On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 01:12:20 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:02:20 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 19:48:53 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:34:09 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 5:58:21 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 10:59:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 4/22/2022 11:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 4/22/2022 5:51 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:55:48 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> On 4/22/2022 7:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> On 4/21/2022 9:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:10:35 -0500, AMuzi
>> >> >> >>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:09:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 6:59 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> One point that never seems to be addressed is "why?".
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I've been stopped by police while in an automobile and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't attack
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the policeman or try to run away and I've known quite
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> a number of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> others who have been stopped by the Cops and didn't
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> attack the officer
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> or try to run away.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> But in nearly all cases of a police killing it seems,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> at least from
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> what one "reads in the Newspaper" the victim did just
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that, Either
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> tried to run away or attacked the Officer. Why?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Why?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I'll repeat a tale I've told before. Our suburban
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> village has a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> reputation as a speed trap - IOW, that they actually
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> enforce the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> state-mandated 25 mph zones in the village center.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> That's more than fine
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> by me. (Actually, they don't ticket for 29 mph, but 30
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> or more may get
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> you stopped.)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> The newspaper's "Police Report" often lists guys
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> arrested here for
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> controlled substances, outstanding warrants, etc. after
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> being stopped
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> here for speeding, running a red light, no lights, etc.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> So I asked a cop friend "If a guy with an outstanding
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> warrant has drugs
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> in his car, why wouldn't he drive super carefully?"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> His answer: "They're not Einsteins, Frank."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> That's why.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> So rather then "headlines" saying "Cop Shoots Man" it
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> should read,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> "Known Felon Shot While Attempting to Flee Arrest".
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> And rather then "Black Lives Matter" the battle cry
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> should be "Black
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Criminals Matter!"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> +1
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/04/21/eric-adams-is-right-blm-costs-black-lives/
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> If one looks at the facts, rather then the "Lurid" News
>> >> >> >>>>>> then one quite
>> >> >> >>>>>> often develops a substantially different viewpoint then
>> >> >> >>>>>> what seems to
>> >> >> >>>>>> be popular.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> The new mayor deserves some credit for pointing out that
>> >> >> >>>>> annoying truth.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Apologies for replying to my own reply but the link above
>> >> >> >>>> regards the mayor's comments yesterday 21 April. Update:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> https://nypost.com/2022/04/21/blms-hawk-newsome-blames-mayor-eric-adams-for-nyc-war-zone/
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Some pathetic souls are so invested in screaming about
>> >> >> >>>> 'racism' in order to gin up discord, even where it's
>> >> >> >>>> ridiculously absent, just cannot drop that weapon.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> side note-
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Waiting for the pearl-clutching 'fact check' organizations
>> >> >> >>>> to cover Mr Newsome's description of Mayor Adams as 'n---r'
>> >> >> >>>> and 'a white man in blackface, and a very conservative white
>> >> >> >>>> man at that'.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
>> >> >> >>> "The New York Post (NY Post) is a conservative daily tabloid newspaper
>> >> >> >>> published in New York City. The Post also operates NYPost.com, the
>> >> >> >>> celebrity gossip site PageSix.com, and the entertainment site
>> >> >> >>> Decider.com.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> It was established in 1801 by Federalist and Founding Father Alexander
