Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
stanlove
Either blacks are stop all the time or cops are just out to kill blacks. The 23% makes it a FACT that both cannot be true. That is pretty simple.

More BS.
23% is twice the number of their population. Actual numbers are closer to 25%.

Educate yourself.

"Police in the U.S. killed 1,129 people so far in 2017, and a quarter of those killed were black—even though they comprise just 13 percent of the population, according to a new report.

In addition to being 25 percent of the victims, black people are also three times as likely to be killed by police as white people, according to the report, “Mapping Police Violence,”.

[policeviolencereport.org]

You are officially a slow guy. This proves it again. You honestly can't grasp the argument.

First of all blacks commit way more than 23% of total crime so obviously they represent more than 13% of police stops. Please tell me you finally grasp this. If only 13% of cop kills were black than that would show a bias considering black crime rates,

Now to the next issue that you can't grasp. People ( race baiters, race hustlers, and those who fall for propaganda ) claim that blacks are stopped all the time, much much more than 23% of police stops. These same people claim that cops will kill a black person much easier than they will a white person during a police stop. The people who claim that are factually wrong and the numbers show that. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that blacks are stopped much more than whites, and that cops are much more willing to kill blacks during a stop, when blacks killed by cops are only 23%.

If you still can't grasp my point please get someone to help you. It is not complicated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-15 00:45 by stanlove.

Quote
stanlove

You are officially a slow guy. This proves it again. You honestly can't grasp the argument.

First of all blacks commit way more than 23% of total crime so obviously they represent more than 13% of police stops. Please tell me you finally grasp this. If only 13% of cop kills were black than that would show a bias considering black crime rates,

Now to the next issue that you can't grasp. People ( race baiters, race hustlers, and those who fall for propaganda ) claim that blacks are stopped all the time, much much more than 23% of police stops. These same people claim that cops will kill a black person much easier than they will a white person during a police stop. The people who claim that are factually wrong and the numbers show that. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that blacks are stopped much more than whites, and that cops are much more willing to kill blacks during a stop, when blacks killed by cops are only 23%.

If you still can't grasp my point please get someone to help you. It is not complicated.

I provided links to factual studies that determined, through historical data, that blacks are three times more likely to get shot by police than whites as individuals.
You provide crap like "people claim" and other such nonsense as fact, because apparently that's all you have.

I get that you don't understand how percentages of total population works, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody thinks less of you for it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-15 03:33 by MisterDDDD.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
stanlove

You are officially a slow guy. This proves it again. You honestly can't grasp the argument.

First of all blacks commit way more than 23% of total crime so obviously they represent more than 13% of police stops. Please tell me you finally grasp this. If only 13% of cop kills were black than that would show a bias considering black crime rates,

Now to the next issue that you can't grasp. People ( race baiters, race hustlers, and those who fall for propaganda ) claim that blacks are stopped all the time, much much more than 23% of police stops. These same people claim that cops will kill a black person much easier than they will a white person during a police stop. The people who claim that are factually wrong and the numbers show that. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that blacks are stopped much more than whites, and that cops are much more willing to kill blacks during a stop, when blacks killed by cops are only 23%.

If you still can't grasp my point please get someone to help you. It is not complicated.

I provided links to factual studies that determined, through historical data, that blacks are three times more likely to get shot by police than whites as individuals.
You provide crap like "people claim" and other such nonsense as fact, because apparently that's all you have.

I get that you don't understand how percentages of total population works, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody thinks less of you for it.

Again you are showing that you are slow. The percentage of total black people vs total white people is irrelevant in this debate. The question is how many black vs whites have had interactions with the Police. I think I have tried to explain this to you three times now. You still can't ignore it and for obvious reasons.

Blacks as a whole commit more crime. Police stops are obviously more than 13 % black. I would say 23% might be correct and maybe police stops are more than 23% blacks,


The bottom line is that no matter what race you are if you follow police instructions there is a very, very, very small chance that anything bad will happen to you. You would have a better chance of getting hit by lighting.

If you don't follow police instructions no matter what race you are you could endanger yourself. If you make a cop make a split second decision that in their mind is a life and death decision is might not go your way. This goes or all races. If you don't follow instructions and it goes the wrong way for you most people will defends the cop no matter hat race you are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-07-15 05:32 by stanlove.

[slate.com]

i found a number of questionable comments about the Stones in this review.

