce Russia's ability to produce food.
Hunger in large nations + powerful militaries is a bad combination.

The big players worry me more than the small ones.