urbanSTL

Disagree with a lot of you on a lot of points. For one thing, I've followed Deray McKesson for a while now, and I absolutely believe he has been a leader in the movement. He's not just tweeting. He plans, interacts, and shows up to everything. He travels to support causes. I don't agree with everything he does mind you, but I absolutely respect what he's doing.

Aside from that, social media may not be a movement, but movements do happen on social media. To suggest less is to not understand the scope of social media or our current culture. Social media is real. Yeah, we all act a little different on Twitter than we do face to face, but who's to say which is the more authentic version? They're both real. What's said on social media is really said. And really communication happens there.

I agree there's a lack of clear goals in the protesting, but that's natural. There are still important things being accomplished, and they're largely a result of the civil unrest.

You're right, the "hands up, don't shoot" message is based on a false narrative, but do you think we'd be moving at this pace to address the way our municipal courts are run and the way they fund small municipalities if those protestors hadn't shown up every night angry? No way.

If I could sculpt the protests, I'd change a lot of things. I'd change and narrow the focus. I'd change some of the behavior that targets the wrong people. There's plenty to change. But we can't make everything perfect. I believe the civil unrest is making things better in the long run, and I'm glad for it.

At the end of the video that captured the shooting sounds, they show one of the protesters grilling something on a portable grill. Have the protests degenerated into something like going to Rotary for the protesters? Looks like protesters are going there to see their friends and engage in joint activity, kind of like Rotary but without the fundraising for charities. Since they are getting what they've been demanding, with the recent resignations, they may need to find new topic matter for exercising their first amendment rights.

It's a perfect setup for protesters since their target is the police, and they know their target will show up every night. And so do the media. So there's no reason for anyone to decide to stop coming. I was thinking maybe the police could just build a sold wood fences around the Police station so police and protesters couldn't see each other. With a secure enough barrier, the police could leave and then the protesters wouldn't have anyone to protest toward.

Here's another idea. Am I the only person who has ever wanted to try out a tele-prompter like the one President Obama uses? I used to think I might buy one and then charge folks to bring me their speech in a word file, and I'd format it for the teleprompter and charge them to give their speech. Kind of like speakers corner in London, but with a mike & teleprompter. I'd supply a speech, such as the Gettysburg address, if someone wanted to try my teleprompter but didn't have a speech. I was thinking in a mall, but maybe parking lots would work better. Maybe I'd call my enterprise Freeze Peach and sell frozen peach ice cream to the speech listeners, so they'd have something to throw. Who's ready to invest?

I could be wrong, I believe the video of the event actually comes from an ANTI-protest group.

Roorda is on the Morning Joe show, and his title as rep of the St. Louis Police Officers' Association.

Does that association include Ferguson cops? I always thought it was just STL city cops.

I am thoroughly confused, but it appears that there are 2 Fraternal Order of Police lodges in St. Louis. Lodge 68, the St. Louis Police Officer's Association, operates just in the City. Lodge 15, it seems, operates in St. Louis, St. Charles, Ste. Genevieve, Warren, and Jefferson Counties. The St. Louis County Police Officer's Association is a chapter of Lodge 15. It appears that Roorda works for Lodge 68, the St. Louis Police Officer's Association, as spokesman and "business manager". Ferguson cops are part of Lodge 15, as confirmed on Lodge 15's Facebook page.

Okay, that's what I thought. So Roorda doesn't represent either Ferguson, Webster, or St. Louis County cops. He's just the one that likes to mug for the camera on national TV, and no one outside of St. Louis knows the difference.

Also, in the interview, it was mentioned that Roorda is also a former MO state rep. So he's basically a politician, insider, lobbyist, etc. He toes the cop line from Jeff County, to St. Louis City, to Ferguson, to Jeff City.

I have no problem with unions, but one of the downsides is that you sort of get stuck with people like Jeff Roorda representing you.

What's funny is the right wingers who normally hate hate hate unions in their slavish support for the 1% are all about Roorda.

I guess as long as he's against the "coloreds" they'll put that aside.

southsidepride wrote:What's funny is the right wingers who normally hate hate hate unions in their slavish support for the 1% are all about Roorda.

