Wait, so the city is asking for tax increases so they can pay the lawyers to defend the cops who arrest the people for no reason?
The tax increases will go to hiring more police, who will help bring in more revenue, to pay the lawyers defending them and lose, requiring a tax increase that will go to hiring more police, who will help bring in more revenue, to pay the lawyers defending them and lose, requiring a tax increase that will go to hiring more police, who will help bring in more revenue, to pay the lawyers defending them and lose, requiring a tax increase that will go to hiring more police, who will help bring in more revenue, to pay the lawyers defending them and lose, requiring a tax increase that will go to hiring more police, who will help bring in more revenue, to pay the lawyers defending them and lose…
Hey, at least they’ll have 0% unemployment, when everyone is working for the police!
I predict this plan will be hard to sell to the electorate.
Until the people who are making the bad decisions (cops, lawyers) are made to experience the consequences of those decisions, nothing will change.
I believe this is the image you’re looking for.
Ideally, most of the electorate won’t be able to vote, and to convince the rest we just have to blame it on black people.
I’m never sure whether this is race-baiting or just acknowledgement.
Ferguson is mostly populated by brown people, and the cops have warrants out for more than 2/3rds of the population, so, yeah.
It gets even more obvious what’s going on when you look at income distribution and racial demographics. The rich are few and far between, but mostly white, and since the rich aren’t willing to pay for everything the city wants you have to hit a lot of poor folks to make up the nut.
Normally the public defender’s office will farm out private attorneys to defend individuals for overflow or conflict reasons. But for the head prosecutor to also be a private attorney? And to farm out private attorneys to prosecute defendants? What an unholy alliance and recipe for disaster that must be.
I need a quick sign; sarcasm?
Race-baiting? Okay first of all, how could that be? And second, what does the term “race-baiting” actually mean to you?
No, it’s not sarcasm.
Some of us want racial equality.
Some of us want racial war.
Those in the latter category like to pretend that the economic and educational inequities that sustain structural racism are not important; they want people of all skin colors and ethnicities to focus on how that other group is getting it better than them, or how that other group is getting a free ride on your taxes, or some other stupid divisive black/white race-baiting rhetorical meme package.
If you say “Americans love war; especially if it involves killing (mostly brown) people in lands far away” then I’m pretty sure you’re not race-baiting, just acknowledging.
If you say “Crime in the United States is a problem caused by (mostly brown) people” that’s race-baiting on multiple levels - crime demographics aren’t that simple. Again, I’m pretty sure what you’re up to.
This statement lies somewhere nebulously between the extremes; I cannot tell if it is more likely to help or harm any particular cause.
I subscribe to hate literature of various sorts, and to the SPLC’s Intelligence Report, and try to keep up on the issues. Not just the rhetoric, but its effects. The splitting of Ferguson on racial faultlines has not improved the circumstances on the (mostly brown) people there… but it sure has provided opportunities for racists on both sides of the color line.
I find the equalizing you’re doing here nauseating.
As if “racists” on the losing side of the color line are as much of a problem as those on the other side (setting aside the issue of those who bear the brunt of institutional racism can even be said to be racists) – GTFO. If anyone on the losing side wants to start “racial war” or hates white people just because they’re white, they’re marginalized outliers, i.e., a problem that’s basically unworthy of attention, especially in the equalizing way you’re doing it.
And good on you (not) for contributing to white supremacist groups by subscribing to their publications. “Keeping up with the issues”? What’s to be learned beyond “Black people bad! Jews bad! Women servants!” and so on?
The cops and lawyers are getting paid. And the people are paying the bill. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
Thanks for clarifying.
“Tastes like chicken!”
You’re complaining about the SPLC too, right? Or do white supremacist groups send them complimentary copies?