London's Burning

[Limey]

Literally.

[Limey]

This place is going up in flames as I type.  This is very close to where I used to live.

[chuck]

This is crazy. Last night it was a couple of knuckleheads in Tottenham, no different then after a derby in which the Spurs take a beating. Now there's rioting all over the place:

http://tinyurl.com/3nbtmvu

[94CougarGrad]

I'm on my phone, so I can't click the links or it'll slow way down. Is this related to the police-involved shooting?

[austro]

Is this related to the police-involved shooting?

That was the original spark, but there has to be more to this. According to that map, there's even stuff burning in the Chelsea/Knightsbridge area and in the West End. That's crazy.

ETA: I see now that those incidents don't actually involve fires. But still...

[Limey]

That was the original spark, but there has to be more to this. According to that map, there's even stuff burning in the Chelsea/Knightsbridge area and in the West End. That's crazy.

ETA: I see now that those incidents don't actually involve fires. But still...

The Guardian wrote a very prescient article last April upon the 30th anniversary of the Brixton riots.

Ahead of next weekend's 30th anniversary of the Brixton riot, some community leaders are warning that similar tensions could, again, spill over into violence. They point to a toxic cocktail of factors reminiscent of 1981, including rising youth unemployment, cuts to local services and deep suspicion of the police. Added to this is the politicisation of a new generation on anti-cuts protests such as the one in London a week ago, and anti-tuition-fees marches.

Remember, this is the same Met. Police who have been splashed across the front pages for weeks now, as being the paid henchmen of Rupert Murdoch.

[Limey]

Looting scum.

[austro]

Looting scum.

That's hilarious.

[Limey]

The Guardian wrote a very prescient article last April upon the 30th anniversary of the Brixton riots.

Remember, this is the same Met. Police who have been splashed across the front pages for weeks now, as being the paid henchmen of Rupert Murdoch.

FTR, I do not suggest that I (nor the Guardian) are condoning the riots.  I am not, in any way, shape or form.  However, it is not a bad idea to understand what is going on in the communities that can foment such lawlessness.  Lock up the perpetrators, and try to fix the causal issues.

[remy]

Looting scum.

"Mine."

[Ebby Calvin]

Ok, now I'm pissed.

The 200,000 square-foot center housed the entire inventory of PIAS UK, the primary distribution hub for more than 150 independent labels.

No injuries were reported in the blaze, but all inventory is feared lost. XL/Beggars, Warp, Rough Trade, Domino, 4AD, Sub Pop, Secretly Canadian, Jagjaguwar, Drag City, Thrill Jockey, FatCat, Kompakt, Mute, Ninja Tune, Vice, and Soul Jazz are among those affected.

[Bench]

This is probably an ignorant question, but why is it just England?  Why no rioting in Glasgow, of all places, where I would assume the economic stratification that is fueling the riots would be pretty severe?  Is it just a matter of time or are the demographics between England and Scotland so different (and the Welsh, of course, but they're such a strange lot it seems obvious)?

[subnuclear]

This is probably an ignorant question, but why is it just England?  Why no rioting in Glasgow, of all places, where I would assume the economic stratification that is fueling the riots would be pretty severe?  Is it just a matter of time or are the demographics between England and Scotland so different (and the Welsh, of course, but they're such a strange lot it seems obvious)?

Isn't it just around London?

There are two components to a riot: The very small number of genuinely angry people (justified or not) and the very large number of people who are just taking advantage of the police being overwhelmed. Presumably, the police in Glasgow are not overwhelmed, yet.

[Lurch]

If the convenience store owners were allowed to have guns...

<ducks>

[Bench]

Isn't it just around London?

There are two components to a riot: The very small number of genuinely angry people (justified or not) and the very large number of people who are just taking advantage of the police being overwhelmed. Presumably, the police in Glasgow are not overwhelmed, yet.

London is bearing the brunt, but rioting has spread to Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023874/London-riots-Cameron-orders-16k-officers-regain-control-police-use-plastic-bullets.html

[Bench]

If the convenience store owners were allowed to have guns...

<ducks>

I thought that only worked on college campuses?

[Limey]

This is probably an ignorant question, but why is it just England?  Why no rioting in Glasgow, of all places, where I would assume the economic stratification that is fueling the riots would be pretty severe?  Is it just a matter of time or are the demographics between England and Scotland so different (and the Welsh, of course, but they're such a strange lot it seems obvious)?

Everyone in Scotland (and Wales) is poor, so they don't fuck with each other's shit.  In England, the poor can actually see the wealth divide, so they riot and steal stuff.  Why Manchester is kicking off tonight, I do not know, as the only people there with money play soccer.

[Limey]

Isn't it just around London?

There are two components to a riot: The very small number of genuinely angry people (justified or not) and the very large number of people who are just taking advantage of the police being overwhelmed. Presumably, the police in Glasgow are not overwhelmed, yet.

I think the anger is justified, but you are spot on about the opportunists.  Now that London is pulling police numbers away from other metropolitan areas, expect other regions to go off too.

[jbm]

Everyone in Scotland (and Wales) is poor, so they don't fuck with each other's shit.  In England, the poor can actually see the wealth divide, so they riot and steal stuff.  Why Manchester is kicking off tonight, I do not know, as the only people there with money play soccer.

I find this mass anarchy stuff very interesting.  After I saw Bench's question, I researched Riots in Scotland.  Comparitively, they are not a riotous bunch.  Your explanation seems very plausible.    

[Jacksonian]

I find this mass anarchy stuff very interesting.  After I saw Bench's question, I researched Riots in Scotland.  Comparitively, they are not a riotous bunch.  Your explanation seems very plausible.    

After Mel Gibson they just don't have anyone to lead them.

[Limey]

I find this mass anarchy stuff very interesting.  After I saw Bench's question, I researched Riots in Scotland.  Comparitively, they are not a riotous bunch.  Your explanation seems very plausible.    

They tried it a few hundred years ago.  I didn't end well for them.  Instead, they set about inventing a game that drives everyone to whisky.  Revenge is a nip best served neat, or with but a dash of water.

[Phil_in_CS]

I thought that only worked on college campuses?

or Koreatown

[Limey]

or Koreatown

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

[Limey]

Three dead in Birmingham after being rammed by a car as they tried to defend their property.  Driver in custody.

Fred Thompson's famous line is now only applicable in the past tense.

[austro]

Fred Thompson's famous line is now only applicable in the past tense.

?

[MusicMan]

?

This shit will get out of control.  It will get out of control, and we'll all be lucky to live through it.

[Limey]

This shit will get out of control.  It will get out of control, and we'll all be lucky to live through it.

YTIFY

[austro]

This shit will get out of control.  It will get out of control, and we'll all be lucky to live through it.

For some reason I remembered that as James Earl Jones. Remember that next time I cite something from memory.

[MusicMan]

For some reason I remembered that as James Earl Jones. Remember that next time I cite something from memory.

I will too... I could have sworn "business" was only in the edited version.

[Limey]

I will too... I could have sworn "business" was only in the edited version.

I'll have to watch it again tonight, to figure it out.  That YT clip may have come from the TV, and it looks out of sync.

PS:  IMDB has the quote with "business".

[Limey]

What the out of control business looks like.

[Limey]

Less seriously, someone on Facebook gives the rioters the Photoshop treatment.

[chuck]

What the out of control business looks like.

I have to say, that is some of the most mild-mannered rioting I have seen.

[94CougarGrad]

I have to say, that is some of the most mild-mannered rioting I have seen.

The British are very proper fellows.

[Bench]

What the out of control business looks like.

I guess my expectations were high, but that looks remarkably dull.  

Maybe the footage was shot during tea time?

[headhunter]

They tried it a few hundred years ago.  I didn't end well for them.  Instead, they set about inventing a game that drives everyone to whisky.  Revenge is a nip best served neat, or with but a dash of water.

A good friend of mine who is part Scottish and a Scotch enthusiast took his family to a vacation in Scotland a few years ago. He was hoping to find out about some new whiskeys that the locals keep to themselves. Whenever he could, he'd ask a local what their favorite Scotches were. By far, the most common response was, "There's no such thing as bad whiskey." And they meant it. My friend could not believe how much the Scots drink.

[Guinness]

A good friend of mine who is part Scottish and a Scotch enthusiast took his family to a vacation in Scotland a few years ago. He was hoping to find out about some new whiskeys that the locals keep to themselves. Whenever he could, he'd ask a local what their favorite Scotches were. By far, the most common response was, "There's no such thing as bad whiskey." And they meant it. My friend could not believe how much the Scots drink.

Seriously, that whole island (and the one next to it) is full of people who take drinking very seriously.

[chuck]

And by the way, Limey, London's Burning is on a very short list of Clash songs that I do not particularly care for. The next time you wish to borrow a song title from the Only Band That Matters when starting a thread I would appreciate a consultation. Thank you.

[Ty in Tampa]

And by the way, Limey, London's Burning is on a very short list of Clash songs that I do not particularly care for. The next time you wish to borrow a song title from the Only Band That Matters when starting a thread I would appreciate a consultation. Thank you.

Strummer's "Burnin' Streets" would've worked here as well.

[headhunter]

And by the way, Limey, London's Burning is on a very short list of Clash songs that I do not particularly care for. The next time you wish to borrow a song title from the Only Band That Matters when starting a thread I would appreciate a consultation. Thank you.

wow, you really know how to wrong them boyo. I bet that limey knows something about england and can pick the appropriate revolution rock song to quote when there's a white riot and shouting in the street.

man I love all their songs, even the bad ones.

[chuck]

man I love all their songs, even the bad ones.

I don't really consider any of them bad (except for Cut the Crap which isn't really a Clash record) but there are a couple that I've just never been wild about.

Ty, yes, I've lately been revisiting his Mescalero records which I love also. Not equally, of course, but differently.

[headhunter]

I don't really consider any of them bad (except for Cut the Crap which isn't really a Clash record) but there are a couple that I've just never been wild about.

Ty, yes, I've lately been revisiting his Mescalero records which I love also. Not equally, of course, but differently.

I was specifically thinking of cut the crap. my first clash album was Sandinista, followed by combat rock and London Calling--so I was very confused when I picked up cut the crap in the bargain bin and it was nothing like the others.

[chuck]

I was specifically thinking of cut the crap. my first clash album was Sandinista, followed by combat rock and London Calling--so I was very confused when I picked up cut the crap in the bargain bin and it was nothing like the others.

Well, unlike a lot of people I love all of Sandinista and there's really not too much on Combat Rock that I don't like although that record has a higher than average number of songs about which my feelings drift a bit towards ambivalence.

London Calling to me is plainly the best record in the history of rock and roll. I believe Hudson agrees with this analysis so we can avoid a lot of arguing around here if the rest of you will kindly fall into line on this one.

[Bench]

I believe Hudson agrees with this analysis so we can avoid a lot of arguing around here if the rest of you will kindly fall into line on this one.

/stands up
//removes hat
///quietly and accurately takes food order

[chuck]

/stands up
//removes hat
///quietly and accurately takes food order

Thank you.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I live by the river.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

London Calling to me is plainly the best record in the history of rock and roll. I believe Hudson agrees with this analysis so we can avoid a lot of arguing around here if the rest of you will kindly fall into line on this one.

Such a great album, but seriously, I can't put it ahead a few others.

[Limey]

Strummer's "Burnin' Streets" would've worked here as well.

White Riot, complete with the police siren intro, is my ringtone.

[Limey]

I live by the river.

It was a lampooning of reactionary, over-the-top media coverage.  I'm glad things are better now.

Eh?  Oh.

[austro]

I live by the river.

Is there actually still water there? You're on the lower, so I imagine that you always get something out of Canyon Lake. The upper is damn near dried up.

[Tralfaz]

Tottenham-Everton scrapped. EPL opening weekend in doubt now.

[Bench]

Tottenham-Everton scrapped. EPL opening weekend in doubt now.

UK box office revenue slumps after riots force cinemas to close their doors and cinemagoers to stay at home.

Tragic.

[HudsonHawk]

A good friend of mine who is part Scottish and a Scotch enthusiast took his family to a vacation in Scotland a few years ago. He was hoping to find out about some new whiskeys that the locals keep to themselves. Whenever he could, he'd ask a local what their favorite Scotches were. By far, the most common response was, "There's no such thing as bad whiskey." And they meant it. My friend could not believe how much the Scots drink.

