Racism Über Alles


Racism now, racism tomorrow, racism forever!

Seriously. From N.D.B. Connolly in the NYT:

The problem is not black culture. It is policy and politics, the very things that bind together the history of Ferguson and Baltimore and, for that matter, the rest of America.

Specifically, the problem rests on the continued profitability of racism. Freddie Gray’s exposure to lead paint as a child, his suspected participation in the drug trade, and the relative confinement of black unrest to black communities during this week’s riot are all features of a city and a country that still segregate people along racial lines, to the financial enrichment of landlords, corner store merchants and other vendors selling second-rate goods.

The problem originates in a political culture that has long bound black bodies to questions of property. Yes, I’m referring to slavery.

Slavery was not so much a labor system as it was a property regime, with slaves serving not just as workers, but as commodities. Back in the day, people routinely borrowed against other human beings. They took out mortgages on them. As a commodity, the slave had a value that the state was bound to protect.

Now housing and commercial real estate have come to occupy the heart of America’s property regime, replacing slavery. And damage to real estate, far more than damage to ostensibly free black people, tends to evoke swift responses from the state. What we do not prosecute nearly well enough, however, is the daily assault on black people’s lives through the slow, willful destruction of real estate within black communities. The conditions in West Baltimore today are the direct consequence of speculative real estate practices that have long targeted people with few to no options.

On the heels of any ghetto economy based on extraction comes the excessive policing necessary to keep everyone in place. Cities that are starved for income have found ways to raise revenues by way of fines and fees exacted from poor, underemployed African-Americans and migrants of color. These include property taxes and court costs. In Maryland, in particular, these come in lieu of property taxes that many of the state’s largest employers are not required to pay. The dangers of tax burdens and other unseen costs are as deadly to urban households as police brutality or fires set by “thugs.”

What a load of crap.

We often hear people on the Left saying that poor people are being exploited. The theory is that poor (black) people are poor because rich (white) people are stealing all their money. The flaw in that theory is that those people started out poor, so they didn’t have any money to steal in the first place.

Yes, there are slum lords who get rich. Guys like Tony Rezko, for example. But Tony did not get his money from ripping off the tenants, he got it from ripping off the government. He had powerful friends in Chicago who helped him get lucrative contracts to provide housing for poor people. Friends like Barack Obama.

Exactly who does the author think is doing the “slow, willful destruction of real estate within black communities”? It sure ain’t white people. Black people vandalize black neighborhoods. Black people sell drugs to other black people. Black men get black girls pregnant. Black people rob and steal from other black people. Black people murder other black people.

And the Left blames it all on white people.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with black people. I’m saying there is something very wrong with black culture. If that makes me a racist then so be it.

Last but not least – why are the Maryland’s largest employers exempt from paying property taxes? Because the state is offering economic incentives to those businesses in order to keep/attract jobs to the state.

Jobs – so that people won’t be poor.

About Myiq2xu™

I lost everything in a Fonzie scheme.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Racism Über Alles

  1. Myiq2xu says:

    I want to talk about the charges against the cops in Baltimore but until I see the specific allegations I can’t really evaluate the charges. I will be surprised if most of the charges stick.

    • DandyTIger says:

      Seems like the various assault charges are there assuming no probable cause to apprehend or arrest. Seems like those and anything related are problematic. The injuries and death in the van is the big issue. That seems like something that could stand and be heard in court. But it seems like that would be hard to prove. Was there anything self inflicted? How culpable are any of the officers that weren’t in the van or driving? And how rough was the drive? And finally, what about the rule to restrain with a seat belt; how was that in practice, how reasonable, and is the lack of that enough for second degree homicide. And the driver’s extra charge of malice (or whatever that extra bit was called), can they prove that?

      • Myiq2xu says:

        Convicting cops is always problematic.

      • Myiq2xu says:

        Here is a good description of criminal negligence: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/

        • DandyTIger says:

          That makes sense. Then I wonder if standard practice of police was not to restrain by seat belt in those vans, then failing to seat belt in this case would not be a deviation of that standard. But I guess that could be perceived to be negligence, but probably not criminal negligence. Maybe.

