The Dean

Bill I have had both good, and bad, experiences with law enforcement over the years. In Niagara Falls, as a youth, I experienced your basic a$$holish cops. Many of the cops in NF were seemingly recruited from the detention halls of the local high schools. Bullies and punks who could now bully citizens with impunity (I can't speak for what it's like there now). But even then, it was just officers belligerently rousting us from playing football/baseball in a PUBLIC park, because a neighbor complained about noise. Instead of simply explaining the situation and asking us to move the game, they almost always approached with a negative threatening attitude, which can put a bad taste in one's mouth. OTOH, as I got older, I typically got away with things (even when I was doing something wrong) as my family was pretty well known and the officers typically knew my father, uncle, cousins, etc. Others, especially my Black friends, were not as lucky. As I move around the country (Boston, SF, LA, NY and Long Island to name some) I had both positive and negative experiences with law enforcement. However, I tended to believe most officers were pretty good. I wasn't naive enough to believe there were only a "few bad apples" among LEOs, I still believed overall, they were responsible and decent. It's really hard to continue to believe that at the moment. The reason is I don't think blindly supporting and backing a fellow officer who clearly violates the principle of "protect and serve" is either responsible or decent. With that said, given a different culture I do believe most of these officers would act like decent and responsible humans. Unfortunately that culture is not in place in many, if not most, communities. I was not aware you condemned the Minnesota officers, but good for you. It's a start. If I live to be 75 (seriously, don't take that bet) like this fellow, I won't CHARGE a police line---and neither did this poor old man. But hopefully by then, officers will be better trained and learn to use the minimum necessary force in any given situation. And Bill, please stay safe.

He CHARGED? Really, CHARGED? Jesus, Bill, is there no level you won't sink to to defend police brutality? He was barely walking. Someone (I don't think it was you) said he ACCOSTED the police? Watch it again. No charge, no accosting. Slow walk and had stopped before being pushed. Notice I didn't say CLUBBED (that would be as wrong as saying CHARGED). He had a telephone in one hand (and it appear as though he was trying to get the office to look at something on the phone---just my guess, I could be wrong) and a helmet in the other. How was he going to get to a concealed weapon without dropping something in his hand? There is nothing to suggest that had any chance of happening, and if it did, there were several officers (young, healthy officers) within a foot or two of him, who could have easily stopped him. Who knows, maybe he was getting ready to do a back-flip, flying drop kick. Yeah, that's probably it. I just can't get over the extremes people will go to to try to invent excuses for terrible police work. I can't read the tweet. Not a link apparently. But unless they show ACTION (or he was seen, or admits being violent physically) I'm not sure how it is relevant to the situation. And, in fact, is it isn't specifically about something that happened during this event, it is totally irrelevant, IMO. So, if he said, "I'm gonna hit you in the head with this here helmet, sucker", then the push was warranted? Again, he made NO threatening move. If that officer felt threatened by this old man with a helmet and a cell phone, he probably need to find another line of work, don't you think? And they continued to march past him as he was bleeding on the sidewalk. Oh, I forgot, maybe he was faking it and had a hidden weapon.

A GREAT bookstore. Wish I could but it there.

It should not! Words are words. There was zero eminent physical threat. Even if he said "I'm gonna kill you sucka!", he never posed a physical threat. Two officers should have easily been able to handle it, without real force, in any event. Now, with that said, why would you expect a 75 year old man, with a long record as a peaceful protester, uttered something threatening to the officers?

There are a veritable slew of guitarists May doesn't belong on the same page with. That's not to say he isn't very good.

My advice is to definately skip to your interview. Those guys are unbearable. I'm ordering it today, Frank.

Check your sources. PJ Media is far from reliable.

Bill, I have seen many disgusting things the past week-more than I've seen in quite awhile. On that I think we can agree.