He probably found that the Scots don't drink "whiskey", they drink "whisky".

[Bench]

He probably found that the Scots don't drink "whiskey", they drink "whisky".

To be fair, there's really no way to accurately spell what they speak. 

[HudsonHawk]

Strummer's "Burnin' Streets" would've worked here as well.

Perhaps Limey could have just said this area was not his "Safe European Home".

[HudsonHawk]

Such a great album, but seriously, I can't put it ahead a few others.

I have a hard time putting anything above it.  I listen to it now and say to myself..."fuck that's a good record".

BTW:  The Clash are the Official Band of SNS, so there's that too.

[subnuclear]

While London Calling is certainly among the greatest rock albums, but I think their first LP is best Clash album, though it benefits from having different versions. 

[chuck]

While London Calling is certainly among the greatest rock albums, but I think their first LP is best Clash album, though it benefits from having different versions. 

Their first record is a superior effort, too, but I don't think it's anywhere near as deep or as engaging or as adventurous as London Calling. It's basically Chuck Berry on methamphetamines with a dose of reggae. Which is a fine combination but to me not nearly as impressive as their later work. I became familiar with the US release first (which I bought in a music shop in the Galleria of all places) and still enjoy being a little disoriented whenever I listen to the original UK sequence.

[Rebel Jew]

Well, unlike a lot of people I love all of Sandinista and there's really not too much on Combat Rock that I don't like although that record has a higher than average number of songs about which my feelings drift a bit towards ambivalence.

London Calling to me is plainly the best record in the history of rock and roll. I believe Hudson agrees with this analysis so we can avoid a lot of arguing around here if the rest of you will kindly fall into line on this one.

Sandanista is my favorite Clash album, as I've mentioned before. I once went through a Clash-obsessive phase like everybody else, but more and more over the years they've seemed to me like The Rolling Stones of punk. That's not necessarily an insult, but The Clash more and more strike me as a "big time rock band" more than a punk band, even though they supposedly defined the punk aesthetic until combat rock. Something about how earnest they were, I guess. While I still like all the Clash albums, I find myself listening to stuff like Wire "Chairs Missing," Gang of Four "Entertainment," and "Singles Going Steady" far more often. Even the Specials first album gets more play in my world. The band I liken them most to, actually, is probably Metallica. Like with London Calling, everybody calls "Master of Puppets" a masterpiece, and I have no reason to disagree, but I'd rather listen to Megadeth "Rust in Peace" or Slayer "Reign in Blood" any day.

[Ron Brand]

Sandanista is my favorite Clash album, as I've mentioned before. I once went through a Clash-obsessive phase like everybody else, but more and more over the years they've seemed to me like The Rolling Stones of punk. That's not necessarily an insult, but The Clash more and more strike me as a "big time rock band" more than a punk band, even though they supposedly defined the punk aesthetic until combat rock. Something about how earnest they were, I guess. While I still like all the Clash albums, I find myself listening to stuff like Wire "Chairs Missing," Gang of Four "Entertainment," and "Singles Going Steady" far more often. Even the Specials first album gets more play in my world. The band I liken them most to, actually, is probably Metallica. Like with London Calling, everybody calls "Master of Puppets" a masterpiece, and I have no reason to disagree, but I'd rather listen to Megadeth "Rust in Peace" or Slayer "Reign in Blood" any day.

It seems to me that you're comparing the punk of the Clash with the New Wave stuff of Wire, GoF and the Specials and they're not the same neighborhood. I think you had to be there for the Clash to have the special ring they did; in retrospect it's easy to blur the focus with what came afterward but in 1976/77 that was an entirely different world. It was quickly blanketed with the major labels' coverage of anything with less of a cutting edge that they could market together as New Wave.

[Limey]

It seems to me that you're comparing the punk of the Clash with the New Wave stuff of Wire, GoF and the Specials and they're not the same neighborhood. I think you had to be there for the Clash to have the special ring they did; in retrospect it's easy to blur the focus with what came afterward but in 1976/77 that was an entirely different world. It was quickly blanketed with the major labels' coverage of anything with less of a cutting edge that they could market together as New Wave.

The Cure got lumped in with punk when they first started.  Basically, anything that grown-ups didn't like was "punk".

Besides, everyone knows that it was Dewey Cox who invented punk.

[Ron Brand]

The Cure got lumped in with punk when they first started.  Basically, anything that grown-ups didn't like was "punk".

It wasn't that way at all with the music snobs I hung out with in the States at that time. There were very clear demarcations and New Wave was a catch-all term that the labels used to sell records that they wanted to show were 'smarter' and 'not as scary' as that mean ol' punk stuff.

[Rebel Jew]

It seems to me that you're comparing the punk of the Clash with the New Wave stuff of Wire, GoF and the Specials and they're not the same neighborhood. I think you had to be there for the Clash to have the special ring they did; in retrospect it's easy to blur the focus with what came afterward but in 1976/77 that was an entirely different world. It was quickly blanketed with the major labels' coverage of anything with less of a cutting edge that they could market together as New Wave.

Listening to all those bands now, I don't hear much difference between The Clash and the others I mentioned. How is "Revolution Rock," "Police and Thieves," etc. different from The Specials, for instance? And if you're talking about pure aggressive punk, I far far prefer the American hardcore punk bands (not to mention The Ramones) to The Clash or The Sex Pistols or whoever. Again, it's just my personal preference. I just get more of a charge off stuff that's more off-kilter than what the Clash was going for.

[Ron Brand]

Listening to all those bands now, I don't hear much difference between The Clash and the others I mentioned. How is "Revolution Rock," "Police and Thieves," etc. different from The Specials, for instance? And if you're talking about pure aggressive punk, I far far prefer the American hardcore punk bands (not to mention The Ramones) to The Clash or The Sex Pistols or whoever. Again, it's just my personal preference. I just get more of a charge off stuff that's more off-kilter than what the Clash was going for.

Like I said, I think time blunts and blurs what it was like to be in the middle of it then. The Clash predate The Specials, and their dabbling in reggae and dub wasn't quite like the ska blend of The Specials. At the time, there weren't really any American hardcore bands, that's what made the snarl of the Sex Pistols and the Clash stand out so much. The Ramones weren't hardcore, they were buzzy and funny and that's part of what was different about American punk. No one else played in that arena until the UK punk bands hit and the movement kicked into gear.

At that time, the Clash would do something, people would say, "Fuck YEAH!" and then six other bands would form and try to do something like it. It's not quite correct to say that the Clash and the Sex Pistols were sui generis, but they did start that part of the movement and the bands and styles you like derived from the ground they broke, they didn't develop at the same time.

You also have to remember that in that world, at that time, six months was an eternity. Whole genres could mature, mutate and fall by the wayside in that time.

[HudsonHawk]

Listening to all those bands now, I don't hear much difference between The Clash and the others I mentioned. How is "Revolution Rock," "Police and Thieves," etc. different from The Specials, for instance? And if you're talking about pure aggressive punk, I far far prefer the American hardcore punk bands (not to mention The Ramones) to The Clash or The Sex Pistols or whoever. Again, it's just my personal preference. I just get more of a charge off stuff that's more off-kilter than what the Clash was going for.

I like The Specials as much as the next guy...but my God man, would you listen to yourself?

[Rebel Jew]

Like I said, I think time blunts and blurs what it was like to be in the middle of it then. The Clash predate The Specials, and their dabbling in reggae and dub wasn't quite like the ska blend of The Specials. At the time, there weren't really any American hardcore bands, that's what made the snarl of the Sex Pistols and the Clash stand out so much. The Ramones weren't hardcore, they were buzzy and funny and that's part of what was different about American punk. No one else played in that arena until the UK punk bands hit and the movement kicked into gear.

At that time, the Clash would do something, people would say, "Fuck YEAH!" and then six other bands would form and try to do something like it. It's not quite correct to say that the Clash and the Sex Pistols were sui generis, but they did start that part of the movement and the bands and styles you like derived from the ground they broke, they didn't develop at the same time.

You also have to remember that in that world, at that time, six months was an eternity. Whole genres could mature, mutate and fall by the wayside in that time.

I've seen more than a few punk rock documentaries, and most American bands mention the MC5, the New York Dolls, The Stooges, and The Velvet Underground as giving them their ideas. I've also heard a ton of British bands, including the Clash, say that the Ramones first tour of Britain gave them their ideas.

Either way, I'm well aware of The Sex Pistols inspiring so many bands, and The Clash as well, but this doesn't affect which bands I like. It's like with The Beatles. I don't really like the Beatles that much, but every once in a while someone will point to some band I do like that was clearly inspired by The Beatles, as though somebody can't be better than what inspired them. If there's a general pattern I've noticed with the music and art I like, it's the mutation element that seems most prominent. The Clash were clearly a "better" band than The Buzzcocks, for instance, and certainly far more influential, but there's not a single Clash song I would choose over the top 8 songs on Singles Going Steady.

[Ron Brand]

I've seen more than a few punk rock documentaries, and most American bands mention the MC5, the New York Dolls, The Stooges, and The Velvet Underground as giving them their ideas. I've also heard a ton of British bands, including the Clash, say that the Ramones first tour of Britain gave them their ideas.

Yeah, it's a mosaic. You can't even say that Jerry Lee Lewis was the first punk but you could try to make a case for it. It's all innovation and mutation built on what went before.

Either way, I'm well aware of The Sex Pistols inspiring so many bands, and The Clash as well, but this doesn't affect which bands I like. It's like with The Beatles. I don't really like the Beatles that much, but every once in a while someone will point to some band I do like that was clearly inspired by The Beatles, as though somebody can't be better than what inspired them. If there's a general pattern I've noticed with the music and art I like, it's the mutation element that seems most prominent. The Clash were clearly a "better" band than The Buzzcocks, for instance, and certainly far more influential, but there's not a single Clash song I would choose over the top 8 songs on Singles Going Steady.

I guess that where I was going is that you see these things as similar and the newer versions are the ones your prefer. I remember them when they were fresh and the differences between them to me are gigantic. Time blurs that perception. If you'd been there when it was all going down you may feel differently, I don't know.

[headhunter]

Well, unlike a lot of people I love all of Sandinista and there's really not too much on Combat Rock that I don't like although that record has a higher than average number of songs about which my feelings drift a bit towards ambivalence.

London Calling to me is plainly the best record in the history of rock and roll. I believe Hudson agrees with this analysis so we can avoid a lot of arguing around here if the rest of you will kindly fall into line on this one.

The Clash provided a lot of the soundtrack to my youth--they have a place in my heart that other music, however much greater (or not), can't fill cause the opening  to straight to hell is all ready there. It really doesn't matter to me if they are the best of all time or not, the music blew me away then and still does now. I don't listen to anything regularly from those days except for the Clash (with a dash of Ziggy Stardust and the Stooges thrown in). A couple of years ago I was in one of Houston's low-end Ungentlemanly clubs and a dancer came on stage to what I thought was the Clash. I was thrilled that this young lady was cool enough to begin her routine to one of my very favorite songs and wore glasses and was wearing a cute polka dot bikini that one might (and I did) think of as both itsy and bitsy--I was ready to dash to the ATM for reinforcements. But then the song morphed into Paper Planes by MIA--which I had never heard before. Good song, sampled the Clash well while still making the new song a unique memorable creation. Dancer had no idea who the Clash were, or MIA for that matter. Glasses weren't prescription, naughty librarian fantasy is...over. D.J. chose the song. Finished my Shiner walking out passing the ATM as the left shoulder angel face palms while the right lets out a long sigh of relief.

[remy]

UK box office revenue slumps after riots force cinemas to close their doors and cinemagoers to stay at home.

Tragic.

Fucking muggles.

[headhunter]

He probably found that the Scots don't drink "whiskey", they drink "whisky".