Altamont books and discussions have become a parody of themselves.its such a small part of the bands career and a minor event compared to other concert tragedies.
11 people killed at a Who concert in 79 and we wont even get into the modern day stuff.
We should however have a 50th anniversary show next year.have Hells Angels with pool cues in the pit to hit people over the head for spending $750 on a concert ticket.

Well that didn’t take long...

Just a Shot Away: Peace, Love, and Tragedy With the Rolling Stones at Altamont

By Saul Austerlitz

All week long, Vulture is exploring the many ways true crime has become one of the most dominant genres in popular culture. Saul Austerlitz is the author of Just a Shot Away: Peace, Love, and Tragedy With the Rolling Stones at Altamont, which is out now.

[www.vulture.com]

Excerpted from Just a Shot Away by Saul Austerlitz. Copyright © 2018 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s Press.

Thanks for the link.

I read the most recent book.

It's OK, but it didn't add a lot that you couldn't get from the "Gimme Shelter" documentary.

The most important part of his book was interviews with Dixie, Meredith Hunter's sister, and Meredith's girlfriend. We can thank Tony Funches for turning on author Austerlitz to those sources. When I spoke with Austerlitz, he was frantically digging for insights and leads for his book, since, as he said, Altamont happened in another era than one he was familiar with but it seemed like an "opportunity" to write about it. Prior to this book he had written about TV sitcoms, commercials, other lite aspects of entertainment, as well as Judaism. He thought it would be interesting for his non-Baby Boomer voice to be heard on a topic that had been dominated by people of the generation before him. He started by reaching out to Sam, who referred him to Tony and me, as well as others. Tony had been in touch with Dixie and promised her he would help bring Meredith's narrative to light. He was not convinced of Austerlitz's potential to write a decent book, but believed it was important enough for Meredith's side of the story to be better fleshed out, and for the 2 women to share their perspectives and voices.

I have not read the book. I wish I were as ambitious and unstoppable as the 2 people who have cranked out work on Altamont. I'm something of a purist and take the story and telling of it very seriously (to my, and I suppose everyone's, detriment since I cranked out no completed product) (as well as struggled with making ends meet in San Francisco, stepping out of my workaholic professional life in tech, instead switching to lower paying/lower-level jobs that would theoretically not be nearly as time- or energy-demanding so I could finish the project but which ended up just making me "poor," and having to endlessly search for housing and move, 17 times in 6 years, as I bounced from $2200 to $2500 sublets--that being the cheapest housing available in SF). I wish I didn't "care" about Altamont, in the way that neither of these guys did care, and which allowed them to regard it as a Topic, and an opportunity to crank out a book. We who do "care" or at least find Altamont fascinating, either literally or as allegory, are all better for their having done so...even without its having been "important" to them at some [irrelevantly] deeper level.

And now, in 2018...and even in 2017...the world seems so strange to me. Altamont had always been like a Hieronymus Bosch painting to me--the individual details, the people, their expressions, the stories, the myriad conflicting perspectives that refuse to gel into logic or coherence, no matter which way you turn it, no matter how closely you'd examine it or step away and see the picture made from the pixels at a distance. But now, to me, the world at large (or at least this country) seems like a giant 3D pulsing Hieronymus Bosch mural.

And while my own little life has thankfully chilled out and calmed the f^ck down, and my professional and financial life righted after years of damage for having stepped out of the mainstream and into the crazy modality of one immersively researching Altamont, the Stones and Bay Area [and connected countercultures], and the substantial damage done from relationships and interfacing with extremely toxic and damaged countercultural icons and their hangers-ons in San Francisco (as well as some of the most profound, surprising, and fulfilling relationships with same) has almost healed -- I no longer know what I think, feel, or believe about Altamont anymore, or more to the point, about the cultural and countercultural context of 1969 and the 5-10 years prior to that.

I became (for countless good reasons) thoroughly disenchanted with San Francisco--and realized many things about its core, not just in the 2010s, but stretching throughout its history that dimmed its light to almost nothing for me. Tearing off the patina of something approximating a moral high ground of the '60s--and therefore, what had always been to me noble if flawed anti-heroes of the 20th C who embodied personal freedom, tolerance, acceptance, radically open minds, righteous rebellion against "petty morals" or the Establishment, fearlessness creativity in living, etc.--and leaving in its place the reality of a clannish, smug, hypocritical, cold, parochial, disempathetic, silly, superficial, spiritually hollow place, with a clannish, smug, hypocritical, quite cold, parochial, disempathetic, silly, superficial, spiritually hollow history. Like an absolutely gorgeous, charming, talented, self-centered child with golden ringlets and a peevish temper who tramples on insects for sport.

