Minneapolis PD Suspect Dies On Video While Handcuffed. FBI Investigating.

[JHC]

When the protest infringes upon the rights (or property) of others I have no problem with the 50cals mowing them into the afterlife, driving tractor trailers right over them, dowsing them with gas and lighting 'em on fire -- since they're so fond of arson anyway. So yeah, I get that frustration.

Dang. You are reaching all the way back to the 1920's and 30's now. Glory days? WTF

[critter]

Dang. You are reaching all the way back to the 1920's and 30's now. Glory days? WTF

Hey, somone's gotta be the voice of reason here..

[JHC]

Hey, somone's gotta be the voice of reason here..

So you were kidding? And your heart is not like that?

[peterb]

A bit of history on institutionalized racism in housing. Doesn't excuse current bad behavior, but shouldn't be ignored.

-------------
Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.

African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained. So ... the Daly City development south of San Francisco or Levittown or any of the others in between across the country, those homes in the late 1940s and 1950s sold for about twice national median income. They were affordable to working-class families with an FHA or VA mortgage. African-Americans were equally able to afford those homes as whites but were prohibited from buying them. Today those homes sell for $300,000 [or] $400,000 at the minimum, six, eight times national median income. ...

So in 1968 we passed the Fair Housing Act that said, in effect, "OK, African-Americans, you're now free to buy homes in Daly City or Levittown" ... but it's an empty promise because those homes are no longer affordable to the families that could've afforded them when whites were buying into those suburbs and gaining the equity and the wealth that followed from that.
--------------
The Federal Housing Administration's justification was that if African-Americans bought homes in these suburbs, or even if they bought homes near these suburbs, the property values of the homes they were insuring, the white homes they were insuring, would decline. And therefore their loans would be at risk.

There was no basis for this claim on the part of the Federal Housing Administration. In fact, when African-Americans tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods or in mostly white neighborhoods, property values rose because African-Americans were more willing to pay more for properties than whites were, simply because their housing supply was so restricted and they had so many fewer choices. So the rationale that the Federal Housing Administration used was never based on any kind of study. It was never based on any reality.

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/52665...egated-america

[critter]

So you were kidding? And your heart is not like that?

Kidding? no, I do take 'my/your right to x ceases when/where it infringes upon the rights or property of others' very seriously.

Ludicrously, outlandishly hyperbolic - yep.

[Trukinjp13]

I am thankful to be living in the country, surrounded by hills. I really can not see anyone coming out in my neck of the woods though.

This whole thing is a shit show. So many opinions on who is right and wrong. I agree with a lot of you on here. I am on the side of you can not stand down and just let this happen. They will only continue and get worse. This is a sad time for our short history as a country. As far as I am concerned these riots have nothing to do with race. It’s all about breaking down society. This shit has been brewing since the covid-19 started. It was only a matter of time before some incident lit the fire.

This is not the riots from the past. This is a different animal and a lot of this is orchestrated and paid for. Old tactics sometimes do not work against a new enemy. Most of these kids are pussies at heart, it may really sway things to break their will. You may be able to separate the protesters from the rioters. I believe there is multiple groups of people mixed in these crowds. Some may have no intention of violence but are swayed that way from the mob mentality. Some are their for only chaos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ranger]

The Buffalo incident reinforces the reality that vehicles can be used as weapons. Should help LE and NG in situations like these.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/...nder-says.html

Minnesota National Guard Opened Fire on a Vehicle, Commander Says

VBIEDS were and are a big threat to the Military in Iraq and Afghanistan - vehicles driven directly at Soldiers will definitely be perceived as a threat

[Trigger]

A bit of history on institutionalized racism in housing. Doesn't excuse current bad behavior, but shouldn't be ignored.

-------------
Today African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of average white incomes. But African-American wealth is about 5 percent of white wealth. Most middle-class families in this country gain their wealth from the equity they have in their homes. So this enormous difference between a 60 percent income ratio and a 5 percent wealth ratio is almost entirely attributable to federal housing policy implemented through the 20th century.