I guess as long as he's against the "coloreds" they'll put that aside.

They weren't very supportive of Wisconsin's Police unions, that's for certain.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

I think it's pretty rich that you would accuse someone else of a logical fallacy and then slip right into the warm embrace of generalizations and anecdotal evidence.

olvidarte wrote:This is where the protests lose me. I don't feel like the protesters want broad support because they don't know what they want and they don't really want to do the hard work necessary to create the change they supposedly seek.

I'm all for civil disobedience and voicing your opinion when you are trying to change a broken system, however there has been no indication, (as far as I can tell and I admit I don't know all the happenings) that the protesters are even trying to legitimately change anything. They just show up, chant, get angry, rinse, repeat.

To me the protesters want to organize some event via social media, get in the news and then call it a night and chalk one up for "progress". But who among them is going to dig in, get involved with the system and work for change from the inside out.

Exactly. I don't see anything constructive here. It's like Groundhog Day, as we see the same tired antics over and over.

jstriebel wrote:You're right, the "hands up, don't shoot" message is based on a false narrative, but do you think we'd be moving at this pace to address the way our municipal courts are run and the way they fund small municipalities if those protestors hadn't shown up every night angry? No way.

I will agree, the urgency to reform municipal courts wouldn't be there. However, that discussion, too, is focused on race even though there are municipalities where blacks are pulled over, ticketed, and arrested more often, and other municipalities in majority-white areas like Bella Villa that exist solely off of traffic ticket revenue. Shouldn't those areas be targets for reform, too? Any Missouri municipality that gets more than 20%-25% of its revenue from tickets should be under intense scrutiny.

jstriebel wrote:If I could sculpt the protests, I'd change a lot of things. I'd change and narrow the focus. I'd change some of the behavior that targets the wrong people. There's plenty to change. But we can't make everything perfect. I believe the civil unrest is making things better in the long run, and I'm glad for it.

Well, apparently my concerns about an adverse economic impact are not completely unfounded, because Ferguson business owners and even some candidates for city office (as I saw in a separate story) want the protesters to leave:

Ferguson business owners speak out about economic losses

Some business owners in Ferguson are speaking out about the economic loss from unrest the city has seen.

Steve Moore owns the Celebrity Soul Food Restaurant on North Harvey Avenue. He says his business revenues have dropped by 80%.

“Some people call me and ask if we are even open,” said Moore. He says negative images in the media have fueled fears by some customers who are staying home.

Continue reading...and be sure to check out the video of comments from Mr. Moore...
http://fox2now.com/2015/03/14/ferguson- ... ic-losses/

^ Those cities may not be under the same scrutiny, but the laws that are being proposed to limit revenue from tickets aren't only being applied to majority black municipalities. They'll apply across the board. So again, I believe the net gains will be positive.

To your second point, I don't doubt it's hurt businesses. That sucks. I wish that wasn't happening. Again, in my perfect scenario, things would be done in a way that avoids that.

All I'm saying is I think we're going to see positive changes in the long-run. The imperfections of the movement are going to cause issues, no doubt. But my belief is that the gains will be worth it.

jstriebel wrote:^ Those cities may not be under the same scrutiny, but the laws that are being proposed to limit revenue from tickets aren't only being applied to majority black municipalities. They'll apply across the board. So again, I believe the net gains will be positive.

To your second point, I don't doubt it's hurt businesses. That sucks. I wish that wasn't happening. Again, in my perfect scenario, things would be done in a way that avoids that.

All I'm saying is I think we're going to see positive changes in the long-run. The imperfections of the movement are going to cause issues, no doubt. But my belief is that the gains will be worth it.

What are these positive changes? We see how important ticket and fine income is to Ferguson. Ferguson city income will decline with fewer tickets. This means that services will decline or taxes will have to rise. Fewer police and higher taxes to live in a town and school district that is perceived as worse than it was before all the madness? This is a recipe for decline. When this leads people to not buy in Ferguson that leaves renting and who will rent in Ferguson...not young ambitious creative class types, that's for sure. I see nothing positive in Ferguson's future. I can't imagine what you think will happen just because fewer tickets and polices stops will leave people feeling less harassed. Ferguson happened because Ferguson couldn't pay it's way under our current local government system and it responded the way it did because it is in mortal terror of becoming the next North St. Louis. I see no way now for Ferguson to NOT become the next North St. Louis.