Funny, I doubt that the Scottish people he met gave a fuck about how to spell it, or what brand it might be, single or blended, as long as there was more whiskey to be had. But I don't know, I've never been to Scotland and I had only had one Scottish friend-- he was half Scottish, half new york jewish threw Robert Burns parties which was the only time I saw him wear a kilt and was probably an outlier in any group an ethnologist might place him in.  
As for me,I speak and write with an American accent, proudly with no apologies. I do not drink Scotch, nor "whisky"--a lingerie show in college station caused me to drink an entire bottle of Ballantine's in a very short period of time. I woke up the next day with part of a front tooth missing, in agony, dehydrated, and poisoned--but happily the lingerie show was a mostly gone and I could live with myself again. But I cannot stand the smell of scotch, it stinks of aggie lingerie to me. And when my friend told me of this adventures in Scotland we spoke with each other in American English in Houston never giving a shit how they might spell things in any other part of the world. But thanks anyway.

[Guinness]

I have a friend who plays the double bass

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Is there actually still water there? You're on the lower, so I imagine that you always get something out of Canyon Lake. The upper is damn near dried up.

Yes, the water in the river is about the same as always and for the reason you figured. I try to get down there at least once a week.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I understand the history, their significance, their influence, but back in the mid 70s, while I was quite aware of the Clash, I preferred bands like Television, Talking Heads, Jim Carroll Band, Patti Smith, Devo, The Tubes, The Cramps, Pere Ubu, Mink DeVille, anyone on the Stiffs Record label, Graham Parker, Joe Jackson, Robert Palmer, Moon Martin, Dwight Twilley, Big Star (though already disbanded), Tom Petty, Little Feat, Zappa, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Jeff Beck, Weather Report, and others of various ilks. It was just that I had preferences to the "punk rock" that was popular at the time. Even Springsteen. But not John Cougar. Punk Rock was a small but never a big influence on me. Though I did like the Stooges and the New York Dolls and the Ramones and such.

I was already way too cynical to relate to the punk pathos. Someone would ask me, "Why does that guy have a diaper pin stabbed through his cheek," and my answered would be, " 'cause he's a dumbass." Spending half a day getting your mohawk to look really bitchin' and the other half ripping holes in your jeans and pinning buttons on a well worn leather jacket; all while posing in front of a bedroom mirror, seemed more trendy than rebellious.

Had I been 5 or 10 years younger things might have gone different. Blame it on being influenced by Who's Next. A very cynical album, and Exile on Main St., another. And I'd have to list them above London Calling. I probably should add Sgt. Peppers and Pet Sounds along there too, and probably, some Dylan album as well. Some Cream, Traffic, Allman Brothers, Zappa, the Band, Greatful Dead...

And as far as the punk genre goes my favorite bands then were The Damned, The Dead Boys, and The Saints. I really didn't become a big Clash fan until the time London Calling came out. By then the Clash were far more than a band of angry punks and that album fucking ROCKS period. And I'm quite happy with them being the official band of SNS.

[Ron Brand]

Minus the Weather Report and Robert Palmer we had pretty similar playlists going on. I thought I was the only one keeping the Mink DeVille light burning.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

[quotehor=Ron Brand link=topic=113209.msg393256#msg393256 date=1313113131]
Minus the Weather Report and Robert Palmer we had pretty similar playlists going on. I thought I was the only one keeping the Mink DeVille light burning.
[/quote]

Man, Willy DeVille was one of the greats. Miss him, miss Lux too. And Alex.

[Ron Brand]

Man, Willy DeVille was one of the greats. Miss him, miss Lux too. And Alex.

And Jim Carroll.

[cougar]

I've been reading threads like this one with "White Riot" and Kaiser Chiefs; "I Predict a Riot" on a loop.  Helps with the proper mindset.


As for the looters, well a chav's gotta do what a chav's gotta do.

[Limey]

Chav...awesome.


Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum of life in England's green and pleasant land, the cricket team is taking world #1-ranked India out behind the woodshed.  Already, 2-0 up in the series, England skittled them out for 228 and have slogged 634 in reply, and still going.  A declaration is expected shortly (in which England will forfeit their remaining 4 wickets in order to have more time to knock over the Indian line up again).  Most likely, England will walk off once the next wicket falls, leaving them 2+ days to steamroller this very talented Indian side.

All this is happening in Edgebaston - a suburb of Birmingham that saw some nasty shit going down, including the 3 men killed when rammed by a carload of looters.

[chuck]

Yeah, it's a mosaic. You can't even say that Jerry Lee Lewis was the first punk but you could try to make a case for it. It's all innovation and mutation built on what went before.

It's funny you'd say that. About ten years ago I decided and still maintain that punk rock was invented by Little Richard.

[Ron Brand]

It's funny you'd say that. About ten years ago I decided and still maintain that punk rock was invented by Little Richard.

Maybe if we could settle on the definition it would help. I'd be content to blame it all on Charley Patton.

[Limey]

Riot developments today:

IPCC - the police watchdog - admits that it maaaaay have let slip that Guido Mark Duggan fired at the cops who shot him dead when , in fact, no such shots were fired.  A loaded gun was found in the vehicle, but it was tucked away in a bag and the only shots fired came from the plod.  It was questions over the circumstances of Duggan's shooting that prompted the peaceful protests that morphed into the riots.   Oops.

An online petition - to have convicted rioters stripped on all state benefits - achieved the 10,000 signatures necessary to have it debated in parliament.

One London borough council has started proceedings to evict am alleged rioter from his council-owned accommodation.  This is expected to be the model for councils up and down the country.

[Limey]

Chav...awesome.


Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum of life in England's green and pleasant land, the cricket team is taking world #1-ranked India out behind the woodshed.  Already, 2-0 up in the series, England skittled them out for 228 and have slogged 634 in reply, and still going.  A declaration is expected shortly (in which England will forfeit their remaining 4 wickets in order to have more time to knock over the Indian line up again).  Most likely, England will walk off once the next wicket falls, leaving them 2+ days to steamroller this very talented Indian side.

All this is happening in Edgebaston - a suburb of Birmingham that saw some nasty shit going down, including the 3 men killed when rammed by a carload of looters.

And Cook finally falls for 294, just 6 runs short of being only the 5th Englishman to score 300 in one innings for his country.  He and his batting partner walk off to a standing ovation as the team declares with a lead of 486.  India will have the rest of tonight's play, plus 2 more days to try and hold out.  But they lose a wicket to the 2nd ball of the night, which is a horrible start.

[Noe]

There was a famous riot in Houston in the seventies called the "Moody Park" riot.  Moody Park is the near north side, very close to where Spanish Flower is (other side of I-45, right behind the huge cemetery).  What started the whole thing was that this man named Joe Campos Torres had returned from Vietnam and was suffering from depression.  He drank heavily to try and forget his troubles, so one night at a bar in the near East Side (now the shadows of MMPUS, near where the original Ninfa's resides) things got out of hand with his drinking.  He was supposedly a trained martial artist, so when the police were called because Torres was disorderly, he proceeded to beat the crap out of the cops.  So the first unit called for backup and three more cars pulled up (at that time, they rode two to a car).  Overall, 8 officers took him down, but not without some bloody noses on the police.

Because of that, they took Torres to the shadows of Buffalo Bayou (they called it the Hole back then and it was well known by everyone that police would take people down there to extract justice as they saw it) and while they had him hog tied, they beat the crap out of him, mostly kicking him until he was one giant swollen mess.  The senior officer told them they could not take him to the station (about 1/4 mile away in the northern quadrant of downtown, near Houston Ave.), so he told two of them to take him to the Hospital and ordered two others to accompany them.  On the way there, they all decided they were going to get reported for police brutality, so one officer said on the radio "Let's take this wetback back to the bayou and see if he can swim!".  So they turned back around and threw Campos Torres in the water, still hog tied.

His body was discovered two days later and what ensued was the worse case of criminal injustice in the name of police justification ever witnessed in Houston.  A year later, at the trial, all police officers received probation and fined 1 dollar for negligence.  And the Hispanic community was outraged but did not know if anything else could be done.  Then came the cinco de mayo celebration at Moody Park.

A guy named Travis Morales, a young radical communist party member set up an area near all the celebrations by the mostly Hispanic families at the park and started to shout into a bullhorn "JUSTICE! JUSTICE! JUSTICE!"  How do I know?  I was there, but was leaving at the time, it was nearly five o'clock and we were done playing baseball at the Moody Park field (amateur league, I was just starting to play in leagues around town).  Next thing I know when I get home, I turn on the television and the news is reporting a riot happening at Moody Park.  The reporter for KTRK Channel 13 was seen reporting from in front of young kids overturning a police car that had shown up and Morales pointed the now drunken and not so drunken but still mad about Campos Torres crowd towards the car and shouted "Kill the pig!' or something to that effect.  The reporter had to get out of there though, the mob was growing and soon enough something was tossed his way and he bolted.

Next thing you know this mob follows Morales up and down Irvington Blvd. and proceeds to trash and burn everything in sight, all the stores and gas stations.... everything!  Fifth ward was now ablaze and I could look out of my bedroom window and see the smoke.  My dad screams about this time "Don't nobody leave this house.... I MEAN IT!"  He knew us well.  Friends of mine were coming home to the street we lived on and it was now about seven pm and we could still see the blaze and smoke over the trees.  They start to tell me how they were there trying to stop people, but it was well out of hand by now.  The riot was raging out of control.

Here is what I remember the most about the aftermath.  Stores owned by Hispanic families who served the community with their services and products were now ruined.  One such store was a baker who was a friend of my Dad.  We bought bread and Mexican sweet bread from him all the time.  He was innocent, why did they burn him down?  Because when a crowd is stirred to a frenzy, it's not about extracting justice or even revenge, it's about mayhem and disorder... the worse of the worse.

http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/houston/stories/khou080506_jj_moodyparkriots.d48cabe1.html

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Wow, great story Noe.  I'd heard about the Moody Park riot, but never with that level of detail.  We can walk to Moody Park from our house, and it's a great park now.

[Noe]

Wow, great story Noe.  I'd heard about the Moody Park riot, but never with that level of detail.  We can walk to Moody Park from our house, and it's a great park now.

BTW - Travis Morales?  Biggest liar that ever lived!  His side of the story is such a fantasyland story it is sickening.  The unfortunate thing is that neither side really care for the community.  They both used the community as a chess piece for their own ideology.  Good little shops and restaurants burned down that day and it was sad.  I knew several of the rioters and lets just say they were no ideologist nor fed up with the police brutality.

They were punks looking to create mayhem and destruction.  The very people in the community disliked these punks because they were always causing trouble.  On this day, they burned houses and places of business down, and my Dad's baker friend never recovered.  He basically went away and we never heard from him again.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

His side of the story

Jeez.  I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

[Limey]

Russell Brand.  Who knew?

Why am I surprised that these young people behave destructively, "mindlessly", motivated only by self-interest? How should we describe the actions of the city bankers who brought our economy to its knees in 2010? Altruistic? Mindful? Kind? But then again, they do wear suits, so they deserve to be bailed out, perhaps that's why not one of them has been imprisoned. And they got away with a lot more than a few fucking pairs of trainers.

These young people have no sense of community because they haven't been given one. ... If we don't want our young people to tear apart our communities then don't let people in power tear apart the values that hold our communities together.

[Lurch]

Russell Brand.  Who knew?

Christ.  It's not their fault.  It's society.  Holy fuck.

[Limey]

Christ.  It's not their fault.  It's society.  Holy fuck.

Everyone has individual responsibility.  The thing he says that I agree with, is that if you take away someone's stake in society, they have no reason to care for it.  Hence the bankers - rioters analogy; the bankers have no stake because they'll get bailed out and they know it, the rioters have no stake because they have nothing to lose in the first place.  Both need to have good reason to give a shit.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Everyone has individual responsibility.  The thing he says that I agree with, is that if you take away someone's stake in society, they have no reason to care for it.  Hence the bankers - rioters analogy; the bankers have no stake because they'll get bailed out and they know it, the rioters have no stake because they have nothing to lose in the first place.  Both need to have good reason to give a shit.

I agree up to a point. They need to have a good reason to give a shit BUT that reason should be that they all know deep down inside it's wrong to fuck with other peoples shit. I can't believe that they're all just all natural born and bred organic sociopaths. No matter how one rationalizes their actions, neither is justified. Both are wrong. Getting away with something doesn't make it any less wrong--just like being poor and frustrated, doesn't make it any more right. What ever happened to respecting other people's property? What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

They should all be quartered and stoned, or just maybe they should just get stoned and mellow out. Maybe Obama should go over and have some beers with the Bankers and Rioters.

