Bicycle Parts in the News

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:59:55 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:12:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Today in the Senate we heard Adam Schiff do what he does best - lie.
He did everything from straight out lying to misrepresentation of
things that others said by taking them completely out of context. This
was the Democrat Party in its finest hour.

I expect you could find a case of a Republican doing that but it is
unusual.

Still suffering from that irony deficiency, I see.

That is why the Democrats have been playing them like harps for the
last dozen years - the Republicans continue to bend over backwards in
the attempt to be reasonable and fair when the Democrats are using it
to be unreasonable and unfair. May God save the souls of the Democrats
because I will not. I thank God that he presented President Trump at
the correct time.

Oh my. Your sense of reality is so twisted and warped that it's really
quite astonishing.


well, with my twisted sense of reality why don't you tell me how long Democrats have been in power in Chicago?

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 7:04:02 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 11:43 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 06:08:46 +0700, John B
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:25:10 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:06:06 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 9:04:05 PM UTC-8, Chalo wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

Murder by cop. Not at all infrequent.

Fixed that for you.

The fact that you don't like cops doesn't change in the least that
people directly with police guns trained on them will make
threatening moves purposely having themselves killed. Whether you
like cops or not that is not murder.

Would it be murder if it was a police officer with gang member guns
trained on him, who then made a move perceived as threatening and got
shot? You bet it would. Prosecuted, signed, sealed, delivered to
jail. Most people wouldn't ask any questions (at least most people
who are white and middle class).

Cops get a pass on shooting people unnecessarily. The "fog of war,"
needing to make a "split second decision," "warrior" training, etc.,
etc. Not sure what the threat is when it's a kid who's unarmed, 50
feet away and facing away from the cop. Or when it's a black guy
seated in his car who lawfully informs the officer that he has a
conceal and carry permit and is armed, but is shot multiple times
within 30 seconds of that (with the victim's wife and child in the
car). Or when a woman calls the police about a neighborhood
disturbance that sounds like a person being harmed and is shot and
killed when she approaches the police car that responded to her call.
Or when it's a cop who tells his partner he's going to shoot and kill
the guy as they drive up in their cruiser, caught on the dash cam, and
then does so *and* plants a gun to implicate the victim as the cause
of the shooting.

I guess those are acceptable losses in an increasingly totalitarian
America.

Well, of course, the answer is to disarm the police.

No. It might work in London (are bobbies still unarmed?) but America is
one of the most violent societies on the planet, except for those
engaged in actual war.

Disarming seems unwise and too "one size fits all." Better training
including resources to understand and cope with problems like mental
illness in the community they serve would be a better choice. Learn to
ask questions before shooting. In our area there are social workers
paired with police officers for calls where the suspect is known to be
or is thought likely to be mentally ill. This seems to have reduced
these incidents, although it's early days and whether or not the program
works and is sustainable is yet to be seen, but it's promising.



"America is one of the most violent societies on the planet"

Your premise is greatly overstated. US rate is lower than
Greenland for example:
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/ind...RC.P5/rankings

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

What most people don't know that in the "civilized" world the rates of crime are very nearly identical. Germany, for instance, doesn't put many of them in prison because of the cost and hence the same people commit crime after crime. In the US we imprison a FAR greater number of criminals. But then what in the hell do they do when they get out? They've lost a large part of their lives, they are in financially an untenable position and usually with no job prospects.

In short - neither case works.

What does work is:

1. Imprison people and treat them psychologically while drying them out since most are alcoholics or drug users. These inevitably are treatable conditions. Now you have someone that doesn't want to use drugs or alcohol and doesn't want to commit crimes.

2. TEACH THEM A TRADE. Since the largest cause of crime and drug use is the feeling of total helplessness and anger because of that, you have to teach them how to take care of themselves.

This actually works and small programs that used this method had less than a tenth of a percent recidivism. The problem was that they could only teach people computer skills and most people don't really have an aptitude for that. So other work training programs would have to be used.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:04:13 +0700, John B
wrote:

Back in the day the police walked a beat and the cop knew all about
who should be there and what they should be doing and everybody knew
him. I suspect that law enforcement was a totally different thing then
today where the average citizen's only contact with the police is
seeing them ride by in their "cruiser".

I think the majority of cops, especially urban cops, would agree that
policing is a very different thing than when I was young 50 years ago.
There were no beat cops as such in my home town, instead they were all
in suqd cars driving around, but they still knew a lot of people and
what should be going on where. My Dad knew every cop in town through
his business, so it was made clear to me that I had to fly pretty
straight as a result- and I did. I was a boring kid and grew up to be a
boring adult, which doesn't seem like a bad thing now.

