Rougarou

My point, to what you are proving every time you post, is that you can't just change three or four things within the system we have now and get to the results you want. Everything you are talking about involves a change in processes and personnel and you are already engaging in scope creep like no other by trying to silo behavior and processes without taking into account all the dependencies and assumptions being made. In order to change two or three or four significant, what I would call "Big Rock" items in the police institution would cause for a complete tear down and rebuild, which is the point missed I think when you have people say "this isn't rocket science" and "no radical change is needed". But hey, I guess McKinsey or BCG can come in and make a ton of money re-organizing --err, I mean, transforming-- a current old and outdated institution into something that might or might not look and act differently in the way you want it to.

Starting to think my taste in movies isn't so popular...

Portland is weird. It does also suck, but it's strange. You have weird lumberjack types who hate weirdos and you have the weirdest weirdos this side of Tokyo. I couldn't find a decent steakhouse close to downtown-- it was either mid-level chains or strip clubs with a steak option (and there were surprisingly a lot of those. I guess chalk that up to the lumberjacks). Anyways, I had a surprisingly nice experience at the Ruth Chris on Broadway about two months ago.

More of the same in organizational design and the institution of what a police department looks like is what I mean. Are you saying that you want the same thing that you think of when it comes to police department and officers (the institution we already have) except, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020? I'm trying to understand how much you understand of organizational change management.

All Ellen has to do is go see a Washington Nationals game in Trump's private suite and maybe people will think more kindly about him. After her show is cancelled because she's a toxic person, of course.

It sounds like you want "more of the same, but with less military weaponry and general emphasis on the military/alpha/white-privilege mindset and culture, more community/society services and and more diversity and inclusion that better reflects communities of 2020", is that right?

If this doesn't win post of the day or whatever that heart signifies with the rep reboot, then we should re-examine what we are doing here hahaha.

I mean, it's a good discussion and conversation and maybe you guys are right. Maybe: and maybe: and maybe: But also could it be that: -Communities aren't what they used to be. For better or worse. Also, maybe "part of the community like it used to be" is a privilege bias-- were disenfranchised members of the community of the past part of that harmony (GLBTQ+, blacks, etc.)? I don't know. -It could be we hit an inflection point-- simple reductive and static fixes can't fix what is now a dynamically different society and world we live in. Maybe things do need to be radically different? At the end of the day, I speak from a place of privilege and I recognize and know that. So if black people being killed by police are saying is "let's just do something now in the short-term even if it's not really baked or thought through because we have to do something because it's life or death in these streets" then I can't argue or disagree. I'm a bystander and interested observer and half-hearted ally if that is the case, because from where I sit in my privilege at the 30,000 ft view; I see taking one step forward and two steps back.

The Wrong Missy. I haven't laughed as hard and as much in the first 5-6 minutes of a movie since I was a teenager. It's non-stop HappyMadison formulaic B-level stuff, but the lead Lauren Lapkus is hilarious and David Spade did his professional straight man to perfection. I am looking forward to more comedy of hers in the future, she killed it.

I mean-- maybe? I guess you can point to Uber as a private organization that disrupted an archaic business (medallions?) that follows some of what you describe (lobbying, laws, etc). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that what you describe is always the inevitable endgame /ThanosSnap. Also, it could take the form of a partnership or joint venture with the government for further accountability or it could be a private organization taking cues and investment from government a la SpaceX? But maybe it really is a dumb idea, so where does that leave us? Are we really saying that the best idea we collectively have at police reform is boiled down to "Defund the Police" and all of it's unproven and experimental hopes which do not take into account the deepening and widening of arguably the biggest societal problem (segregation and wealth equality) and actually potentially enhancing systemic racism?

Isn't Microsoft in talks to buy TikTok's US-operations? Sounds like ByteDance is open to "divesting" the US portion of it for good, old-fashioned business sense, once the gig is up on the spygame.

Also count your blessings!