[Rebel Jew]

It's funny you'd say that. About ten years ago I decided and still maintain that punk rock was invented by Little Richard.

One thing that's often bewildered me about punk is how, despite the tough clothing and attitude, the music is often sing-a-longy, upbeat, distorted but not abraisive, 50's rock and roll-based stuff that's significantly more harmless than one would think at first glance. You look at The Clash's first album, even the title song of this thread, and even though the core message is aggressive and anarchic, the song has a catchy singalong chorus, and a very poppy G-F-C-D chord progression. It is this reason, I think, that I can't always get 'that feeling' when I listen to The Clash, even though I like the band-- it's neither aggressive enough or offbeat enough. Give me the Bad Brains first album or Generic Flipper and I'm good for my punk fix.

Check out this clip of the Clash doing London's Burning. Sure, that is a punk song and The Clash are a punk band, but it ain't punk it's Rolling Stones. Joe Strummer and Paul Simonon's stage moves, the reaction of the crowd, etc. Can you imagine Bad Brains playing Pay to Cum in front of 80,000 people in Central Park?

[Mr. Happy]

It's funny you'd say that. About ten years ago I decided and still maintain that punk rock was invented by Little Richard.

Agreed.

[Guinness]

I think it's absolutely true that the Clash, the Pretenders, the Smiths, punk/new wave in general had a whole lot in common with your Little Richards, Jerry Lee Lewis era;  it was a complete reset of rock'n'roll that unfortunately didn't pan out as well as the original movement.  Surely it was no accident that Brand New Cadillac was the second song on London Calling.

[Bench]

What ever happened to respecting other people's property?

Because when you have no property, and all you're left with is your personhood, and that is constantly shit upon by the authorities and elites, it's easy to not give a fuck about someone else's property. 

It's not right, but the angry disenfranchised are angry for a reason.

[Ebby Calvin]

One thing that's often bewildered me about punk is how, despite the tough clothing and attitude, the music is often sing-a-longy, upbeat, distorted but not abraisive, 50's rock and roll-based stuff that's significantly more harmless than one would think at first glance. You look at The Clash's first album, even the title song of this thread, and even though the core message is aggressive and anarchic, the song has a catchy singalong chorus, and a very poppy G-F-C-D chord progression. It is this reason, I think, that I can't always get 'that feeling' when I listen to The Clash, even though I like the band-- it's neither aggressive enough or offbeat enough.

I couldn't agree more here, although I've always concluded that my disconnect with the music was entirely contextual.

[Guinness]

One thing that's often bewildered me about punk is how, despite the tough clothing and attitude, the music is often sing-a-longy, upbeat, distorted but not abraisive, 50's rock and roll-based stuff that's significantly more harmless than one would think at first glance. You look at The Clash's first album, even the title song of this thread, and even though the core message is aggressive and anarchic, the song has a catchy singalong chorus, and a very poppy G-F-C-D chord progression.

Didn't Strummer mention that fans were giving him a hard time with the album--My grandmother likes Wrong Em Boyo or something like that.  Some old Rolling Stone interview maybe.

[Ron Brand]

One thing that's often bewildered me about punk is how, despite the tough clothing and attitude, the music is often sing-a-longy, upbeat, distorted but not abraisive, 50's rock and roll-based stuff that's significantly more harmless than one would think at first glance. You look at The Clash's first album, even the title song of this thread, and even though the core message is aggressive and anarchic, the song has a catchy singalong chorus, and a very poppy G-F-C-D chord progression.

The point wasn't to alienate, or to come up with a new form. The point was to give voice to anger and disaffection, to bring music back to its basic roots, to strip it of the overproduction and show that everyone could participate, not just rich rock stars who had lost their way. Punk was the raw basics with emotion and humor. New Wave was the place to show off new forms if you had them.

[austro]

The point wasn't to alienate, or to come up with a new form. The point was to give voice to anger and disaffection, to bring music back to its basic roots, to strip it of the overproduction and show that everyone could participate, not just rich rock stars who had lost their way. Punk was the raw basics with emotion and humor. New Wave was the place to show off new forms if you had them.

Excellent distillation. Thank you.

[Rebel Jew]

The point wasn't to alienate, or to come up with a new form. The point was to give voice to anger and disaffection, to bring music back to its basic roots, to strip it of the overproduction and show that everyone could participate, not just rich rock stars who had lost their way. Punk was the raw basics with emotion and humor. New Wave was the place to show off new forms if you had them.

Yeah, but I think punk's tendency toward danceable, upbeat music has, as much as anything, served to undermine the genre. The Sex Pistols are singing about denigrating sacred institutions, but at the same time their music is fairly safe, to the point that it undercuts the message a bit once you get past the shock value. To me, the real punks ARE the new wavers that really did stay true to the punk aesthetic. Wire "Chairs Missing" is as raw and uncompromising as any album I've heard. They could have stayed a classic punk band like on Pink Flag, but they moved in a totally new direction. It's actually a big reason why I like Sandanista.

[Ron Brand]

Yeah, but I think punk's tendency toward danceable, upbeat music has, as much as anything, served to undermine the genre. The Sex Pistols are singing about denigrating sacred institutions, but at the same time their music is fairly safe, to the point that it undercuts the message a bit once you get past the shock value. To me, the real punks ARE the new wavers that really did stay true to the punk aesthetic. Wire "Chairs Missing" is as raw and uncompromising as any album I've heard. They could have stayed a classic punk band like on Pink Flag, but they moved in a totally new direction. It's actually a big reason why I like Sandanista.

And I think you're missing the point by trying to apply criteria that didn't exist or wasn't applicable at the time to what was going on. Revisiting it in 1985 is wholly different than experiencing it in 1976. At the time, it was raw and uncompromising but it didn't go as far, for you, as the minimalism of Wire. That's fine, but Wire came later. The ground had to be broken first by the Sex Pistols, and it was. They were pushing the envelope. The envelope got pushed farther as time passed. It's not fair to look back and say, "That wasn't so scary or raw, not like XXX later on was." The fact is that it was scary or raw at that time and then other bands built on that to get to what you happen to like better, later.

[Arky Vaughan]

Because when you have no property, and all you're left with is your personhood, and that is constantly shit upon by the authorities and elites, it's easy to not give a fuck about someone else's property. 

It's not right, but the angry disenfranchised are angry for a reason.

When you raise generations of people in the moral vacuum of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, sometimes you get unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences.

[chuck]

And I think you're missing the point by trying to apply criteria that didn't exist or wasn't applicable at the time to what was going on. Revisiting it in 1985 is wholly different than experiencing it in 1976. At the time, it was raw and uncompromising but it didn't go as far, for you, as the minimalism of Wire. That's fine, but Wire came later. The ground had to be broken first by the Sex Pistols, and it was. They were pushing the envelope. The envelope got pushed farther as time passed. It's not fair to look back and say, "That wasn't so scary or raw, not like XXX later on was." The fact is that it was scary or raw at that time and then other bands built on that to get to what you happen to like better, later.

Exactly, and to minimize the greatness of London Calling by pointing out (correctly, and as I have done in this very thread) that their first record is Chuck Berry on meth rather than (relatively) sophisticated meditations on all sorts of music is to ignore the progression. The Clash came into being in 1976. Strummer had been in a sort of rockabilly band, an English version of one, anyway. No one else in the band really knew what they were doing. Ergo, they became punk. Punk in the UK at that time really didn't mean anything - it basically meant you were angry, you were rejecting prog-rock and you very likely couldn't play. There are any number of fine albums that came out of that time. The Clash's first is one of them in my view.

London Calling is completely different. It is the document of a maturing but still very curious rock band that is juggling several ideas at a time in virtually every song. It is absurdly ambitious but also oddly self-contained by a very utilitarian (and I think beautiful) production by the noted lunatic Guy Stevens.

I will abide all manner of criticisms of The Clash, but I will not stand for a minimization of their legacy based on the fact that their first record is reductionist or overly Americanized or any other of the valid critiques available. I will happily admit that their second record is basically a turd, at least as a coherent collection of songs. That's another thing that makes London Calling such a total miracle.

It's like saying, Yeah, Pet Sounds is great but Help Me Rhonda is kind of stupid.

[chuck]

When you raise generations of people in the moral vacuum of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, sometimes you get unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences.

A society that provides healthcare to its citizens does not by definition create a moral vacuum, fuck you very much.

[Ron Brand]

It's like saying, Yeah, Pet Sounds is great but Help Me Rhonda is kind of stupid.

Or, "I really like B. B. King, but that Robert Johnson is just too slow and not very melodic."

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

The point wasn't to alienate, or to come up with a new form. The point was to give voice to anger and disaffection, to bring music back to its basic roots, to strip it of the overproduction and show that everyone could participate, not just rich rock stars who had lost their way. Punk was the raw basics with emotion and humor. New Wave was the place to show off new forms if you had them.

That was the appeal but the point was to get laid.

[Ron Brand]

That was the appeal but the point was to get laid.

You are so right.

[strosrays]

There was a famous riot in Houston in the seventies called the "Moody Park" riot.  Moody Park is the near north side, very close to where Spanish Flower is (other side of I-45, right behind the huge cemetery).  What started the whole thing was that this man named Joe Campos Torres had returned from Vietnam and was suffering from depression.  He drank heavily to try and forget his troubles, so one night at a bar in the near East Side (now the shadows of MMPUS, near where the original Ninfa's resides) things got out of hand with his drinking.  He was supposedly a trained martial artist, so when the police were called because Torres was disorderly, he proceeded to beat the crap out of the cops.  So the first unit called for backup and three more cars pulled up (at that time, they rode two to a car).  Overall, 8 officers took him down, but not without some bloody noses on the police.

Because of that, they took Torres to the shadows of Buffalo Bayou (they called it the Hole back then and it was well known by everyone that police would take people down there to extract justice as they saw it) and while they had him hog tied, they beat the crap out of him, mostly kicking him until he was one giant swollen mess.  The senior officer told them they could not take him to the station (about 1/4 mile away in the northern quadrant of downtown, near Houston Ave.), so he told two of them to take him to the Hospital and ordered two others to accompany them.  On the way there, they all decided they were going to get reported for police brutality, so one officer said on the radio "Let's take this wetback back to the bayou and see if he can swim!".  So they turned back around and threw Campos Torres in the water, still hog tied.

My uncle, a Catholic priest, had pissed off his bishop some kind of way, and got himself stationed at St. Rose of Lima Church on Brinkman, not far from N. Shepherd.  Joe Campos Torres was a parishioner, or members of his family were, I can't remember which.  My uncle had been trying to quietly resolve some of the problems the people of his parish had with the HPD, but when Torres was killed he became a full-blown activist.  Made the Tom Snyder talk show and all.

I'd forgot that sorry episode in HPD history.  Thanks for the reminder.

Sandanista is my favorite Clash album, as I've mentioned before. I once went through a Clash-obsessive phase like everybody else, but more and more over the years they've seemed to me like The Rolling Stones of punk. That's not necessarily an insult, but The Clash more and more strike me as a "big time rock band" more than a punk band, even though they supposedly defined the punk aesthetic until combat rock. Something about how earnest they were, I guess. While I still like all the Clash albums, I find myself listening to stuff like Wire "Chairs Missing," Gang of Four "Entertainment," and "Singles Going Steady" far more often. Even the Specials first album gets more play in my world. The band I liken them most to, actually, is probably Metallica. Like with London Calling, everybody calls "Master of Puppets" a masterpiece, and I have no reason to disagree, but I'd rather listen to Megadeth "Rust in Peace" or Slayer "Reign in Blood" any day.

Then and now, I considered London Calling as an album infused with the punk ethos, but something that had gone beyond punk.  There was no definition for it, it was unique.  I felt bad for the Clash fans who thought of it as a sell-out.  It is, as has been noted, maybe the greatest rock LP ever.