At least here, the police seem more like a paramilitary organization
than police as I once understood them. They drive SUV battlewagons,
wear body armor, dark eyewear, have buzz cuts, survey but make as little
contact as possible with the populace. And around here, the "worst"
neighborhoods seem on par than the good neighborhoods in Chicago. Maybe
it is a different world now, I wouldn't know. But it seems like the
"warrior" training mentality for cops results in quick triggers. Years
back a different president came up with some money for neighborhood
policing initiatives, based on the old beat cop model. It worked well
in many parts of the country, but it didn't stick.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:07:44 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Places where cops don't usually have guns exhibit much lower crime
rates than places where they do. Of course, those places also have
sane ideas about permitting real people to have guns in public, not
just cops.

In which direction are you positing cause and effect? Do cops carrying
guns increase the crime rate, or are cops less likely to carry guns in
places where the crime rate is lower?

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:57:04 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

1. Imprison people and treat them psychologically while drying them
out since most are alcoholics or drug users. These inevitably are
treatable conditions. Now you have someone that doesn't want to use
drugs or alcohol and doesn't want to commit crimes.

While you oversimplify a bit, it is true that a large percentage of
convicts in the have psychological and/or substance abuse problems.
Treating those does result in lower recidivism rates.

2. TEACH THEM A TRADE. Since the largest cause of crime and drug use
is the feeling of total helplessness and anger because of that, you
have to teach them how to take care of themselves.

A good idea. I remember reading about one well-known convict who
learned jewelry making in prison and did make a substantial part of his
living that way for the rest of his days rather than returning to the
drug manufacturing that put him in prison. Granted that is anecdote
rather than data.

But even a bit broader than trade is reintegrating parolees into
society. Work and economic self-support is hugely important, but many
perhaps most employers simply will not hire people who have been
incarcerated. So even if they have a trade they've learned, they can't
get a job. In some states parolled felons can't vote, another bar to
being an accepted member of society.

Another piece is creating civility in jails, which are often savage
places rife with internal crime, gang activity, ready access to drugs,
rape and intimidation, etc. Dehumanizing people and training them to be
better criminals probably doesn't help.

This actually works and small programs that used this method had less
than a tenth of a percent recidivism. The problem was that they could
only teach people computer skills and most people don't really have an
aptitude for that. So other work training programs would have to be
used.

Oh yeah. There is a diversity of aptitudes in prisons just like
anywhere else, and one size doesn't fit all.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:43:36 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:59:55 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:12:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Today in the Senate we heard Adam Schiff do what he does best -
lie. He did everything from straight out lying to misrepresentation
of things that others said by taking them completely out of
context. This was the Democrat Party in its finest hour.

I expect you could find a case of a Republican doing that but it is
unusual.

Still suffering from that irony deficiency, I see.

That is why the Democrats have been playing them like harps for the
last dozen years - the Republicans continue to bend over backwards
in the attempt to be reasonable and fair when the Democrats are
using it to be unreasonable and unfair. May God save the souls of
the Democrats because I will not. I thank God that he presented
President Trump at the correct time.

Oh my. Your sense of reality is so twisted and warped that it's
really quite astonishing.


well, with my twisted sense of reality why don't you tell me how long
Democrats have been in power in Chicago?

LOL! Ah, good old Richard J. Daley. He was so popular that people
voted for him three or four times in every election, and even dead
people voted for him. I was in high school when he died and when I left
to go to college stopped paying any attention to Chicago politics. I
don't even know if there's been a Republican mayor there in the past 45
years. If I recall correctly, Daley was succeeded by Harold Washington-
who was black- and whites fled to the suburbs in droves. Who was next-
Michael Bilandic or something like that? Wasn't he the guy who got
voted out because of utter incompetence in managing snowplowing after a
major storm (I recall the city not being able to afford fuel or
something like that).

Traditionally the mayor of Chicago has way more political clout than the
governor of Illinois. Speaking of which, Illinois has a spectacular
record of putting former governors in jail- four of the last seven or
something like that! Two Democrats and two Republicans. Not bad for a
state that practically has junk bond status...

On 1/23/2020 3:45 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:07:44 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Places where cops don't usually have guns exhibit much lower crime
rates than places where they do. Of course, those places also have
sane ideas about permitting real people to have guns in public, not
just cops.

In which direction are you positing cause and effect? Do cops carrying
guns increase the crime rate, or are cops less likely to carry guns in
places where the crime rate is lower?

+1 for logic

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/23/2020 3:57 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:57:04 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

1. Imprison people and treat them psychologically while drying them
out since most are alcoholics or drug users. These inevitably are
treatable conditions. Now you have someone that doesn't want to use
drugs or alcohol and doesn't want to commit crimes.

While you oversimplify a bit, it is true that a large percentage of
convicts in the have psychological and/or substance abuse problems.
Treating those does result in lower recidivism rates.

2. TEACH THEM A TRADE. Since the largest cause of crime and drug use
is the feeling of total helplessness and anger because of that, you
have to teach them how to take care of themselves.

A good idea. I remember reading about one well-known convict who
learned jewelry making in prison and did make a substantial part of his
living that way for the rest of his days rather than returning to the
drug manufacturing that put him in prison. Granted that is anecdote
rather than data.