Worse yet, nobody can actually explain it. All I'm hearing is a bunch of reasons why it would be terrible to take our current iteration of police methodology and modality and lift-and-shift it to for-profit and private sector. Which I agree would be a terrible idea. But I guess a lack of imagination is what got us into this jackpot in the first place.

Okay let's do a simple exercise called "forget everything you think you know about what a private-police would look like" and let's start from a blank slate: Let's assume this isn't the case because it would not be a very good thing. In fact, let's assume something more disruptive and radical: say that this people are going to be paid a lot of money because the basic requirement would need to be a Masters in Sociology or maybe a JD/MBA? Remember when I said, "Hey guys, let's not fall into the small-minded thinking of private prisons because I'm talking about something different?". This isn't a lift-and-shift, like the private/for-profit prisons is. I think this is where you guys are getting twisted around the axle or failing to launch. I'm not talking about taking the same processes and the same institution and simply washing it with "for-profit investors and money" versus "public money". This is an entirely different premise. Tear the whole thing down and rebuild it and architect it differently. You could have your "defunded police" in this way; charter the organization to lead with mental health/counseling/cognitive-behavior therapy/whatever you want and put limits on policy of violence. You can grade the different bands/titles people have and maybe associates aren't even allowed to carry lethal weapons and only managing directors or partners can carry weapons? Segregation of duties and oversight and governance would need to be part of the process. 360-reviews and Skip 1x1's? Who knows, but the point is, simply put, If you want to fix the problem of police, you have to think about it in a radically different way then we have ever in our history, have thought about police. Defunding and trying to throw a bunch of government social workers at inner/mid-cities is going to exacerbate deep, systemic issues while, yes, probably showing a decrease in minority deaths escalated from petty crimes. If you want to argue that the cost is worth even one life saved, then that's fine, but don't ignore the bull-whip effect.

Okay so you are saying technically it's in the playbook. Sure, fine, I agree. I am speaking politically. Politically it would not be defensible and it wouldn't be easy for a lot of people to stomach and it would be a complete egg-on-face situation if it were to need to happen (and I'm sure it would still be justified and defended in it's abject failure by the same rogue gallery who clamor for it today). Hypothetically, of course.

I think this is what was surprising to me about Hartford. I thought Connecticut was just upper-crust through and through and populated with Yalies and John Cheever characters.

What? I'm asking because I seriously don't understand your point. What I am saying is, if you are one of those who think "Defund the Police" is a great idea and your city advocates for it and the constituents of the city vote for it, then IF it comes to pass that actually Defunding the Police is a net negative on crime, school quality, home values, businesses, quality of life, etc. (my hypothesis and what I meant in my original statement) then it's not something you can make a strong case for in siphoning off other well to do areas who didn't defund police via RobinHood laws/financing. Because the cities would have brought this on themselves.

This. Also, Hartford is surprisingly one of the biggest shitholes I've ever seen. Lots of homelessness and crime and after dark it gets really sketchy quickly. I did 5 months of consulting work there for an insurer, holed up in a candlewood suite, and saw about everything there is to see in Hartford. The Yard Goats (Double A team) have a cool/modern stadium with all you can eat hot dogs and the Grateful Dead coverband came through is all I can remember from the good.

Sick, sick world.

