DescentBB

woodchip wrote:And there are people, both Dem and Rep, that think Obama is angling to nationalize all the local police depts.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:And there are people, both Dem and Rep, that think Obama is angling to nationalize all the local police depts.

Interesting. I haven't read that report, have you? Can you tell me what the advantages/disadvantages are to nationalized police?

The mission of the task force was to examine how to foster strong, collaborative relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make recommendations to the President on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.

woodchip wrote:Each individual mission statement seems innocuous enough but added together one could interpret a form of control being established.

Like what happens when a city police force rejects the "advice" outright?

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

Vander wrote:Why not? Aren't we playing the make sh!t up game?

callmeslick wrote:sorry for the language, those that are squeamish, but this just sums the whole reality up:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/05/jade ... texas.html

callmeslick wrote:sorry for the language, those that are squeamish, but this just sums the whole reality up:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/05/jade ... texas.html

Vander wrote:Sorry if that was rude. You're asking if the ill-defined hypothetical subjects of an ill-defined hypothetical government action are racist. I don't know. None of this is defined in the report you linked. It's simply a bunch of ideas to build trust between police and the policed. You're asking me to see the boogey man, but I just don't see it.

callmeslick wrote:the MAYOR requested DOJ involvement. You might not know that if you didn't live down this way.

callmeslick wrote:wow, some folks really ARE that delusional.

Ferno wrote:I used to smoke some pretty good **** back in the day (IE: ten years ago or so), but I never had the **** woody is smoking.

Isaac wrote:Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.

vision wrote:

Isaac wrote:Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.

Actually, research shows that people who lean center are smarter, at least in the US. There are cultural reasons why this might change from country to country through history, but right now the stats show that leaning too far right or left is associated with less flexible and thus less intelligent brains. If you thought Obama was the anti-Christ and there would be Sharia law in the US, that qualifies as stupid and ignorant of how the country actually works.

The findings discussed illustrate a number of key points. Firstly, highly intelligent individuals may actually support right-wing views, not just left-wing ones, contrary to claims that support for right-wing positions reflects a lack of intellectual sophistication. It seems fair to say then that not only liberals, but conservatives (and those with other positions, such as libertarians) can have intellectually sophisticated reasons for their political views. The second point is that categorising people simply as generally liberal or conservative may mask differences in people’s views on social versus economic issues. The results of Kemmelmeier’s study suggest that when people are asked if they are liberal or conservative, they may give more weight to their views on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights) than to their views on economic issues (such as taxation). Therefore, in order to better understand how political attitudes are related to intelligence, a two-dimensional model that separates social and economic attitudes (see The World’s Smallest Political Quiz (link is external) for one example) may be preferable to the traditional yet overly simplistic left/right distinction.

Finally, the relationship between intelligence and political attitudes is most likely not fixed in some simple way, but probably changes across time and context.