But even a bit broader than trade is reintegrating parolees into
society. Work and economic self-support is hugely important, but many
perhaps most employers simply will not hire people who have been
incarcerated. So even if they have a trade they've learned, they can't
get a job. In some states parolled felons can't vote, another bar to
being an accepted member of society.

Another piece is creating civility in jails, which are often savage
places rife with internal crime, gang activity, ready access to drugs,
rape and intimidation, etc. Dehumanizing people and training them to be
better criminals probably doesn't help.

This actually works and small programs that used this method had less
than a tenth of a percent recidivism. The problem was that they could
only teach people computer skills and most people don't really have an
aptitude for that. So other work training programs would have to be
used.

Oh yeah. There is a diversity of aptitudes in prisons just like
anywhere else, and one size doesn't fit all.


I'm with you generally but voting rights and 'being an
accepted member of society' are unrelated.

Hell, literally half the people you know are qualified to
vote but do not. And you don't know who is who. _That_ ought
to be unacceptable in polite society[1].


[1] Which should not be construed as support of mandatory
voting, a pernicious thing I do not advocate.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/23/2020 4:20 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:43:36 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:59:55 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:12:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Today in the Senate we heard Adam Schiff do what he does best -
lie. He did everything from straight out lying to misrepresentation
of things that others said by taking them completely out of
context. This was the Democrat Party in its finest hour.

I expect you could find a case of a Republican doing that but it is
unusual.

Still suffering from that irony deficiency, I see.

That is why the Democrats have been playing them like harps for the
last dozen years - the Republicans continue to bend over backwards
in the attempt to be reasonable and fair when the Democrats are
using it to be unreasonable and unfair. May God save the souls of
the Democrats because I will not. I thank God that he presented
President Trump at the correct time.

Oh my. Your sense of reality is so twisted and warped that it's
really quite astonishing.


well, with my twisted sense of reality why don't you tell me how long
Democrats have been in power in Chicago?

LOL! Ah, good old Richard J. Daley. He was so popular that people
voted for him three or four times in every election, and even dead
people voted for him. I was in high school when he died and when I left
to go to college stopped paying any attention to Chicago politics. I
don't even know if there's been a Republican mayor there in the past 45
years. If I recall correctly, Daley was succeeded by Harold Washington-
who was black- and whites fled to the suburbs in droves. Who was next-
Michael Bilandic or something like that? Wasn't he the guy who got
voted out because of utter incompetence in managing snowplowing after a
major storm (I recall the city not being able to afford fuel or
something like that).

Traditionally the mayor of Chicago has way more political clout than the
governor of Illinois. Speaking of which, Illinois has a spectacular
record of putting former governors in jail- four of the last seven or
something like that! Two Democrats and two Republicans. Not bad for a
state that practically has junk bond status...


Oh dear you left out the singular Mayor Jane Byrne.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 16:20:10 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:43:36 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:59:55 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:12:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Today in the Senate we heard Adam Schiff do what he does best -
lie. He did everything from straight out lying to misrepresentation
of things that others said by taking them completely out of
context. This was the Democrat Party in its finest hour.

I expect you could find a case of a Republican doing that but it is
unusual.

Still suffering from that irony deficiency, I see.

That is why the Democrats have been playing them like harps for the
last dozen years - the Republicans continue to bend over backwards
in the attempt to be reasonable and fair when the Democrats are
using it to be unreasonable and unfair. May God save the souls of
the Democrats because I will not. I thank God that he presented
President Trump at the correct time.

Oh my. Your sense of reality is so twisted and warped that it's
really quite astonishing.


well, with my twisted sense of reality why don't you tell me how long
Democrats have been in power in Chicago?

LOL! Ah, good old Richard J. Daley. He was so popular that people
voted for him three or four times in every election, and even dead
people voted for him. I was in high school when he died and when I left
to go to college stopped paying any attention to Chicago politics. I
don't even know if there's been a Republican mayor there in the past 45
years. If I recall correctly, Daley was succeeded by Harold Washington-
who was black- and whites fled to the suburbs in droves. Who was next-
Michael Bilandic or something like that? Wasn't he the guy who got
voted out because of utter incompetence in managing snowplowing after a
major storm (I recall the city not being able to afford fuel or
something like that).

Traditionally the mayor of Chicago has way more political clout than the
governor of Illinois. Speaking of which, Illinois has a spectacular
record of putting former governors in jail- four of the last seven or
something like that! Two Democrats and two Republicans. Not bad for a
state that practically has junk bond status...

"Mayor" Curley, of Boston, won an election while incarcerated for a
fraud conviction and serving a term in prison. In a later case he was
elected mayor while under federal indictment for mail fraud, winning
with 45% of the vote. He was convicted and served 5 months in prison
and when release was met by "a crowd of thousands greeted Curley upon
his return to Boston, with a brass band playing "Hail to the Chief".
--
cheers,

John B.