I don't mean to say I felt like I got the short end of the stick in San Francisco. I didn't and knew many cool people and did a loot of cool stuff. No--what I mean is I saw its soul, or lack thereof--and what that means in terms of what is going on there now, and what precisely was going on in the 1960s,and '70s, and how all that has been vastly misinterpreted and mischaracterized. And how Altamont came to happen, with all that in mind, as well as what was going on with the Stones then, as well as the rest of the US, and world. And it is just no longer that compelling a story to me. Those people are just not as compelling to me. Not that the scales have fallen from my eyes and I am disillusioned, per se, but more my perspective on everything has fundamentally shifted and I'm regrouping.

That said, people who were at Altamont and are still alive won't be forever, so I will start interviewing people again, while the opportunity still exists--some people who have never been substantively interviewed about Altamont. And the people I have interviewed have almost universally been gems...lovely people who I am very grateful to know (or have known, since many have died in the past 5 -6 years), and a handful of whom I love and stay in touch with.

That is my long ramblin' post. I have not been to iorr for some time, was given a heads-up there was discussion of this book, and finally took a deep breath and stepped back in, to give an update.

(Incidentally, and this may sound dramatic, and I suppose it is, but my inability to nab even a 5-minute interview with Keith--drawing on the best of my intellect, heart, soul, charisma, willfulness, every contact, several hundred people I've known since childhood to 2017, including well-known people, and those only a degree of separation away, continuously, literally every single day, every action I took, every event I attended, every person I met, traveling all over the country, trying for 5 years--I consider among the greatest and most perplexing failures of my life. Not to be able to figure out how to make that happen, which would have allowed my entire project to take off, even just 3 sentences, was the first time ever I was not able to figure out how to reach success, and ultimately that aspect, when added to what I shared above, just wore me to a frazzled frizzle of who I was when I started the project in 2012. Again, that's not the end of my project, but I'm re-marshaling my strengths, or as Sweet William advised, this is the time to "gird up your arsenal of defenses" to allow me to someday "finish the f^cking project").

-swiss



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-09 14:13 by swiss.

Quote
swiss
The most important part of his book was interviews with Dixie, Meredith Hunter's sister, and Meredith's girlfriend. We can thank Tony Funches for turning on author Austerlitz to those sources. When I spoke with Austerlitz, he was frantically digging for insights and leads for his book, since, as he said, Altamont happened in another era than one he was familiar with but it seemed like an "opportunity" to write about it. Prior to this book he had written about TV sitcoms, commercials, other lite aspects of entertainment, as well as Judaism. He thought it would be interesting for his non-Baby Boomer voice to be heard on a topic that had been dominated by people of the generation before him. He started by reaching out to Sam, who referred him to Tony and me, as well as others. Tony had been in touch with Dixie and promised her he would help bring Meredith's narrative to light. He was not convinced of Austerlitz's potential to write a decent book, but believed it was important enough for Meredith's side of the story to be better fleshed out, and for the 2 women to share their perspectives and voices.

I have not read the book. I wish I were as ambitious and unstoppable as the 2 people who have cranked out work on Altamont. I'm something of a purist and take the story and telling of it very seriously (to my, and I suppose everyone's, detriment since I cranked out no completed product) (as well as struggled with making ends meet in San Francisco, stepping out of my workaholic professional life in tech, instead switching to lower paying/lower-level jobs that would theoretically not be nearly as time- or energy-demanding so I could finish the project but which ended up just making me "poor," and having to endlessly search for housing and move, 17 times in 6 years, as I bounced from $2200 to $2500 sublets--that being the cheapest housing available in SF). I wish I didn't "care" about Altamont, in the way that neither of these guys did care, and which allowed them to regard it as a Topic, and an opportunity to crank out a book. We who do "care" or at least find Altamont fascinating, either literally or as allegory, are all better for their having done so...even without its having been "important" to them at some [irrelevantly] deeper level.