The best purely punk LP to come out then was Entertainment!, in my opinion.  In the words of Michael J. Pollard in some Patrick Swayze movie, "God-fucking-damn."  The first time I heard the prolonged feedback leading into "Anthrax", that became one of my favorite LPs ever.  That and the Another Day, Another Dollar EP were so fucking powerful.  To this day, I have not heard anyone come close to Andy Gill's stabbing stiletto guitar style.

[Arky Vaughan]

A society that provides healthcare to its citizens does not by definition create a moral vacuum, fuck you very much.

The free healthcare doesn't seem to have satisfied their demand for sneakers and plasma TVs.

[chuck]

The free healthcare doesn't seem to have satisfied their demand for sneakers and plasma TVs.

Right. The whole of British society is invading retail establishments in an unquenchable thirst for Reebok and LG. As seen here, already reported:

http://tinyurl.com/3dwakr4

And it's not "free." It's publicly funded. I feel quite certain if you close your eyes and sort of squint hard into the darkness long enough you will eventually be able to discern the difference.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Ultimately, it's love that will be our undoing.

[Guinness]

The free healthcare doesn't seem to have satisfied their demand for sneakers and plasma TVs.

This is really ridiculous.  Healthcare was never free for me in the UK, they took money out of my check (and everybody else's) every month. 
Seriously, this meme needs to go.  Nobody ever advocated free healthcare in this country.

[Andyzipp]

This is really ridiculous.  Healthcare was never free for me in the UK, they took money out of my check (and everybody else's) every month. 
Seriously, this meme needs to go.  Nobody ever advocated free healthcare in this country.

Free healthcare would be a whole lot easier to pass than "increase my taxes" healthcare.

[BudGirl]

Your very first ecomonics class should have taught you, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

[jbm]

When you raise generations of people in the moral vacuum of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, sometimes you get unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences.

Yes, any kind of help from the government is simply enabling the lazy, good-for-nothing leeches.  This logic is similar to that genius (forgot who it was) who proclaimed that providing handicapped parking spaces was simply "encouraging people to be handicapped."  

[EasTexAstro]

I thought these stats were interesting:

One-fifth of children are raised in homes in which no adult works
One-tenth of the adult population has done not a day's work since Tony Blair took office on May 1, 1997

[hostros7]

I thought these stats were interesting:

One-fifth of children are raised in homes in which no adult works
One-tenth of the adult population has done not a day's work since Tony Blair took office on May 1, 1997

The statistics in the US would probably not be entirely different.

[EasTexAstro]

The statistics in the US would probably not be entirely different.

You are probably correct, but it still stood out.

[BizidyDizidy]

Pete, how do the people not working pay for their healthcare?

[subnuclear]

It was clear to me that Arky was not just talking about healthcare, but also the British equivalent of food stamps, unemployment benefits and public housing. There are other reasons those things might be helpful to society, but they don't seem to decrease crime, particularly violent crime.  

[Limey]

Free healthcare would be a whole lot easier to pass than "increase my taxes" healthcare.

It would be easier to pass if it was explained that any potential tax increase would be offset by the cost of insurance PLUS the cost of uncovered healthcare - which remains the largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US*.  Instead they talked about how, in the Communist States of Osbama, a government official would have carte blanche to look up your pee hole and terminate your perfectly healthy grandma.

* The vast majority of these bankruptcy filers had health insurance.  They got killed by deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance.  The European/Canadian model single-payer systems have modest co-pays for prescriptions only (from which children and seniors are exempt), but no other contribution outside of the payroll tax levied.  In the US, FICA is 6+%; in the UK the equivalent tax - which also pays for your full medical - is 9+%.  Figure out what 3% of you pay check is, and then see how that compares to your family's medical expenses including out-of-pocket costs but deducting $12 per prescription (the UK prescription co-pay is a flat 7.50 pounds).

[Lurch]

Pete, how do the people not working pay for their healthcare?

Apparently by promising not to riot

[Lurch]

It would be easier to pass if it was explained that any potential tax increase would be offset by the cost of insurance PLUS the cost of uncovered healthcare -

"Offset" for those making <$100k then.

[Guinness]

Pete, how do the people not working pay for their healthcare?

In addition to health services, programs should also be in place to give people proper education and training so that they can get and keep jobs.  There are always deadbeats in every society (like the guy down the street scamming unemployment, or ExxonMobil) and there always will be.  You can't punish the truly needy because of an extremely small sample of the population.

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, any kind of help from the government is simply enabling the lazy, good-for-nothing leeches.  This logic is similar to that genius (forgot who it was) who proclaimed that providing handicapped parking spaces was simply "encouraging people to be handicapped."  

If people would stop being poor, we wouldn't have any poor people.  Duh.

[HudsonHawk]

It was clear to me that Arky was not just talking about healthcare, but also the British equivalent of food stamps, unemployment benefits and public housing. There are other reasons those things might be helpful to society, but they don't seem to decrease crime, particularly violent crime.  

Have you ever studied what the violent crime rate would be if everyone who was on government assistance was homeless and starving?  You think they'd just lay there an die cleanly and quietly?

[subnuclear]

Have you ever studied what the violent crime rate would be if everyone who was on government assistance was homeless and starving?  You think they'd just lay there an die cleanly and quietly?

You can compare crime rates in the US from the 50s to the 70s where there was a large increase in crime despite a large increase in aid. Violent crime in cities in Detroit and Chicago in 70s were much worse then than in the south where people were much poorer.

[EasTexAstro]

Have you ever studied what the violent crime rate would be if everyone who was on government assistance was homeless and starving?  You think they'd just lay there an die cleanly and quietly?

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

[HudsonHawk]

You can compare crime rates in the US from the 50s to the 70s where there was a large increase in crime despite a large increase in aid. Violent crime in cities in Detroit and Chicago in 70s were much worse then than in the south where people were much poorer.

So you think the conclusion is that poverty reduces crime?

[EasTexAstro]

So you think the conclusion is that poverty reduces crime?

I would think he is saying there are other factors.

[chuck]

So you think the conclusion is that poverty reduces crime?

Crime requires initiative and motivation and let's face it, most poor people are lazy.

[subnuclear]

So you think the conclusion is that poverty reduces crime?

I think there is evidence that government aid of the form I mentioned doesn't reduce urban crime. That aid is useful in decreasing the poverty of the elderly, children and disabled, which are worthy goals, but crime seems to be a different kind of problem.

[subnuclear]

Crime requires initiative and motivation and let's face it, most poor people are lazy.

I don't think poor people are lazy.

[hostros7]

Can't we just put all the poor people in Hamsterdam and wash our hands of this debate? 

[chuck]

Can't we just put all the poor people in Hamsterdam and wash our hands of this debate? 

I still feel bad for that old lady.

[HudsonHawk]

I think there is evidence that government aid of the form I mentioned doesn't reduce urban crime. That aid is useful in decreasing the poverty of the elderly, children and disabled, which are worthy goals, but crime seems to be a different kind of problem.

OK, but you cannot use the statistics you cite as evidence (at least not in that way), without also acknowledging the corollary, which is that wealth breeds crime.  If you mean to argue that poverty and crime are unrelated, then you'll need different data.

[EasTexAstro]

OK, but you cannot use the statistics you cite as evidence (at least not in that way), without also acknowledging the corollary, which is that wealth breeds crime.  If you mean to argue that poverty and crime are unrelated, then you'll need different data.

So, wealthy people don't commit crimes?

[Bench]

So, wealthy people don't commit crimes?

So that's what they meant by bail outs. 

[Rebel Jew]

So, wealthy people don't commit crimes?

Having been around and taught a lot of poor kids, many of them juvenile criminals, and just from generally living in Oakland, I can say that poverty DEFINITELY is a constant in the life of most criminals. It's not, however, the inherent cause, but rather an association. In a poor family, you're likely to have less educated parents, and you're also more likely to have a single parent family or less. And no matter the home situation, the parents will be working more often and at less convenient hours. With poverty, you also have kids growing up in less safe areas, often lacking in basic amenities (like grocery stores and clean safe parks), with far worse schools, and where crime is a common and often unchecked form of juvenile self-expression. Beyond this, there is likely to be a heightened level of general stress both in the home and especially in the community. Throw in drugs, and the kind of behavior that inspires, and you're on the path to understanding urban crime.

[EasTexAstro]

It's not, however, the inherent cause, but rather an association.

That is all I was saying. There are a lot of factors. Poverty doesn't help. Wealth doesn't always help.

[subnuclear]

OK, but you cannot use the statistics you cite as evidence (at least not in that way), without also acknowledging the corollary, which is that wealth breeds crime.  If you mean to argue that poverty and crime are unrelated, then you'll need different data.

You are right when you look at society as a whole, crime is concentrated at the bottom of the income scale. However, when you compare different populations of people in that lower income range, you see very different levels of criminality that don't correlate very well with income.

[Limey]

You are right when you look at society as a whole, crime is concentrated at the bottom of the income scale. However, when you compare different populations of people in that lower income range, you see very different levels of criminality that don't correlate very well with income.

You might want to add the cost of crime per capita in those groups.  The rampant (and as yet unpunished) fraud that was mortgage-backed securities cost tens of trillions of dollars.  The cost of the rioting is not insignificant, but its in the tens of millions range - i.e. a fraction.

Oh, and the damage caused by rioters is mostly of the insurable kind.  The losses suffered because of the MBS fraud are mostly not insurable.

[Jacksonian]

You might want to add the cost of crime per capita in those groups. 

Put a cost on human life.

[Limey]

Put a cost on human life.

The courts do this all the time.

[Bench]

Put a cost on human life.

Insurers do this all the time.

Backatcha Limey!

[HudsonHawk]

So, wealthy people don't commit crimes?

Sure they do.  But they commit proportionately fewer violent crimes than do poor people.

[Limey]

Sure they do.  But they commit proportionately fewer violent crimes than do poor people.

It's arguable that the non-violent crimes of the wealthy lead partially to the violent crimes of the poor.  I don't think there's ever an excuse for violence, but then I've never been as much on the outside looking in as many of those involved in the rioting are.

[Guinness]

It's arguable that the non-violent crimes of the wealthy lead partially to the violent crimes of the poor.  I don't think there's ever an excuse for violence, but then I've never been as much on the outside looking in as many of those involved in the rioting are.

It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard

--MLK

[Rebel Jew]

That is all I was saying. There are a lot of factors. Poverty doesn't help. Wealth doesn't always help.

Poverty is not the direct "cause" of crime in the sense that poor people will steal for bread or out of jealousy of the wealthy or because of social welfare degrading their value system. It is, however, a common factor in the great majority of crime. The wealthy, for instance, will not commit the types of burglaries and aggravated robberies that are some of the most common crimes. The wealthy also are more likely to be drug users than drug pushers, and have enough to entertain themselves with that they are not likely to join violent gangs and do all the other things that urban youths do to forge identity and add excitement to their lives.

[EasTexAstro]

You might want to add the cost of crime per capita in those groups.  The rampant (and as yet unpunished) fraud that was mortgage-backed securities cost tens of trillions of dollars.  The cost of the rioting is not insignificant, but its in the tens of millions range - i.e. a fraction.

Oh, and the damage caused by rioters is mostly of the insurable kind.  The losses suffered because of the MBS fraud are mostly not insurable.

Is the loss of business due to having people scared away from town insurable? A few days of no customers insurable? Middle class people that barely make their payments day-to-day? That is excusable? Should I ram the next BMW that cuts me off because he makes more than me and it is insurable, so justified?

It is stupid and wrong to tear down your neighborhood/town. You want to live in a bad neighborhood? Destroy it. It's insured and you are justified because someone might be making money somewhere else, legally or illegally. It makes your life so much better.

Maybe we could turn it around? The "rich" have to pay higher taxes to support those not working, higher insurance rates to pay for those things destroyed, higher taxes for the health care for those not contributing, higher taxes for police/fire departments/emergency services, higher transportation costs to avoid bad areas, lost income due to riots, higher wages due to employees not being able to get to work. Maybe they should try to cut some corners and take what they can to recover their losses due to the poor...

It doesn't make sense either way. It is wrong.