>> >> >> >>> Hamilton, and became a respected broadsheet in the 19th century under
>> >> >> >>> the name New York Evening Post.[9] Its most famous 19th-century editor
>> >> >> >>> was William Cullen Bryant. In the mid-20th century, the paper was
>> >> >> >>> owned by Dorothy Schiff, a devoted liberal, who developed its tabloid
>> >> >> >>> format. In 1976, Rupert Murdoch bought the Post for US$30.5 million.
>> >> >> >>> Since 1993, the Post has been owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Its
>> >> >> >>> distribution ranked 4th in the US in 2019."
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Andy, if you are relying on the New York Post for your source, you
>> >> >> >>> need some help. Tommy boy uses similar sources for his support. If
>> >> >> >>> you click on the Wikipedia link for the New York Post, you will be
>> >> >> >>> taken to a website that shows one of the Post's papers. It says
>> >> >> >>> "Bezos Exposes Pecker". With a picture of Jeff Bezos and his
>> >> >> >>> girlfriend or wife. Fully clothed of course. Tell us Andy, does the
>> >> >> >>> Wisconsin State Journal run headlines like that on its front page?
>> >> >> >>> Your main state newspaper. The NY Post is very comparable to Fox News
>> >> >> >>> or Newsmax or One America News or similar places.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Now, I am not saying the black mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, and
>> >> >> >>> the black BLM founder/participant, Hawk Newsome, did not have a
>> >> >> >>> disagreement and did not call each other names. I am sure they did
>> >> >> >>> have a divergence. I am sure the founders and participants of the KKK
>> >> >> >>> disagreed on many matters too. But they still held to their core
>> >> >> >>> principles.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I saw Mr Newsome's interview in his own words (except the bleep) it on
>> >> >> >> the radio early on WOR and later on WABC.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Post has convenient non-paywall web links.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're welcome in that your only criticism is that you dislike the Post.
>> >> >> >> I assume you share with me utter contempt for Mr Newsome and BLM generally.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Let me agree with Mr. Muzi on part of this. I suppose most news outlets
>> >> >> >have some editorial slant one way or other. (I've seen articles rating
>> >> >> >that slant for dozens of news sources - although I'm sure those offended
>> >> >> >by the ratings will call "bias!") And I do think the Post is not
>> >> >> >particularly respectable as a source.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >However, not everything in the Post is wrong. Similarly, if a biased and
>> >> >> >deluded maniac says "The sun is rising!" the sun may still be rising.
>> >> >> But what is "Bias"? Is it, in some manner, a definitive measure of
>> >> >> right and wrong? Or a matter of what a large number of people consider
>> >> >> right and wrong, at this moment in time?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Slavery, for example. A perfectly legal and accepted practice from
>> >> >> earliest human history until `about` the 1800's, and now regarded with
>> >> >> horror.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John B.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bias would be a leaning, slant, towards one side of a philosophy. Assuming there are only two sides to every idea.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mention slavery. It has been practiced and legal for thousands of years. But not everyone practiced it. Not everyone accepted it. There was always a large number of people against it. Same with drug use. Marijuana and hashish in particular. Commonly used by many up until about 100 years ago. Legal usage of drugs. And some of these illegal drugs are now being made legal again. Prostitution and whore houses. Very legal in most places around the world until somewhat recently. But still legal in Nevada and Amsterdam. Imagine that. Drugs and prostitutes, legal. Horror.
>> >> "But not everyone practiced it. Not everyone accepted it"??
>> >>
>> >> Really? During what time period? The Roman Empire is pretty well
>> >> documented and slavery was certainly accepted then, in fact part of
>> >> the Legion's "pay", was in dividing the money gotten from selling
>> >> enslaved enemy. It was written that when Julius Caesar conquered Gaul
>> >> the numbers of slaves sold by the conquering Romans depressed the
>> >> Mediterranean slave markets for several years.
>> >>
>> >> I think, if you look into it, that slavery became less acceptable as
>> >> an economy became less dependent on agriculture. The U.S. Civil War
>> >> was fought between the largely agricultural South and the rapidly
>> >> becoming industrialized North.
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >Yes the changing economy of the world changed slavery. According to Google, 1803 Denmark Norway stopped trading in slaves. Not sure if that means they outlawed it in Denmark Norway or not. Maybe that was just the start to abolish it and the current slaves could still be kept as slaves. 1834 Britain abolished slavery in all its dominion. 1847 France abolished slavery in all its colonies. I'm guessing also in France proper too. Even the USA banned the importation of slaves beginning in 1808. Current and newly bred slaves were not impacted of course. But even by 1808, the slave promoters in the USA knew slavery was not popular.
>>
>> >
>> >As for the Civil War. Did any of the enlisted Confederates own slaves? I'd guess no. The Confederate politicians and officers owned slaves. But did any of the Confederate enlisted soldiers own slaves?
>> It is likely that not every Confederate Soldier was a slave owner and
>> from what I read, it is likely that slavery wasn't a major factor in
>> some defending the South. General R.E. Lee, was a graduate of the U.S.
>> Military Academy and served in the U.S. Army for something like 32
>> years but when his home state Virginia seceded from the U.S. he
>> elected to serve his state.
>
>I have heard that too. And he also had slaves on his Arlington estate.
>