What happened in Chicago is entirely irrelevant to the old man being pushed to the concrete by police officers. Different incident, different incidents, different individuals. Not sure why you think that is relevant here. Indeed that is a disgusting thing. Not sure how it relates to the Buffalo incident in any way. With special privilege comes special responsibility. So when those in power abuse it, I am FAR more infuriated than when those who aren't in power do stupid things. Don't get me wrong, I think violence started by any faction is typically wrong and unreasonable. But when those entrusted to keep the peace actually start the violence (in a particular setting) it needs to be addressed ASAP, by the others entrusted to do the same. And I really have no idea what you mean by "old personal wounds". But if you aren't enraged by the officers letting him bleed on the ground, and not rushing to his aid, then I have to ask, what happened to your humanity?

Not sure what the confusion is here. The man posed ZERO physical threat to anyone. Ergo there was ZERO reason to use ANY physical force more than simply approaching him, turning him, and handcuffing him. His politics, what he may have done in the past, etc, mean nothing in this context. He was an old man peacefully demonstrating and refusing to retreat. Hell, most of us could have handled this peacefully by ourselves. When he was pushed he went to the ground (did he flop? why does it matter? he was bleeding on the ground). Most of the officers simply kept marching by him. It really is a repulsive sight for anyone with a conscious. My question in this case, and so many others is this: If "90% of police officers are good cops" why didn't some of these good cops immediately detain and arrest the officers who pushed him down? Why wasnt' the officer who put his knee on Floyd not arrested by his fellow officers on the spot? THAT"S what needs to happen in these incidents, IMO. Of course the idea that 90% or any profession (or group) are good, honest, non-racist, etc is nonsense. I can't think of even one profession where that kind of ratio applies. Do you really believe 90% of Priests are good honest people? Were the other priests and bishops who covered up the child abuse "good and honest"? You would think a good honest officer would be thrilled to get scum like that out of their profession. The fellow officers cheering them outside the courtroom is one of the more disgusting things I've witnessed in some time, and it highlights the problem. Until police officers in this country are recruited and trained very differently, this will continue to be an issue.

I agree, and I've edited my post. I might add, this forum is part of "the media" as is everything on the Internet. "Nobody knows" at least for sure, is valid, but not that useful. Some know WAY more than others as they are involved in the research, can understand the data, etc. That's why I preach following the scientific consensus. And it seems to me, the consensus hasn't changed all that much when it comes to the big picture. Sure there are variances, but the basics are still in play and supported, from what I can tell. Don't get lost/confused by the minutiae. Yes, lockdown has some downsides---but for the most part, they are not life threatening (as long as those in lockdown can afford food and find shelter). I'll take economic risks over real health risks any day. And this is just my opinion as there really isn't an answer to which you think is more important---human life or the economy. I'll side with Frankie Primo on this: And no, I'm not a practicing Catholic or really religious in any way. But the economy can come back as it has many times. People, once dead, do not. At least until the Zombie Apocalypse.

Yes, it was hyperbolic on purpose. Your defense for not wearing a mask was pretty hyperbolic, IMO.

C'mon Joe, why be considerate when you can be selfish? Drive in the left hand lane, or the sidewalk! Why not? We're free. F@#K everyone else! Walk down the street swinging the club. It should be up to everyone else to move out of the way. Old person? Too bad. They shouldn't be out in public anyway! JaCrispy knows, being FREE means being a total dickwad to others.