First off-- I've never been accused of flowery prose. That's a first. Maybe I should try my hand at poetry. Secondly-- Just because it was discussed does not mean, at least in my view, there was a consensus or agreement made. I get that you think you speak in resolute and definitive ways, and I do respect your opinion and point of view, but your responses in this other thread do little to sway my thinking. This is because all the extrapolation for why it won't work is based on speculation (thus, faulty assumptions). Everyone's knee jerk response to the mention of "for profit police reform" is so predictable and bureaucratic--along with no having a good plan for how to defund the police without creating a bigger problem and gap in equality between whites and blacks-- that it makes me more convinced that police reform will have to be from the private sector. That is because it's too 1) radical 2) it would be disruptive 3) it is counter-intuitive to the ways most people think a problem should be solved and 4) it probably won't turn a profit for a long time. Thirdly-- I answered your direct question about what I think "Defund Police" means in the expectation that you would answer my question for you to correct me and educate me or otherwise critique, and then for you to give me your stance and belief on what the phrase means. Here it is for your review: I think Defund the Police means rationalizing the Police budget of a municipality. Best case, it means using data-driven inputs to make decisions and scaling the budget back to whatever minimum dollar amount intersects with the maximum amount of crime (violent? non-violent? aggregated?) that is deemed an acceptable benchmark. Worst case, it means just sticking a finger in your mouth and putting it in the air before peanut-buttering a round number across the board (e.g. cut 25% of budget evenly across all functions of the police budget). What do you think it means? Thanks for the contribution wildcat! A worse idea for what? A worse idea for innocents being killed? For a white man kneeling on the neck of a black man to death? Why do you think that a public union with power and carte blanche and very little, if any, accountability is a better option than literally anything else you can probably think of for governance and oversight? Maybe the second worst is the free market and shareholders, but it's not worse than what we have now. And to that end, look at the response of corporate america and police unions, to all this. Who is responding better? Who is progressive on this matter? And it doesn't have to be because of some genuine belief or love of the cause-- placating your customers and the quarterly guidance being met is encouragement enough to keep people accountable. So when you can charter rules and when you align behaviors (e.g. police reform and public servant leadership vs what we have now) with money, you will get the right behaviors. It's a tale as old as time. Let's take 5 steps backwards here though to touch on the main issue: If you defund the police, overnight and with the only substitute being throwing a bunch more low-paid/govt paid social works to medicate a bunch of Arthur Flecks and you try to lovebomb poverty and criminal thinking/culture, then there will be a large gap in equality, diversion and inclusion and education and wealth and everything else. It will be the exact same formula for what happens when you defund schools in inner and mid-cities. Just look at some of the old threads full of scholarship and research that @Catdaddyhorn has done around real estate and white flight and how detrimental it is. Defunding Police, in my opinion, is going to put White Flight on the priority list for the majority of those who have not already fled to the exburbs who have a) privilege b) means and c) interest in an enriching environment, which are all three things fundamental in a transformation of culture and neighborhood. The only difference is that when you proactively are driving to defund police, and that begets other problems like education/schools and home values and a plethora of secondary and tertiary problems, you can't cry about it and beg for a Robinhood program because Suburbs are thriving and the equality gap is widening...because you will have brought this doom loop upon yourself.

I mentioned it in another thread, but if mail delivery, internet service providing, air travel, electricity, and even rocket ships to space, can be done more efficiently and cheaper and with better results, then why can’t the government supplement LEO with a private security force? And don’t “for profit prisons” me. This is completely different. Not something sold as A but really is B, so grifting and profiteering at the expense of human beings is undertaken. I get that outsourcing police work to private sector is a boogey man and scary and a bad word, but if we want radical change, it doesn’t always look like what we think it does. And at this point I’d trust Bill Gates or Elon Musk to do a better job than politicians. The alternative is gut police forces and have the same result that happens when you gut education/schools in inner or mid-cities. White flight on steroids.

lol Austin ain't got no dog in 'em. You got noooo juiiice. Edit to add: Thought I quoted the video of the cops on horses easily pushing "good trouble" protesters away.

I remain: Defund the Police is the dumbest idea in the big box of dumb ideas or ideas that are counter-intuitive to integration and inclusion/diversity. Literally no other issue has the biggest impact on driving white flight, as this will also directly impacting schools.

That's the "good trouble" I keep hearing about?

I’m not a poor, but that’s only because I’m lucky, so I won’t be getting any money. That said, Covid-19 is proving out UBI as a model. I honestly wonder if Yang wouldn’t have been able to be the dark horse and steal the Dem nomination if covid would have happened sooner.