Well, if memory serves George Washington, sometimes refereed to as,
"The father of his country" had slaves... something like 150 of them
:-)

>
>
>>
>> I think, the theory of "States Rights" was probably a far stronger
>> force and had a far greater following in the 1800's then it does
>> today.
>>
>> And, again from what I read, slavery, although much mentioned today,
>> was probably not the underlying factor in the U.S. Civil War, although
>> it is popular to say so today. The major factor seems to have been who
>> would control the U.S. Government, the southern states or the northern
>> states.
>
>OK. But the new party coming into control of the government was specifically going to ban slavery. And the only power the Confederate states had in the Congress was due to them having the 3/5ths of a person for slaves rule in place. A vast majority of the voting men in the USA lived in the northern states. The south was not too populated. Seems to me slavery was a pretty integral part of why the Civil War started.

The number of voters in the North and the South had nothing to do with
it. It was the members of the Congress that counted and the
Republicans (i.e. Northern States) gained control of the Congress as
of March 1861.

Whereupon the Southern States elected to withdraw from the Nation,
much as what happened in 1776, which in turn caused the South to
effectively declare war in April.

>
>>
>> It might be noted that prior to the Civil War cotton exports from the
>> southern states amounted to about 1/2 the total value of all U.S.
>> exports and had the South seceded it's economy would have been
>> stronger then the North's.
>
>OK. Wikipedia says the Confederate states amounted to the 4th largest GDP in the world at the start of the Civil War. However since the North controlled the Navy, I am not sure how the Confederate would be able to export its cotton for profit. Its kind of like Russia today. It has many billions in foreign currency and assets stashed all over the world. But the USA and EU have prevented it from getting to its reserves. So its worthless to them.

I should have said "successfully seceded".
>
>
>
>
>> >So I very much stand by my statements. Not everyone practiced it. The vast majority of the Confederate did not own any slaves. The vast majority of the population of Europe did not own slaves. And not everyone accepted it. Early mid 1800s it was outlawed in Europe. 1860 in the USA. And like the women voting act in 1920 in the USA, the backbone to get the law passed started decades before the fact. And with slavery, the laws outlawing it did not pass until the 1800s, but the supporters working against it started 20-50-100 years earlier.
>> "Not everyone practiced it"?? Tell me what country in the world did
>> not practice slavery.
>
>All the European countries had abolished slavery long before the USA did. Although Spain kept it going in Cuba until 1888 or so. Or are you asking which countries in the whole history of civilization have never ever practiced slavery? Maybe just the Vatican?
>
True, which has no bearing on my original statement that all countries
had practiced slavery. I was simply refereeing to one of my original
statements that
"Slavery, for example. A perfectly legal and accepted practice from
earliest human history until `about` the 1800's, and now regarded with
horror."

>>
>> As for slavery in the U.S. it wasn't abolished in 1860, it was
>> abolished on December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was
>> adopted as part of the United States Constitution.
>
>OK. I agree with your statement. However...
>
>https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
>"Between 1774 and 1804, all of the northern states abolished slavery,"
>
>So the vast majority of the American population were living in states that did not allow slavery 56 years before the Civil War even started. Despite the Federal government not abolishing it for all of the USA until 1865.

>>
>> As an aside, who was better off? The slave who worked for 12 hours a
>> day on the Southern Plantation and was afforded free housing,
>> clothing, food and medical care? Or the 14 year old immigrant girl
>> working in the New York Shirtwaist Factory for 12 hours a day for
>> $1.00 a day and had to take care of herself :-?
>
>Yes. And you can plausibly say a prisoner has a better life than a homeless person on the streets of LA. Food, shelter, clothing, medical care is all free in prison. And a homeless person is struggling to stay alive. Maybe the most humanitarian thing to do is round up all the homeless and put them in prison. For their own benefit.

I guess I was being a bit too subtle.

I was trying, slyly, to point out that the "North" had discovered that
rather then slavery - a slave in 1860 cost about $1500 - that hiring
free people was a much cheaper method of getting labor. A 14 year old
girl working in the Shirtwaist Company in 1911was paid $1.00/day or
$6.00 a week (Sundays off). So for the cost of one slave a northern
company could get nearly 5 years of work out of an immigrant girl. Or
5 girls for one year :-)

The moving of the clothing mills in New England to southern states
after WW II was caused by the same phenomena - high wage costs in the
north, largely due to Labor Unions, and low wages in the South :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.