It's obvious some (a very few) choose to believe the outliers' information on this. They also tend to seek out information that confirms their skepticism and buy completely (and sometime immediately) into anything they find that supports their views. That's classic confirmation bias. For something like this: a new disease, with various models predicting outcomes, research information released publicly while still very tentative, etc, one should expect to see some contradictory "evidence". I put evidence in quotes as much of it isn't even really evidence yet. It's POSSIBLE evidence. To me, completely untrained in medical science, but very trained in research and data analysis, the most logical way to parse through this all is to: Look to the scientific/medical community for your information. Ignore politicians of any persuasion. Their focus is by necessity distracted by political issues. Unless they are qualified in the field, their opinion on what to do is only as good as those who advise them---and if they listen, of course. Also ignore any media accounts that proport to have "the truth". They do not. Look to the consensus of experts in the field. Sometimes there are central outlets for that kind of information, who compile and analyze this information. In this case, the CDC, WHO, Dr Fauci, etc. On this forum, I look to Hapless as a great source for what the BEST current thinking is at any moment. I also have friends who are doctors and medical researchers who I consult. While there are some minor differences in their beliefs, they are all pretty much in agreement with the mainstream thoughts on most of the issues. Look to basic logic. The idea that social distancing has done NOTHING to stop the spread of this disease, and the deaths it causes, is almost too ridiculous to consider, IMO. It's a CONTAGIOUS disease that passes from one person to another. Just let that sink in for awhile. The basic flu can be passed by people with no symptoms (this can mean totally asymptomatic or simply have shown no symptoms to date). That's pretty well documented. Despite some variations in what individual reports may say, why not take the cautious approach? Is there REAL evidence this is spreading in some novel way that is counter to what we already know about viruses? Places where people are crammed together on a daily basis (NYC for example) had bigger outbreaks (percentage of the population) than the plains states, where the population is more diffuse. Countries and states that put social distancing rules into effect early generally experienced a lower percentage of their population infected than those who did little---or were late to the party. Yes, you can find the odd outlier. Why focus on that and distract yourself from the main impact of the data on hand? With that said, I think it is useful, and interesting, to look to alternative explanations. Sometimes mainstream thought is mistaken. We're finding more and more evidence that some natural medicines (marijuana is one example) have real benefits that mainstream science dismissed for years. Look to find information that conflicts with the general consensus, if you like. That's actually a pretty revealing exercise. But don't just buy into it because it reflects your beliefs. Use the same level or analysis you would for any explanation. If it is an exceptional outlier, give it exceptional scrutiny. The wheels of science more very slowly, by design. Findings have to be tested and retested. On multiple populations/situations. They should be replicated by other scientists and peer reviewed, for methodological and analytical bias and error. Latching on to a new study that contradicts a large body of previous findings is a fools' folly. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Not having all the information is ignorance. When it comes to Covid 19, we are all a bit ignorant. Even those who are actively involved in studying the disease. Actively avoiding information, or chasing/believing only the information that supports your ignorant conclusions is about as stupid as anything I can think of.

Update: I finally received my email saying my mask is ready to ship. I had to click a link and re-confirm I still want the mask and as well as my shipping info. I'm not sure I REALLY need the mask anymore, and considered declining it. But I am curious about it (quality, comfort, etc), so I confirmed the information. If/when I get the mask I will make a sceond donation to the cause. I'll also report back here.

I have to admit, I'm confused by this. It isn't about living in fear. It's about respect for the health of others. It's about helping out our society when it's in dire need. We will still have choices to make. Do we act selfishly or with respect? Please don't use the "no fear" explanation for selfish behavior.

Not really about the food. I'm no buffet fan, either. Serve me my freshly prepared food please. Plus I special order just about everything, so few things on a buffet are to my liking. One exception I have always made is a breakfast buffet at a high-end hotel. Fresh fruit, made to order omelettes, and such. But haven't had one of those in years. Probably won't be doing that againk anytime soon.

Well, glad to hear you are finally getting through it. I know a couple of other people (and Bills' fans) who have been through similar tough bouts with the Covid. Please keep us updated.

Nice venue for that kind of show, too. Anyway, let's just add another one to the mix:

Scott Bradlee (the piano player, arranger and founder of Post Modern Jukebox) is the nephew of a friend/client of mine. My buddy was supposed to take me to see him earlier this year, but circumstances prevented it, unfortunately.

OK, NOW I get it. I like Pecan Pie

Yes, I think ignoring trivial crap like route running, separation and the ability to actually catch the ball (especially when contested) let's you focus in on what's REALLY important. But I'm trying to figure out "Arm swap length". Is it the distance it takes the WR unscrew the arms from the shoulder, then swap them, putting the longer arm in position to make the catch?

People are petitioning to make Madden the 51st State? Sorry, I only read the topic title.

If I find my car keys we can drive out of here!

"***** the gun from that woman" has a whole new meaning. (Or is it hole new meaning?) I can't type sn@tch? WTF?