          • Myiq2xu says:

            I’m sure that there is a lot of case law out there regarding seat belts, even if most of it does not involve prisoners in paddy wagons.

          • lililam says:

            I would imagine that most if not all of the case law in the private or public sphere would involve civil negligence, although I could imagine it rising to recklessness or reckless endangerment leading to a manslaughter or greater charge in the case of not belting in an infant or child, for example. Since the prisoner was literally in custody, there may be a parallel.

        • 49erDweet says:

          And until we see a clear depiction of the “vans” interior it’s impossible to do much more than generalize.

    • mcnorman says:

      In the meantime, there will be collateral damage to the fullest. All to appease the flame thrower on gasoline Sharpton types.

  2. HELENK3 says:

    years ago in Chester Pa, there was flooding and homes in a project were flooding out. A builder who has just finished building a brand new apt complex said the people who were flooded out could stay in the new apt complex until their homes were fixed.
    remember these were brand new apts,, that no one had lived in. Those apts were totally trashed by the people the builder was trying to help. The damage was unbelievable and unnecessary.

    • Kathy says:

      Plus, I remember community centers, playgrounds and endless programs built for the inner city over the years, and most of it trashed.

  3. foxyladi14 says:

    Those who trash and loot, Do not care.
    It is not theirs and cost them nothing. 👿

  4. foxyladi14 says:

    Therin lies the problem, Of Free stuff. 😡

  5. Falstaff says:

    This ain’t good. The highest ranking officer in the Freddie Gray case was mentally unstable.

  6. Myiq2xu says:

    Stolen from a commenter at Legal Insurrection:

    What case law tells us

    A review of the relevant civil case law regarding prisoner transport reveals a number of judicial decisions regarding the above cited areas. Among these areas of potential civil liability, the use or misuse of restraints, the failure to utilize seatbelts, and transporting prisoners for medical purposes emerge as among the more common topics in which litigation is filed. Due to the page limitations for this article only a few cases will be discussed.

    A prisoner may file a civil lawsuit under Section 1983 for alleged violations of their constitutional rights and the legal argument applied in the lawsuit is determined by the status of the prisoner. For example, an arrested person injured during a transport after an arrest by a law enforcement officer may claim a Fourth Amendment right violation for the misuse of restraints, excessive use of force, and a failure to provide medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Prisoners detained in a jail and injured during a transport from the jail to court or a medical care facility (or other destinations) generally allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation, while some federal courts have allowed jail prisoners to file a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

    Convicted prisoners, however, may file a lawsuit regarding a transport issue consistent with the Eighth Amendment, due to their convicted status. Typically the prisoner will also claim that administrators failed to train, failed to supervise the transporting officer (s), and failed to direct officers through policies and/or the department implemented constitutional deficient policies.

    What about seatbelts?

    Many transportation policies direct officers to use the vehicle seatbelt when transporting a prisoner. A common complaint raised in a prisoner transport lawsuit emerges when a prisoner is injured and an officer failed to secure him with a seatbelt. In Brown v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections (8th Cir. 2004) a state prisoner was allegedly injured from an accident while en route to a correctional facility.

    He claimed that the officers were liable for denying post-accident care and for providing inadequate medical care. He also claimed that the officers refused to seatbelt him into the vehicle and argued that his injuries were sustained due to a failure to be seat belted. The appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the prisoner stated a valid Section 1983 claim. The court ruled that the prisoner’s claims aligned with the deliberate indifference standard commenting that he had a right to safety and to medical care.

    Compare however, the court’s decision in Carrasquillo v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

    A city prisoner brought a Section 1983 action against the City after he was injured in a bus accident while being transported to court. The prisoner claimed that he sustained injury as the officers failed to provide him a seat belt in the transport bus while he was secured in handcuffs. The prisoner claimed that he could hardly support himself and that he was denied adequate treatment.

    The court dismissed the prisoner’s complaint holding that the city did not violate the prisoner’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him with a seatbelt while transporting him in handcuffs. Further, in Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Company (8th Cir. 1999) a pretrial detainee who had suffered injuries rendering him quadriplegic after he was placed with handcuffs behind his back in police transport vehicle, and was thrown forward into the bulkhead of the passenger compartment, brought a Section 1983 action against city officials.