[EasTexAstro]

Poverty is not the direct "cause" of crime in the sense that poor people will steal for bread or out of jealousy of the wealthy or because of social welfare degrading their value system. It is, however, a common factor in the great majority of crime. The wealthy, for instance, will not commit the types of burglaries and aggravated robberies that are some of the most common crimes. The wealthy also are more likely to be drug users than drug pushers, and have enough to entertain themselves with that they are not likely to join violent gangs and do all the other things that urban youths do to forge identity and add excitement to their lives.

I came from poverty. Not the poverty of today, real poverty. How many pro athletes/politicians/superstars can you think of, instantly, that commit crimes: beating their wives/lovers/prostitutes, shoplifting, driving drunk/reckless, murdering, fighting, supporting gangs? Wealth isn't always the issue. Many "rich" have the resources to get out of trouble. Yes, it helps them, where the poor that continue have a harder time.

I agree that is a tough in an urban prison. Good people can come from there, though. I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you do. I don't do what you do, but I am involved in several ways. I have to leave it at that, but PM me if you want to.

[Rebel Jew]

I came from poverty. Not the poverty of today, real poverty. How many pro athletes/politicians/superstars can you think of, instantly, that commit crimes: beating their wives/lovers/prostitutes, shoplifting, driving drunk/reckless, murdering, fighting, supporting gangs? Wealth isn't always the issue. Many "rich" have the resources to get out of trouble. Yes, it helps them, where the poor that continue have a harder time.

I agree that is a tough in an urban prison. Good people can come from there, though. I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you do. I don't do what you do, but I am involved in several ways. I have to leave it at that, but PM me if you want to.

Wait, so what kind of criminal activity are you involved in? Just kidding.

Seriously though, I never said that everybody who's poor is going to become a criminal, just that it is a very common attribute in the most common crimes (robbery, assault, murder, drug-related stuff). The reasons are obvious, as poverty is directly linked to many factors also related to criminals (unstable families, lack of education, lack of role models, lack of opportunities, unsafe neighborhoods, etc.). Reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about the guy from the ghetto who comes home from prison and everybody throws him a big party, but another guy from the ghetto comes home from college with his master's degree and everybody's like, "what, you think you're smarter than me now?"

And this is not just a modern urban poor concept. Dostoevsky talks about the link, Merle Haggard sings about it, Victor Hugo, the list goes on and on.

[Limey]

Poverty is not the direct "cause" of crime in the sense that poor people will steal for bread or out of jealousy of the wealthy or because of social welfare degrading their value system. It is, however, a common factor in the great majority of crime. The wealthy, for instance, will not commit the types of burglaries and aggravated robberies that are some of the most common crimes. The wealthy also are more likely to be drug users than drug pushers, and have enough to entertain themselves with that they are not likely to join violent gangs and do all the other things that urban youths do to forge identity and add excitement to their lives.

"Let me make it very clear: poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
 -- George W. Bush

[Limey]

Is the loss of business due to having people scared away from town insurable? A few days of no customers insurable? Middle class people that barely make their payments day-to-day? That is excusable? Should I ram the next BMW that cuts me off because he makes more than me and it is insurable, so justified?

It is stupid and wrong to tear down your neighborhood/town. You want to live in a bad neighborhood? Destroy it. It's insured and you are justified because someone might be making money somewhere else, legally or illegally. It makes your life so much better.

Maybe we could turn it around? The "rich" have to pay higher taxes to support those not working, higher insurance rates to pay for those things destroyed, higher taxes for the health care for those not contributing, higher taxes for police/fire departments/emergency services, higher transportation costs to avoid bad areas, lost income due to riots, higher wages due to employees not being able to get to work. Maybe they should try to cut some corners and take what they can to recover their losses due to the poor...

It doesn't make sense either way. It is wrong.

Actually, the loss of custom due to riots is insurable, but that's not my point.  My point was that you can insure yourself against someone breaking your window and stealing your shit...setting your car on fire...even beating the shit out of you; but you can't insure against rampant bank fraud that tanks the economy so that you lose your job and your home - which is what happened to tens of millions of people worldwide due to the MBS crime spree.

Many of the rioters will have their day in court.  They will go to jail, be forced to clean up the mess they made and/or lose any government benefits they may have been receiving.  To date, there is not a single prosecution in progress or pending on anyone involved in the MBS fraud, and no one is even trying to investigate it.  If you want to know what drives people to riot, it's crap like that.  British PM David Cameron has mobilised a task force to track down the rioters, but sat on his hands over MBS and is up to his eyeballs in the phone hacking scandal.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

[Lurch]

What does insurance have to do with anything?  someone still takes a loss

[Limey]

What does insurance have to do with anything?  someone still takes a loss

I was trying to distinguish between the direct and local damage inflicted by riots, and the broad, over-arching damage caused by fraud inherent in the financial system.

[HudsonHawk]

I was trying to distinguish between the direct and local damage inflicted by riots, and the broad, over-arching damage caused by fraud inherent in the financial system.

Come and see the fraud inherent in the system!  Help, help...I'm being repressed!! 

[NeilT]

Come and see the fraud inherent in the system!  Help, help...I'm being repressed!! 

HH claiming to be repressed strikes me as mighty amusing.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

HH claiming to be repressed strikes me as mighty amusing.

If I wasn't so oppressed, I'd be impressed.

[Arky Vaughan]

Many of the rioters will have their day in court.  They will go to jail, be forced to clean up the mess they made and/or lose any government benefits they may have been receiving.  To date, there is not a single prosecution in progress or pending on anyone involved in the MBS fraud, and no one is even trying to investigate it.  If you want to know what drives people to riot, it's crap like that.  British PM David Cameron has mobilised a task force to track down the rioters, but sat on his hands over MBS and is up to his eyeballs in the phone hacking scandal.

It will be quite a spectacle to see all the rioters pleading to the court that the unprosecuted MBS crimes drove them to mayhem. Or maybe they will say they did it because they were revolted by the villainous Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in the Cameron government hacking people's phones.

Or it could be they just wanted flat-screen TVs and sneakers, and looting them sure beats the hell out of working for the money to buy them. Even if they get free, or at least heavily subsidized, healthcare.

[chuck]

It will be quite a spectacle to see all the rioters pleading to the court that the unprosecuted MBS crimes drove them to mayhem. Or maybe they will say they did it because they were revolted by the villainous Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in the Cameron government hacking people's phones.

Or it could be they just wanted flat-screen TVs and sneakers, and looting them sure beats the hell out of working for the money to buy them. Even if they get free, or at least heavily subsidized, healthcare.

You want a country where rich people pay no taxes and the federal government does not award 'entitlements,' healthcare for seniors, social security, etc. Don't worry, dude, you'll get it. In your zeal to elect reactionary retards you'll end up with a country where the rich in fact do not pay taxes. When the roads get bad the rich buy a bigger car. Or truck, rather. If you want to expedite this experience I suggest you move to Haiti. It is a perfect test case for your ideology, such as it exists. If you'd rather not move to Haiti then keep doing what you're doing and it will surely come to you.

[Arky Vaughan]

You want a country where rich people pay no taxes and the federal government does not award 'entitlements,' healthcare for seniors, social security, etc. Don't worry, dude, you'll get it. In your zeal to elect reactionary retards you'll end up with a country where the rich in fact do not pay taxes. When the roads get bad the rich buy a bigger car. Or truck, rather. If you want to expedite this experience I suggest you move to Haiti. It is a perfect test case for your ideology, such as it exists. If you'd rather not move to Haiti then keep doing what you're doing and it will surely come to you.

You sure draw a lot of unsupportable conclusions about people and what they believe. We're not even discussing this country.

But now that you mention it, yes, this country has a serious problem with a permanent underclass living in crumbling, violent areas where crime, unemployment, substance abuse, illegitimacy and fatherless homes are the norm, the schools graduate less than half their students, and the law-abiding and working poor who do live there cannot get law enforcement to protect them from the dangers all around them. What to do about that problem, or host of problems, is not something many people agree on. One thing that the evidence of the last five decades suggests, however, is that massive state spending on social benefits has not improved the situation much if at all, and in many places has made matters worse. Which is why even a Democratic president was willing to sign legislation passed by a Republican Congress that made some changes to the more abused provisions of those benefits.

But baselessly attacking me and pretending to know what I believe without proof to back up your close-minded allegations isn't exactly stating what you believe is the solution either, is it?

England (and Britain as a whole) has similar problems with long-term unemployment, people spending a lifetime living on social benefits and children growing up in an environment where thrift and earnestness are not exactly easily acquired virtues. Whether or not to help suffering people is not the issue. The issue is how best to help them, and whether massive government aid that creates a permanent dependency class is in fact doing them more harm than good. Britain also has well documented law-enforcement problems, including poor relationships with poor and minority communities and also a tendency to treat property crimes cavalierly and to let them go unpunished. Similarly, the law places strict limitations on self-defense and defense of property, to an extent that probably even a few posters here who aren't exactly right-wingers would find overly constraining. Not everybody getting their stuff torn up or stolen is rich. Immigrants and middle- and working-class people having their places of business and homes attacked, with the police taking a fairly indifferent stance, isn't exactly a pro-rich outcome, don't you think?

And there is also the issue that George W. Bush, that rube, described in the education context as "the soft bigotry of low expectations." You can extrapolate this to the line of thinking that says, hey, rioting and destruction of property are wrong, but this behavior is understandable because of what they've lived through. In other words, why expect any better from the poor, since they're poor? What a narrow-minded, bigoted system of belief. As many have pointed out here, not every poor person in England is a rioter. So how have all the poor people who aren't rioting remained law-abiding, if we accept the flawed thinking that being poor makes law-breaking understandable if not necessarily acceptable? It's analogous to the line of thinking that inhuman activity like blowing up schoolchildren by the Palestinians is understandable because of how they've been treated, which is to say that it's OK to call them morally inferior because of who they are.

Some people chose to take advantage of an opportunity to loot and steal from their fellow citizens, not all of them rich, while many other people, poor, middle-class and otherwise, chose to stay locked in their homes hoping the police might offer some small protection of what they have worked and saved for. Trying to find the "root cause" of their rioting ignores the possibility that many of them are simply thugs out for free stuff. But this is a very painful conclusion for our modern politically correct society to reach.

So perhaps you should do some squinting yourself and see that not everybody is as knee jerk as you would like to believe and that maybe you're not seeing everything as clearly as you think either.

[Arky Vaughan]

To date, there is not a single prosecution in progress or pending on anyone involved in the MBS fraud, and no one is even trying to investigate it.

I've been waiting a long time for you to call for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be prosecuted. But I don't think the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction.

[Arky Vaughan]

Wait, so what kind of criminal activity are you involved in? Just kidding.

Seriously though, I never said that everybody who's poor is going to become a criminal, just that it is a very common attribute in the most common crimes (robbery, assault, murder, drug-related stuff). The reasons are obvious, as poverty is directly linked to many factors also related to criminals (unstable families, lack of education, lack of role models, lack of opportunities, unsafe neighborhoods, etc.). Reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about the guy from the ghetto who comes home from prison and everybody throws him a big party, but another guy from the ghetto comes home from college with his master's degree and everybody's like, "what, you think you're smarter than me now?"

And this is not just a modern urban poor concept. Dostoevsky talks about the link, Merle Haggard sings about it, Victor Hugo, the list goes on and on.

People wearing masks tend to rob banks with greater frequency than people whose faces are exposed. Somebody should research the correlation between mask-wearing and bank robbery.

[chuck]

I don't think that your social and political opinions are knee-jerk, Arky. I am quite content with the idea that you have spent a great deal of time formulating them. That is what is so spectacularly sad.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

You guys put the riot in patriot.

[Rebel Jew]

But now that you mention it, yes, this country has a serious problem with a permanent underclass living in crumbling, violent areas where crime, unemployment, substance abuse, illegitimacy and fatherless homes are the norm, the schools graduate less than half their students, and the law-abiding and working poor who do live there cannot get law enforcement to protect them from the dangers all around them. What to do about that problem, or host of problems, is not something many people agree on. One thing that the evidence of the last five decades suggests, however, is that massive state spending on social benefits has not improved the situation much if at all, and in many places has made matters worse. Which is why even a Democratic president was willing to sign legislation passed by a Republican Congress that made some changes to the more abused provisions of those benefits.

assuming your TV reality, what are YOU actually doing or planning to do about it aside from vote for people who you know are just as out of touch and aren't going to do any better than the people before them? Are you going to volunteer to clean up parks and build rec centers? Are you going to work to bring a farmers market to areas that don't even have grocery stores? Are you going to volunteer to coach baseball at a high school that can barely field a team? Are you going to open YOUR business in a poor neighborhood and/or hire people from that neighborhood? Are you going to get to the streets and teach kids marketable skills?

