"Skepticism is never a good thing."No, it's always a good thing. By this, I don't mean people should not believe anything, I mean people should withhold judgment, which rarely happens anymore. There is a significant difference between withholding judgment and disbelief. Disbelief is on the same level as belief. An example is atheism versus Christianity, or some other religion. While this may not be the case with all atheists, many atheists believe there is no God simply because there isn't proof of God, and therefore, God does not exist. Lack of evidence is proof of nothing.
"Politics is who gets what, when, and how."Perhaps that is true these days, but why? It is because that is what we, the people, have voted for it to become. Sadly, though, this is the definition of a command economy, which I'm sure most people will agree is not what we want, which unfortunately demonstrates many people's lack of knowledge. Of course, if it happens that you will be the recipient of the most, then a command economy is exactly what you want. And that is what many people base their voting choices on. Who will give me the most?
"The witnesses have said that he got hit while running away or his body jerked as if he was hit and then he turned around. This is consistent with the shot in his lower arm which could have easily caused his body to jerk."Yet another example of internet sleuthing. We watch altogether too many crime shows. And what's wrong with that? Too many people will decide that this is exactly what happened, all based on some nobody's speculation.
"The DOJ might possibly consider studying whether #Ferguson cops are racist, but the FBI is definitely investigating #Anonymous."This came from Twitter. One of the problems with Twitter is the limit on the length of tweets, which lead to a lot of ambiguous statements being made, and this tweet is not an exception. However, this tweet appears to imply that the tweeter thinks that there is some relationship between the DOJ studying the possibility of racism in Ferguson and the FBI investigating Anonymous. Now, I'm not saying that racism isn't a problem in Ferguson; I honestly don't know whether it is or isn't. Anonymous, on the other hand, has openly claimed to break the law, and attempted to effect change through intimidation. It would be easy enough to construct an argument that Anonymous is a terrorist group, but I'll refrain from that here.
So, the big question here is whether the DOJ should investigate the possibility of racism in Ferguson, whether or not the FBI investigates Anonymous.
So, let's see what the results could possibly be. First, I think we can agree that either racism is a problem in Ferguson, or it isn't. So, let's begin by assuming that racism isn't a problem. If the DOJ investigates and finds that racism isn't a problem, then some people will say that the DOJ itself is racist, fanning the flames of racism, producing a problem where no problem currently exists, because some people will set out to prove the DOJ wrong, and that the DOJ is racist. If the DOJ finds that racism is a problem, even though it isn't, again, the finding will fan the flames of racism, with some demanding changes be made thus creating a problem where none currently exists.
Now if we assume that there is a problem with racism in Ferguson, then a DOJ investigation that concludes there is no problem with racism will certainly fan the flames of racism, driving some who believe it is a problem to make the problem more clear to the investigators. And if the DOJ finds that there is a problem with racism, then some people who don't believe racism to be an issue will now become outraged that there is, in fact, a problem thus fanning the flames of racism again.
Still, there's that other possibility: that the DOJ chooses to not investigate racism in Ferguson. That decision would, again, result in a similar effect to investigating and not finding racism to be a problem. So, what the DOJ has to consider is whether the negative outcomes from conducting an investigation outweigh the negative outcomes from not conducting an investigation, and has nothing at all to do with whether they think racism is or isn't a problem in Ferguson.
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong on the outcomes. But, it's also possible I'm right, and I think that people have demonstrated that, in a situation like this one, if the outcome isn't what a particular group wants, then it serves as the fuel for further unrest. If I'm right, then the only possible outcome of a DOJ investigation is a bad one, no matter what the DOJ findings are, which makes this not a decision based on the likelihood of racism being a problem, but more of a political choice. What would be the good of conducting this investigation? I can't think of one. Having said that, I have a sinking feeling the DOJ will conduct an investigation, and no matter what the findings, the outcome will be bad.
"QUESTION: What's the difference between a cop being suspended and a PAID vacation?...Seriously? #Ferguson #Anonymous #MikeBrown #OpFerguson"This is, again, from Twitter. I have to assume that this person is asking what the difference is between a paid suspension and paid vacation. There are likely many bad assumptions that went into the crafting of this tweet. Presumption of guilt comes to mind. I say this because the tweet implies that police officers should be put on unpaid suspension, otherwise it's the same as a vacation. Of course, that would be punishing the officer before guilt or innocence was established, but of course, that's okay if it's only police officers. But really, for the most part, I doubt the officers that have been put on paid suspension feel much like they're on vacation.
"Not funny man, that could have set off a panic and in panic chaos and luteing happen, bad news dude. I wouldnt do that kind of “joke” ever again."Sadly, it appears that in Salt Lake City, the government has a better sense of humor than the public.
UPDATE: As I was writing this, I checked the article again and thankfully a few more commenters have expressed similar sentiments to mine.