    The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the officers, stating that neither the purchase of vehicles without safety restraints, nor the manner of transporting arrestees in the vehicles, showed deliberate indifference to the rights of the pretrial detainee.

    • Myiq2xu says:

      Those are all civil cases.

      • Propertius says:

        Apparently it’s Baltimore department policy for inmates to be seatbelted. Does the failure to follow an explicit policy contribute to the officers’ liability?

        • lililam says:

          It could support a civil claim of negligence

          • Lulu says:

            I agree that it is a civil rather than criminal issue. If public employees are now criminally liable for new regs that they haven’t been trained is a big problem. And if this is the basis of a murder two charge is not reasonable.

        • Lulu says:

          This was a new policy as I understand. Like days before Gray was in the police van. So had they had training? Mentioned in staff meetings? A protocol written for dangerous, crazy, or violent people and how they were to handle them? And was it a state law or city law or just a new reg applying. And when was it effective? After everyone was trained. Immediately? Lots of bureaucratic confusion which will be brought up by defense attorneys.

      • 49erDweet says:

        And we’re assuming a working seatbelt was available.

  7. angienc says:

    Wait — I stopped at “the lead paint Freddie Gray was exposed to as a child.”
    Is this mother fucker seriously pointing the finger at LEAD PAINT?!?!?!?
    I understand it’s hard for the left right now without an old white guy (or even a “white Hispanic” guy) within spitting distance to put the blame on — but LEAD PAINT? Seriously, that’s pathetic.

    • Myiq2xu says:

      Lead paint was widely used everywhere back in the old days. If you live in an old home, chances are there is some lead paint on your walls, and unless it’s been removed these is probably some asbestos in your walls and attic.

      • mothy67 says:

        Don’t you have to eat it?

      • angienc says:

        Oh I know about lead pain — and the outlaw of it in the US in the 1960s, and the adverse health effects exposure to it can create, etc.
        I’m saying the fact that this MoFo is trying to blame lead paint poisoning for Freddie Gray’s life of crime is bullshit.

    • mcnorman says:

      Yes, I heard that the family said that it caused him asthma.

  8. Myiq2xu says:

    What about Godzilla?

    • lyn says:

      I agree with Dershowitz.

    • elliesmom says:

      So the left had decided you are only entitled to free speech if you agree with them, and if you’re black, you’re innocent even if you’re guilty, and if you’re a cop, you’re always guilty even if you aren’t. It’s always helpful to know what the rules are before you play a game.

  9. Myiq2xu says:

    Whenever I see two men pummeling each other for money I always wonder if they are nice guys.

  10. Myiq2xu says:
  11. Myiq2xu says:
  12. mothy67 says:

    The above photo may be more appalling than the previous. Is he the father.

  13. swanspirit says:

    Megyn Kelly had a Baltimore Police Officer on her show , in disguise, who knew the officers involved and Freddy.
    One of the comments he made was that “Freddy liked to put on a show , you know if someone gets picked up and they don’t want people to think they are co-operating with the police they put on a show, because you know , in Baltimore Snitches get stitches. Freddy was a great witness.”
    I had a feeling he was a snitch. There is so much more to this story than is coming out.

    • 1539days says:

      Wow. That would explain him hitting himself against the walls.

    • Myiq2xu says:

      Anybody who has watched COPS knows that some people do really stupid things when they are getting arrested.

      • swanspirit says:

        Maybe i am wrong, but it seems to me , that if Freddy was such a “good witness” there would be absolutely no reason for the police to want to hurt him. Seems to me they would want him healthy.

        • leslie says:

          Wouldn’t it be something if, in the end, Freddy was self-inflicting this bodily harm to save his street cred. I know that some people thought he might have been a police snitch. But one of my original thoughts was that he had caused this damage to his body so that he could sue the police and call it his personal “state lottery windfall”. In my heart, I’m certain no one had intended for him to die.
          After all this, I’m still trying to wrap my head around his death.

  14. lyn says:

    Can’t stop laughing.

Comments are closed.