And now, in 2018...and even in 2017...the world seems so strange to me. Altamont had always been like a Hieronymus Bosch painting to me--the individual details, the people, their expressions, the stories, the myriad conflicting perspectives that refuse to gel into logic or coherence, no matter which way you turn it, no matter how closely you'd examine it or step away and see the picture made from the pixels at a distance. But now, to me, the world at large (or at least this country) seems like a giant 3D pulsing Hieronymus Bosch mural.

And while my own little life has thankfully chilled out and calmed the f^ck down, and my professional and financial life righted after years of damage for having stepped out of the mainstream and into the crazy modality of one immersively researching Altamont, the Stones and Bay Area [and connected countercultures], and the substantial damage done from relationships and interfacing with extremely toxic and damaged countercultural icons and their hangers-ons in San Francisco (as well as some of the most profound, surprising, and fulfilling relationships with same) has almost healed -- I no longer know what I think, feel, or believe about Altamont anymore, or more to the point, about the cultural and countercultural context of 1969 and the 5-10 years prior to that.

I became (for countless good reasons) thoroughly disenchanted with San Francisco--and realized many things about its core, not just in the 2010s, but stretching throughout its history that dimmed its light to almost nothing for me. Tearing off the patina of something approximating a moral high ground of the '60s--and therefore, what had always been to me noble if flawed anti-heroes of the 20th C who embodied personal freedom, tolerance, acceptance, radically open minds, righteous rebellion against "petty morals" or the Establishment, fearlessness creativity in living, etc.--and leaving in its place the reality of a clannish, smug, hypocritical, cold, parochial, disempathetic, silly, superficial, spiritually hollow place, with a clannish, smug, hypocritical, quite cold, parochial, disempathetic, silly, superficial, spiritually hollow history. Like an absolutely gorgeous, charming, talented, self-centered child with golden ringlets and a peevish temper who tramples on insects for sport.

I don't mean to say I felt like I got the short end of the stick in San Francisco. I didn't and knew many cool people and did a loot of cool stuff. No--what I mean is I saw its soul, or lack thereof--and what that means in terms of what is going on there now, and what precisely was going on in the 1960s,and '70s, and how all that has been vastly misinterpreted and mischaracterized. And how Altamont came to happen, with all that in mind, as well as what was going on with the Stones then, as well as the rest of the US, and world. And it is just no longer that compelling a story to me. Those people are just not as compelling to me. Not that the scales have fallen from my eyes and I am disillusioned, per se, but more my perspective on everything has fundamentally shifted and I'm regrouping.

That said, people who were at Altamont and are still alive won't be forever, so I will start interviewing people again, while the opportunity still exists--some people who have never been substantively interviewed about Altamont. And the people I have interviewed have almost universally been gems...lovely people who I am very grateful to know (or have known, since many have died in the past 5 -6 years), and a handful of whom I love and stay in touch with.

That is my long ramblin' post. I have not been to iorr for some time, was given a heads-up there was discussion of this book, and finally took a deep breath and stepped back in, to give an update.

(Incidentally, and this may sound dramatic, and I suppose it is, but my inability to nab even a 5-minute interview with Keith--drawing on the best of my intellect, heart, soul, charisma, willfulness, every contact, several hundred people I've known since childhood to 2017, including well-known people, and those only a degree of separation away, continuously, literally every single day, every action I took, every event I attended, every person I met, traveling all over the country, trying for 5 years--I consider among the greatest and most perplexing failures of my life. Not to be able to figure out how to make that happen, which would have allowed my entire project to take off, even just 3 sentences, was the first time ever I was not able to figure out how to reach success, and ultimately that aspect, when added to what I shared above, just wore me to a frazzled frizzle of who I was when I started the project in 2012. Again, that's not the end of my project, but I'm re-marshaling my strengths, or as Sweet William advised, this is the time to "gird up your arsenal of defenses" to allow me to someday "finish the f^cking project").

-swiss

I was just going to post asking if this was the book by our own Swiss.

That's some great writing, Swiss.
Thanks for sharing your story and the struggles.

Looking forward to your completed work... wow.

Thanks swiss for your update. Was wondering how is your Altamont project doing.

We had a rather strong Altamont discussion here some time ago, but I guess better not to go back there...

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
Thanks swiss for your update. Was wondering how is your Altamont project doing.

We had a rather strong Altamont discussion here some time ago, but I guess better not to go back there...

- Doxa

[iorr.org]