African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained. So ... the Daly City development south of San Francisco or Levittown or any of the others in between across the country, those homes in the late 1940s and 1950s sold for about twice national median income. They were affordable to working-class families with an FHA or VA mortgage. African-Americans were equally able to afford those homes as whites but were prohibited from buying them. Today those homes sell for $300,000 [or] $400,000 at the minimum, six, eight times national median income. ...

So in 1968 we passed the Fair Housing Act that said, in effect, "OK, African-Americans, you're now free to buy homes in Daly City or Levittown" ... but it's an empty promise because those homes are no longer affordable to the families that could've afforded them when whites were buying into those suburbs and gaining the equity and the wealth that followed from that.
--------------
The Federal Housing Administration's justification was that if African-Americans bought homes in these suburbs, or even if they bought homes near these suburbs, the property values of the homes they were insuring, the white homes they were insuring, would decline. And therefore their loans would be at risk.

There was no basis for this claim on the part of the Federal Housing Administration. In fact, when African-Americans tried to buy homes in all-white neighborhoods or in mostly white neighborhoods, property values rose because African-Americans were more willing to pay more for properties than whites were, simply because their housing supply was so restricted and they had so many fewer choices. So the rationale that the Federal Housing Administration used was never based on any kind of study. It was never based on any reality.

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/52665...egated-america

Seems like there is a lot of bias in that article you quoted. But I myself am biased, because I have very little respect for progressive historians. In the article there seems to be very little attention given to correlation vs causation. The author seems to cherry-pick the wealth of facts and information available in order to support a progressive thesis, both in the case of Gross and Rothstein. The article read as an infomercial for the book, and then has a paid link for the books purchase from the NPR store.

Here is the bio of the book author that the NPR reporter (Gross) scathingly stole from:

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute and a Fellow at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He lives in California, where he is a Fellow of the Haas Institute at the University of California–Berkeley.

[peterb]

Seems like there is a lot of bias in that article you quoted. But I myself am biased, because I have very little respect for progressive historians. Here is the bio of the book author that the NPR reporter scathingly stole from:

The article was an interview with the author. I wouldn't call that "stealing from."

The FHA manual cited is a public document: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites...ing-Manual.pdf

A quick glance found
980 (3). Recorded restrictive covenants should strengthen
and supplement zoning ordinances and to be really effective should
include the provisions listed below. The restrictions should be recorded with the plat, or imposed as a blanket encumbrance against
an lots in the subdivision, and should run for a period of at least
twenty-five to thirty years. Recommended restrictions should include provision for the following:
...
g. Prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the
race for which they are intended

[blues]

The U.S. is a country of many contradictions in its policies.

Some insights from my earliest years working for the federal gov't:

When I would suggest that anyone who was able bodied but received financial relief should be compelled to work, whether street sweeping, ditch digging, public works, whatever...I was told that the unions wouldn't tolerate the incursion on its fiefdom. They wanted that work to go to union members. (Who obviously paid dues.)

When I shoveled snow in front of the federal building where I worked in Brooklyn, I was told I couldn't because it wasn't in my job description. I said "then fire me" because I didn't want little old ladies falling down and breaking their hips on un-shoveled sidewalks. They didn't fire me.

Yet, in East New York, (Brooklyn), the district manager (back in the late 70's) thought nothing of sending me out with a baseball bat to escort some of the women into the office when they came off the subway. It was a very high crime area. The bat wouldn't have gotten me very far.

However, when I drilled holes and mounted coat hooks under the female employees desks so their pocketbooks wouldn't be stolen, I was told I wasn't an electrician and wasn't allowed to do it. (I still finished the job.)

If we could only get out of our own way and allow common sense to rule our decisions. Hell, to even enter into the decisions.

Anyway, I digress...