No, your only solution is to sit on your couch and grumble about taking away the meager stopgaps people already have, as though it's somehow causing all these problems, as though it's somehow affecting you and your couch-sitting in any way.

[Arky Vaughan]

I don't think that your social and political opinions are knee-jerk, Arky. I am quite content with the idea that you have spent a great deal of time formulating them. That is what is so spectacularly sad.

If your personal criticism of me is any evidence, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do about what others believe. You just have fantasies about what dreadful human beings the people who disagree with you are. You must feel really blessed to be so enlightened.

[Arky Vaughan]

assuming your TV reality, what are YOU actually doing or planning to do about it aside from vote for people who you know are just as out of touch and aren't going to do any better than the people before them? Are you going to volunteer to clean up parks and build rec centers? Are you going to work to bring a farmers market to areas that don't even have grocery stores? Are you going to volunteer to coach baseball at a high school that can barely field a team? Are you going to open YOUR business in a poor neighborhood and/or hire people from that neighborhood? Are you going to get to the streets and teach kids marketable skills?

No, your only solution is to sit on your couch and grumble about taking away the meager stopgaps people already have, as though it's somehow causing all these problems, as though it's somehow affecting you and your couch-sitting in any way.

How would you have any idea what I, or anyone else on this board, does with his time and resources to help other people? I don't pretend to know what others are or aren't doing, and frankly it's none of my business. It's also shocking how someone whose political sympathies are purportedly concerned with helping people so easily personalizes political arguments by baselessly demonizing others with whom they disagree. Just because you and Chuck want to spend other people's money to try to fix problems doesn't make you saints. And that kindness and generosity toward the anonymous masses doesn't translate into civility at the individual level.

[hostros7]

You sure draw a lot of unsupportable conclusions about people and what they believe. We're not even discussing this country.

But now that you mention it, yes, this country has a serious problem with a permanent underclass living in crumbling, violent areas where crime, unemployment, substance abuse, illegitimacy and fatherless homes are the norm, the schools graduate less than half their students, and the law-abiding and working poor who do live there cannot get law enforcement to protect them from the dangers all around them. What to do about that problem, or host of problems, is not something many people agree on. One thing that the evidence of the last five decades suggests, however, is that massive state spending on social benefits has not improved the situation much if at all, and in many places has made matters worse. Which is why even a Democratic president was willing to sign legislation passed by a Republican Congress that made some changes to the more abused provisions of those benefits.

There seems to be one archetype of poverty that you find particularly reprehensible, but it is by no means the only variety. 

[Limey]

How would you have any idea what I, or anyone else on this board, does with his time and resources to help other people? I don't pretend to know what others are or aren't doing, and frankly it's none of my business. It's also shocking how someone whose political sympathies are purportedly concerned with helping people so easily personalizes political arguments by baselessly demonizing others with whom they disagree. Just because you and Chuck want to spend other people's money to try to fix problems doesn't make you saints. And that kindness and generosity toward the anonymous masses doesn't translate into civility at the individual level.

Hopefully I've linked this correctly (SFW streaming video).

[das]

assuming your TV reality, what are YOU actually doing or planning to do about it aside from vote for people who you know are just as out of touch and aren't going to do any better than the people before them? Are you going to volunteer to clean up parks and build rec centers? Are you going to work to bring a farmers market to areas that don't even have grocery stores? Are you going to volunteer to coach baseball at a high school that can barely field a team? Are you going to open YOUR business in a poor neighborhood and/or hire people from that neighborhood? Are you going to get to the streets and teach kids marketable skills?

No, your only solution is to sit on your couch and grumble about taking away the meager stopgaps people already have, as though it's somehow causing all these problems, as though it's somehow affecting you and your couch-sitting in any way.

Do you indeed know that about Arky, that he does nothing to positively affect the society around him but grumble?  You asked him a lot of questions but did not offer up your own contributions.  If this is the game, what are yours?

[Rebel Jew]

How would you have any idea what I, or anyone else on this board, does with his time and resources to help other people? I don't pretend to know what others are or aren't doing, and frankly it's none of my business. It's also shocking how someone whose political sympathies are purportedly concerned with helping people so easily personalizes political arguments by baselessly demonizing others with whom they disagree. Just because you and Chuck want to spend other people's money to try to fix problems doesn't make you saints. And that kindness and generosity toward the anonymous masses doesn't translate into civility at the individual level.

You didn't answer my question. You've said what you hope is taken away from poor people, but what are YOU going to actually DO about the problem? That is my point. You sit back and point fingers at a problem you don't seem to personally know anything about, but at the same time seem unwilling to actually work toward a solution or even identify and study actual solutions that have been effective. You imply that 5 decades of government welfare or whatever have caused urban poverty, and assuming that logical fallacy your only solution seems to be to just elect some different politicians, a solution that has surely failed as spectacularly as any.

[Rebel Jew]

Do you indeed know that about Arky, that he does nothing to positively affect the society around him but grumble?  You asked him a lot of questions but did not offer up your own contributions.  If this is the game, what are yours?

I teach and mentor at-risk youth

[Arky Vaughan]

Hopefully I've linked this correctly (SFW streaming video).

This seems to be an incorrect link. It doesn't have anything to do with people who purport to be kind and generous in their political views but are uncivil and personal in their political arguments. If you think this is just tit-for-tat that both sides attack their opponents personally, then you've missed the point.

By the way, Stewart conveniently omits that Warren Buffet himself has taken issue with President Obama's blather about corporate jets. He also helpfully overlooks that you could tax every rich person in this country 100%, and even if they continued to earn at their current levels, which is a dubious proposition since they would receive nothing in return, the budget would still not be balanced.

But then that's classic Stewart, isn't it?

[Arky Vaughan]

You didn't answer my question. You've said what you hope is taken away from poor people, but what are YOU going to actually DO about the problem? That is my point. You sit back and point fingers at a problem you don't seem to personally know anything about, but at the same time seem unwilling to actually work toward a solution or even identify and study actual solutions that have been effective. You imply that 5 decades of government welfare or whatever have caused urban poverty, and assuming that logical fallacy your only solution seems to be to just elect some different politicians, a solution that has surely failed as spectacularly as any.

Actually, what I said is that massive federal spending on social programs the last five decades hasn't resolved this country's poverty problems, which in many areas are worse now than they were then, and has led to unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences. It's one thing to argue in the abstract that poor people need help. It's another thing to figure out how to do that in ways that don't make matters worse. Also, nobody here owes you any justification or explanation of what they do to help others. It's a private matter. Feel free to share your good works with everyone, but that doesn't mean others have to do the same.

[Limey]

This seems to be an incorrect link. It doesn't have anything to do with people who purport to be kind and generous in their political views but are uncivil and personal in their political arguments. If you think this is just tit-for-tat that both sides attack their opponents personally, then you've missed the point.

By the way, Stewart conveniently omits that Warren Buffet himself has taken issue with President Obama's blather about corporate jets. He also helpfully overlooks that you could tax every rich person in this country 100%, and even if they continued to earn at their current levels, which is a dubious proposition since they would receive nothing in return, the budget would still not be balanced.

But then that's classic Stewart, isn't it?

That was the intended link, followed by your expected, deliberate, misunderstanding of the intent.

[Arky Vaughan]

That was the intended link, followed by your expected, deliberate, misunderstanding of the intent.

If your point is that many conservatives attack their political opponents personally, I cannot disagree with you at all. But how is that responsive to my point?

[hostros7]

Actually, what I said is that massive federal spending on social programs the last five decades hasn't resolved this country's poverty problems, which in many areas are worse now than they were then, and has led to unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences. It's one thing to argue in the abstract that poor people need help. It's another thing to figure out how to do that in ways that don't make matters worse. Also, nobody here owes you any justification or explanation of what they do to help others. It's a private matter. Feel free to share your good works with everyone, but that doesn't mean others have to do the same.

Just curious here.  Without entering into an comment/question on whether or not money should or should not go to helping the underprivileged, are you aware of the possibility that without spending any money on social programs the situation could be far worse?  Your thesis seems to omit any consideration of this possibility.

[Arky Vaughan]

Just curious here.  Without entering into an comment/question on whether or not money should or should not go to helping the underprivileged, are you aware of the possibility that without spending any money on social programs the situation could be far worse?  Your thesis seems to omit any consideration of this possibility.

Who has proposed not spending any money on social programs?

[Rebel Jew]

Actually, what I said is that massive federal spending on social programs the last five decades hasn't resolved this country's poverty problems, which in many areas are worse now than they were then, and has led to unintended (but not necessarily unforeseeable) consequences. It's one thing to argue in the abstract that poor people need help. It's another thing to figure out how to do that in ways that don't make matters worse. Also, nobody here owes you any justification or explanation of what they do to help others. It's a private matter. Feel free to share your good works with everyone, but that doesn't mean others have to do the same.

Hmmm, nothing else has happened in 5 decades that might have impacted the economic well-being of urban areas. Yeah, must be those danged social programs.

[Arky Vaughan]

Hmmm, nothing else has happened in 5 decades that might have impacted the economic well-being of urban areas. Yeah, must be those danged social programs.

Since when does suggesting that social programs have had some detrimental effects on the people they seek to help equate to claiming that no other factors were involved? They are not mutually exclusive.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I teach and mentor at-risk youth

What do you think of folks who donate money and other items to charitiable organizations but do not dedicate time and talents, as you do?

[Lefty]

Yall are delivering a phd level course in talking past each other.

[Rebel Jew]

What do you think of folks who donate money and other items to charitiable organizations but do not dedicate time and talents, as you do?

You don't have to donate time or even money, and if you do go by that then a slippery slope will quickly develop about who donates the most or in the most meaningful way. My thing is people who don't bother to understand the reality of what others deal with, and just spout off ideas that are generated from THEIR point of view. It's easy to throw money and even some time at a problem from afar, whether you're advocating social welfare or private charity, but a lot harder to actually go to the front lines and LISTEN to what people have to say, and act to make THEIR wishes a reality instead of YOUR armchair sociology theories. Democrat or republican or whatever politician is in power, it's just a bunch of rich assholes trying to dictate the lives of others. Meanwhile, businesses have long since moved jobs out of needy areas, but they stick around to peddle snack chips, high fructose corn syrup, liquor, and hip-hop. Churches stick around to peddle faith. Everybody donates money, some even time, there's plenty of charities around. But what's missing? Who's making the decisions?

[Arky Vaughan]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/non-314006-class-state.html

[austro]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/non-314006-class-state.html

I don't disagree with many of the points raised here, but it's one thing to say "shave and go out and get a job" and another thing to find jobs out there for the taking. The profit increases seen from shipping jobs to low-cost countries will eventually disappear if companies can no longer sell their products because their target market no longer has jobs. Either everyone will have to accept lower wages (and lower living standards, at least for the working class) as a consequence of the leveling produced by a global workforce, or companies will have to realize that lower profits but fuller employment might lead to better long-term health for both society and themselves.

[chuck]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/non-314006-class-state.html

http://tinyurl.com/3el79xr

[Rebel Jew]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/non-314006-class-state.html

"blah blah blah...another well-off white guy telling poor minorities how to feel...blah blah blah..."

[Arky Vaughan]

I don't disagree with many of the points raised here, but it's one thing to say "shave and go out and get a job" and another thing to find jobs out there for the taking. The profit increases seen from shipping jobs to low-cost countries will eventually disappear if companies can no longer sell their products because their target market no longer has jobs. Either everyone will have to accept lower wages (and lower living standards, at least for the working class) as a consequence of the leveling produced by a global workforce, or companies will have to realize that lower profits but fuller employment might lead to better long-term health for both society and themselves.

But as the column points out, the UK is an importer of labor from Eastern Europe. Why couldn't native-born Englishmen do those jobs?

