The Goat Pen

Miguel Tejada gets 105 games for amphetamines (something most of the current HOF members probably used).

And while I don't have a problem with the suspension, why is it 105 games? Under the CBA, 2nd drug test, 100 games. That's what Manny got. That's what Tejada should get. And while Tejada will probably just retire rather than face the suspension, the players union should be challenging all suspensions that don't adhere to the CBA, otherwise it just says the commissioner can do what ever he wants despite the CBA.

Here is where hedge would quote Archer (technically Pam) and say "sploosh."

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/oh ... 29959.html

and in other news, online safe sales have risen dramatically in the last 5 days.

Seriously, I wouldn't tell a soul if that happened to me.

He should have never been suspended.

Czar Bloomberg claims his PD doesn't racial profile, and then argues for the right to racial profile in the same few paragraphs...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

I wonder how many times a day we are profiled - directly and indirectly - everyone of us. I'm not dumb enough to ask why race is a hot button issue, but I am willing to ask how can you look at the statistics regarding crime and race that are presented and *not* agree that profiling is going to happen as a result of them.

eCat wrote:I wonder how many times a day we are profiled - directly and indirectly - everyone of us. I'm not dumb enough to ask why race is a hot button issue, but I am willing to ask how can you look at the statistics regarding crime and race that are presented and *not* agree that profiling is going to happen as a result of them.

I wouldn't call it a self-fulfilling exercise if not for the fact that the highest pct of actual arrests via SandF are whites. Yet, that fact did not increase the stops of whites by the police. Also, on a personal note, I've seen more drugs (usage and presence) in my profession than I ever did in some of the roughest East Coast cities I've visited. I know cats who get their coke deliveries to their office.

I also find it the most telling that the judge did not call SandF unconstitutional, just that its application appeared race-based. To get around it all they need to do is stop more white people. Bloomberg isn't for that. If that happened, the tactic would live about 6 months before it ended.

So, I challenge the "race/crime" stat argument is not valid.

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:I wonder how many times a day we are profiled - directly and indirectly - everyone of us. I'm not dumb enough to ask why race is a hot button issue, but I am willing to ask how can you look at the statistics regarding crime and race that are presented and *not* agree that profiling is going to happen as a result of them.

I wouldn't call it a self-fulfilling exercise if not for the fact that the highest pct of actual arrests via SandF are whites. Yet, that fact did not increase the stops of whites by the police. Also, on a personal note, I've seen more drugs (usage and presence) in my profession than I ever did in some of the roughest East Coast cities I've visited. I know cats who get their coke deliveries to their office.

I also find it the most telling that the judge did not call SandF unconstitutional, just that its application appeared race-based. To get around it all they need to do is stop more white people. Bloomberg isn't for that. If that happened, the tactic would live about 6 months before it ended.

So, I challenge the "race/crime" stat argument is not valid.

so the results of SandF are an indicator of who is committing the highest % of crimes?


and to your note about drugs - not doubt the largest number of drug users are white, and probably on the whole lean toward more middle class at least to start - but who is selling the drugs. The people out here in the burbs don't go to the burbs to buy drugs, they go downtown.

For the record I think SandF is bullshit, its no better than pulling someone over a brake light that is out with the intent to search the car, but I do agree you focus your resources on where crime is occurring.

I don't see why selling drugs is any worse than using drugs. Neither one should be illegal, and at the very least one shouldn't be "more illegal" than the other...

I have no problem with Stop & Frisk. Just keeping the community safe.

They should also have a Stop & Make Them Pull Their Pants Up thing too.

So you selectively decide what is acceptable illegal behavior and what is not? It helps some people sleep better, I guess. I have a problem with it when you want to site crime stats (which arrests play a big part of that) then say that a large group of individuals should not have their activity criminalized because they don't live in the high distribution areas...just the high usage ones.

Hey, if a kid or an adult is hanging out at 2am on a street known for crime I have no problem with the cops shaking them down. White or Black or Mexican. Nothing good ever happens after midnight so if the cops want to make sure none of them have guns or other weapons I'm all for it. Last year we had a 13 year old girl shot dead in the head walking home from a community outreach program. So yes, I'm good with it.

Safety at all costs, heh? The population could be a whole lot safer if we adopt China's court system.

I don't like it because it oversteps the law. You notice that the mayor is not arguing the legality of it, he's arguing that it makes us safer. When you allow police to overstep a law you have eliminated a boundary and are subject to abuses by certain members of the force because there is nothing tht tells them they went to far. It's the same pinciple as the NSA. Once they have overstepped the constitution once, there is no guideline to say when they have gone too far, which, right now, they feel they will never reach.

Yeah, its horrible. Do bad things happen? Yeah. Is there any evidence that this helps? Nope. If it does, how about we carry it further: mandate that citizens give a house key to cops and allow random searches at any time? Of course not.

Everyone should be required to quarter at least one soldier.

Make me your king and I promise you your safety.

sardis wrote:Safety at all costs, heh? The population could be a whole lot safer if we adopt China's court system.

I don't like it because it oversteps the law. You notice that the mayor is not arguing the legality of it, he's arguing that it makes us safer. When you allow police to overstep a law you have eliminated a boundary and are subject to abuses by certain members of the force because there is nothing tht tells them they went to far. It's the same pinciple as the NSA. Once they have overstepped the constitution once, there is no guideline to say when they have gone too far, which, right now, they feel they will never reach.

Thanks. Saved me the key strokes.

Real simple - Don't start none, won't be none.

And I agree with Rat (spits on the ground), there is NO reason to be standing on the corner at 2AM just hanging the fuck out especially if the area is known for having issues.

what about 10pm, or 7pm?

that pretty much isn't a race issue either.