^ some might consider poor black people not being illegally and unconstitutionally targeted for revenue generation as a positive change.

I can't imagine what you think will happen just because fewer tickets and polices stops will leave people feeling less harassed.

yeah, not to mention "feeling" like they owe hundreds to thousands of dollars due to accumulated, targeted discrimination and "feeling" like having to spend time in jail due to said fines and "feeling" the effects of that debt and jail time when searching for jobs, trying to pay bills, etc. what a bunch of whiners.

urban_dilettante wrote:^ some might consider poor black people not being illegally and unconstitutionally targeted for revenue generation as a positive change.

I can't imagine what you think will happen just because fewer tickets and polices stops will leave people feeling less harassed.

yeah, not to mention "feeling" like they owe hundreds to thousands of dollars due to accumulated, targeted discrimination and "feeling" like having to spend time in jail due to said fines and "feeling" the effects of that debt and jail time when searching for jobs, trying to pay bills, etc. what a bunch of whiners.

I'm not talking about individual people, constitutional rights, or any high lofty or noble ideas. I'm talking about how Ferguson will pay for itself. If it can't, no one, high, lofty, noble, or otherwise will live there and it WILL become the next North St. Louis City. People don't live in constitutional principles, they live in houses and use streets, water, schools, and electricity. Who will pay for this in Ferguson?

^ maybe nobody will pay the bills and Ferguson will empty out (unlikely). regardless, sustaining a city by preying on its citizens is not an acceptable alternative.

Solution: one shared police department for all of STL county!
How much money will that save? Police can actually do the job they're supposed to in this region. POLICE. Serve and protect. Not "generate revenue" for municipalities that aren't needed.
Now, while I argue for one unified police force I do not argue for one school district. The history of that is typically not an improvement. See majority of city schools for the outcome. Perhaps some consolidation but not much.

I agree with the statement that the whole hands up don't shoot scenario was based on incorrect statements and lies but, a LOT of good can come out of this. Old downtown Ferguson is actually nice and looked beautiful last week when I was up there. In fact, I'd argue it's more attractive and has far more potential than Manchester road west of McKnight. People, especially those on this board, need to get up there and support businesses. Have you thought about getting lunch up there or new tires, a new bike, etc. this is a truly diverse "city" in STL county. Don't most if not all of us want to see it thrive?

My family has been talking of going to eat at the Ferguson Burger Bar. Anyone have any recommendations?

urban_dilettante wrote:^ maybe nobody will pay the bills and Ferguson will empty out (unlikely). regardless, sustaining a city by preying on its citizens is not an acceptable alternative.

So the property owners of Ferguson, a majority of whom are black, pay the price and sanctimonious outsiders get to feel they're on the "right side of history." This is why policies that actually help the working and middle-classes just can't get any traction in the U.S.

MatthewHall wrote:

urban_dilettante wrote:^ maybe nobody will pay the bills and Ferguson will empty out (unlikely). regardless, sustaining a city by preying on its citizens is not an acceptable alternative.

So the property owners of Ferguson, a majority of whom are black, pay the price and sanctimonious outsiders get to feel they're on the "right side of history." This is why policies that actually help the working and middle-classes just can't get any traction in the U.S.

Wow. What you call "a policy that actually helps the working and middle classes" I and the DOJ call illegal, intentional discrimination. But I wouldn't expect any less from someone who defended slavery based on its economic advantages.

ajwillikers wrote: You got that right. Especially as we've fed the sprawl monster there's very little incentive to address problems in a place because that's more painful than just moving on to the next 'burb that's not as far into the life-cycle despite knowing without change the inevitable conclusion is the situation that was left in the first place.

So then are you both suggesting that the Ferguson PD should be allowed to continue raising money by disproportionately targeting black folks so that Ferguson can pay the bills? 'Cause it sure sounds that way. And if not, what are you suggesting?