[Arky Vaughan]

"blah blah blah...another well-off white guy telling poor minorities how to feel...blah blah blah..."

You're more obsessed with race and class than any well-off white guy I've ever known. You're like HD without the vulgarity.

[94CougarGrad]

I realize that I'm late to re-join the party, but I thought I'd shoot a few links in here related to what you're saying, keeping in mind that I'm a student of criminal justice and not an expert in it.

I can say that poverty DEFINITELY is a constant in the life of most criminals. It's not, however, the inherent cause, but rather an association. In a poor family, you're likely to have less educated parents, and you're also more likely to have a single parent family or less. And no matter the home situation, the parents will be working more often and at less convenient hours. With poverty, you also have kids growing up in less safe areas, often lacking in basic amenities (like grocery stores and clean safe parks), with far worse schools, and where crime is a common and often unchecked form of juvenile self-expression.

Park & Burgess introduced the social disorganization theory of crime back in 1925 which said some of what you mention here.

Although the ecological change suggested by Burgess' model rippled throughout the entire urban area, the impact of ecological competition and change was most marked in Zone II, the Zone in Transition. In addition to the residential deterioration in Zone II, Burgess and other Chicago sociologists emphasized that this zone was also characterized by rapid social change and severe social disorganization. Because of low rents, this area tended to attract a diverse assortment of immigrants, transients, and impoverished persons who could not afford to live elsewhere. Thus, the population of Zone II was constantly changing and extremely heterogeneous in composition. People from radically different backgrounds lived side by side in this impersonal slum environment. With these and other factors at work in Zone II to produce an absence of close interpersonal relationships and a breakdown of informal social controls, the Chicago sociologists viewed it as inevitable that this area would experience a high degree of social disorganization and high rates of social problems and deviance.  http://deviance.socprobs.net/Unit_2/Page_1.htm

Shaw and McKay (1942) later used the Park & Burgess' work (Concentric Zone Theory) and expanded it: By 1942, in a more extensive ecological study of delinquency, Shaw and McKay had completely dropped the social disorganization interpretation in favor of the argument that delinquent behavior is culturally transmitted in slum areas.

Beyond this, there is likely to be a heightened level of general stress both in the home and especially in the community. Throw in drugs, and the kind of behavior that inspires, and you're on the path to understanding urban crime.

Criminologists refer to the "heightened level of general stress" that you mention as strain. While someone in this thread did say that poverty is not a sure-fire indicator that you WILL commit a crime, poverty is a common variable of crime. Merton's strain theory states that people who are in poverty do not have the means or access to achieve what societal norms have defined as "success."  These individuals develop a frustration and a physical pain due to their inability to achieve those "successful" goals. That frustration and pain leads to anger, which serves as a central motivator for one to commit crimes. (Robert Merton, 1938)

Because deviance is found naturally within society, Merton believed that it was society itself which causes it. Further, Merton believed that when societal norms, or socially accepted goals (such as the American Dream), place pressure on the individual to conform they force the individual to either work within the structure society has produced, or instead, become members of a deviant subculture.
http://www.suite101.com/content/robert-merton-and-deviant-behavior-a100266

Just a little additional fodder for the conversation.

[Rebel Jew]

You're more obsessed with race and class than any well-off white guy I've ever known. You're like HD without the vulgarity.

One thing I don't do is tell large groups of people I know nothing about how they should live. Go to 5th ward and start sharing your theories and see what kind of reaction they get.

[chuck]

Go to 5th ward and start sharing your theories and see what kind of reaction they get.

You should probably give him directions.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I get that we are all just victims/products of our societal upbringings with no control over our eventual predestined outcome, I understand that, but it's the abundance of psychopaths now-a-days that I don't understand. Any political solution seems inadequate when it come to addressing what causes aberrant behavior.

It's like there's a hole in the ground and a person is stuck down in the hole. The libertarian says, "your problem, you shouldn't have gone down there without a plan to get out."  The republican says, "I'll hang the end of this rope down and you can climb out." The democrat says, "Lets send a group of people down in the hole and help lift him out." No one says fill the hole.

[WakePhil]

No one says fill the hole.

Dude, that would be metaphorical mass murder. There are fake people in that hole!

Are there Cubs fans in this hole? Yes? Ah, carry on.

[VirtualBob]

It's like there's a hole in the ground and a person is stuck down in the hole. The libertarian says, "your problem, you shouldn't have gone down there without a plan to get out."  The republican says, "I'll hang the end of this rope down and you can climb out." The democrat says, "Lets send a group of people down in the hole and help lift him out." No one says fill the hole.

Actually, I think Stalin tried that.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

You get everyone not in the hole to take a shovel and walk over  to the mound of dirt next to the hole, and one at a time, add a bit to the hole, so the person stuck in the hole can step up out of the hole as layers are added. Then the person is out of the hole and the hole is filled. And we all live happily ever after. It's so simple.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

You get everyone not in the hole to take a shovel and walk over  to the mound of dirt next to the hole, and one at a time, add a bit to the hole, so the person stuck in the whole can step up out of the hole as layers are added. Then the person is out of the hole and the hole is filled. And we all live happily ever after. It's so simple.

If everyone would just do their part... including the dude in the hole, of course.  Does that make me a libertarian?

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

If everyone would just do their part... including the dude in the hole, of course.  Does that make me a libertarian?

I don't know what it makes you, but it would mean that people cooperated without the need of one side having to claim a political victory over another.

[EasTexAstro]

You get everyone not in the hole to take a shovel and walk over  to the mound of dirt next to the hole, and one at a time, add a bit to the hole, so the person stuck in the hole can step up out of the hole as layers are added. Then the person is out of the hole and the hole is filled. And we all live happily ever after. It's so simple.

Why did he get in the hole in the first place?


/ducks

[BudGirl]

Why did he get in the hole in the first place?


/ducks

someone pushed him.

[Bench]

Why did he get in the hole in the first place?


/ducks

If only the hole had a safety net!

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Doesn't matter how he got in the hole, maybe he was born there, maybe he's to blame, maybe he's a victim of disenfranchisementation or some other made up word. Seeking blame ultimately is a time waster because blame can't handle a shovel.

[Lurch]

As you fill in the holes, the rest of the ground lowers.  So, there's that.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

As you fill in the holes, the rest of the ground lowers.  So, there's that.

Some shovels are bigger than others, too. That might not be fair. Hey, one guy just hired someone to do his shoveling for him. Shit, my whole hole theory just got fucked.

[Ebby Calvin]

Shit, my whole hole theory just got fucked.

So your shithole just got fucked?  I'm confused.  Couldn't be republican, at least.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

So your shithole just got fucked?  I'm confused.  Couldn't be republican, at least.

Three words: Log Cabin Republicans

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

So your shithole just got fucked?  I'm confused.  Couldn't be republican, at least.

That's not how it went down, it didn't get buttfucked, it shat on a dick... no wait... You are confusing a hole you can shit into with a Pooholes.

[MRaup]

This thread went from awful to Nuke From Orbit in a big hurry.

[VirtualBob]

This thread went from awful to Nuke From Orbit in a big hurry.

This phenomenon is actually pretty predictable.  The probability begins to increase around page 5 or 6 and by the time it gets to page 10 it is a near certainty.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

This phenomenon is actually pretty predictable.  The probability begins to increase around page 5 or 6 and by the time it gets to page 10 it is a near certainty.

It's inevitable. Societal condition.

[Bench]

This phenomenon is actually pretty predictable.  The probability begins to increase around page 5 or 6 and by the time it gets to page 10 it is a near certainty.

Entropy.

[Arky Vaughan]

One thing I don't do is tell large groups of people I know nothing about how they should live. Go to 5th ward and start sharing your theories and see what kind of reaction they get.

Sure you do. You did it right here:

assuming your TV reality, what are YOU actually doing or planning to do about it aside from vote for people who you know are just as out of touch and aren't going to do any better than the people before them? Are you going to volunteer to clean up parks and build rec centers? Are you going to work to bring a farmers market to areas that don't even have grocery stores? Are you going to volunteer to coach baseball at a high school that can barely field a team? Are you going to open YOUR business in a poor neighborhood and/or hire people from that neighborhood? Are you going to get to the streets and teach kids marketable skills?

No, your only solution is to sit on your couch and grumble about taking away the meager stopgaps people already have, as though it's somehow causing all these problems, as though it's somehow affecting you and your couch-sitting in any way.

You assume that you know what others aren't doing to help others, and you lecture them on what they should be doing.

Also, there's a difference between telling people how they should live and discussing what to do to help them. People can live how they want. But everyone has as much right as you do to voice an opinion on how much and how best to help them. You seem to think your bleeding heart gives you a monopoly on the subject and entitles you to make false assumptions and demonize others who question whether the way we currently administer social programs is the most efficient and cost-effective way to help the greatest number of people who need it.

[MRaup]

Sure you do. You did it right here:

You assume that you know what others aren't doing to help others, and you lecture them on what they should be doing.

Also, there's a difference between telling people how they should live and discussing what to do to help them. People can live how they want. But everyone has as much right as you do to voice an opinion on how much and how best to help them. You seem to think your bleeding heart gives you a monopoly on the subject and entitles you to make false assumptions and demonize others who question whether the way we currently administer social programs is the most efficient and cost-effective way to help the greatest number of people who need it.

Thanks for keeping it going. Reading you two butting heads makes it all worth it.

Now excuse me while I have a delicious razorblade colada.

[EasTexAstro]

Thanks for keeping it going. Reading you two butting heads makes it all worth it.

Now excuse me while I have a delicious razorblade colada.

You will be hearing the same arguments the rest of your life. You may change your opinion  a couple of times, too, or not. I know you have a smart dad that has put some great stuff in your head. Let them talk it out, if they need to.

[Rebel Jew]

Sure you do. You did it right here:

You assume that you know what others aren't doing to help others, and you lecture them on what they should be doing.

Also, there's a difference between telling people how they should live and discussing what to do to help them. People can live how they want. But everyone has as much right as you do to voice an opinion on how much and how best to help them. You seem to think your bleeding heart gives you a monopoly on the subject and entitles you to make false assumptions and demonize others who question whether the way we currently administer social programs is the most efficient and cost-effective way to help the greatest number of people who need it.

"Aw shucks, we're just questioning the efficiency of social welfare, that's all we're doing."

Look, I'm not a liberal, and I don't have a bleeding heart, and if I was I wouldn't fit into some 35 year-old stereotype of what one is. Seriously, educate yourself about this issue. Go and actually talk to the people who are not really poor by world standards, see how they are really affected and what they really think. Be sure to mention that you just want the "most efficient and cost-effective way" to help them.

[JimR]

You will be hearing the same arguments the rest of your life. You may change your opinion  a couple of times, too, or not. I know you have a smart dad that has put some great stuff in your head. Let them talk it out, if they need to.

that is not one of the ideas i "put in his head." i cannot stand all the political wrangling that goes on here either.

[EasTexAstro]

that is not one of the ideas i "put in his head." i cannot stand all the political wrangling that goes on here either.

Excuse my incoherent postings, Jim. Sorry about that. I meant to say that it seems you have brought up a great son, and I commend you both for that.

As for the rest? I enjoy reading some political discussion, even if I don't agree. It gets too personal. I will drop out quickly if I think it is...disturbing(?) me. I like to say something once, but not argue too much. I will never say I can't learn from someone I disagree with in theory. I know that no one will win an argument on the internet. I said everything incorrectly last night.

[strosrays]

Excuse my incoherent postings, Jim. Sorry about that. I meant to say that it seems you have brought up a great son, and I commend you both for that.

As for the rest? I enjoy reading some political discussion, even if I don't agree. It gets too personal. I will drop out quickly if I think it is...disturbing(?) me. I like to say something once, but not argue too much. I will never say I can't learn from someone I disagree with in theory. I know that no one will win an argument on the internet. I said everything incorrectly last night.

That comes with posting from the outhouse.

[EasTexAstro]

That comes with posting from the outhouse.

Guilty. RMPL, I know.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Guilty. RMPL, I know.

No need to apologize.  That's where I do some of my best thinking!

[mrpink]

Guilty. RMPL, I know.

SMPL?

[VirtualBob]

SMPL?

Or simply PLS?