Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I was just curious. I'm using a company called Sandstar, and they are handling everything.

In my last house, up North, I used a company called J&K for cabinets. This time, I'd use them over my dead body. Not that they were bad. They are made in China. So, NO. I'll just pay more this time.

For that kitchen, the J&K cost me $6K. The estimate for Omega came in at $18K. I'm sure there were some in the middle, but we (in Illinois) were still struggling with the 2008 thing, so I conserved cash.

In fact, Illinois is still struggling with the 2008 thing, or so they like to say... Glad I sold a while back.

OAM, let's assume for a moment that you're right. Gang problems are the result of poor healthcare options, poor education options, which have resulted in entire portions of cities to be stuck in a "permanent underclass" situation.

So let's say we fund those programs. How long will it take for it to fix the problems in those communities? A generation? Two generations?

Sounds like the exact sort of pie-in-the-sky thinking that Cincy complains about in the climate thread -- high on hope and short on specifics.

Maybe funding those programs is a good thing, but it won't result in any tangible change on the time horizon that we need it.

What do you have for the SHORT term to solve these problems?

Dear Representative Porter,

In the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of police, and the subsequent protests, riots, and continued unrest that followed, many of us are asking "how can we solve this problem?"

Many are hoping that we can find a way to end racism, to end systematic and institutionalized poor treatment of minorities in our criminal justice system, and that we as a society can begin to heal.

Unfortunately, what is missing is tangible solutions. I sincerely hope that we can end racism and heal ourselves as a society. I am doing my best, as a white man and a father, to not perpetuate this behavior in my personal life and to make sure that my children are likewise raised not to be a part of a problem, but to be part of the solution. I worry that's a generational target that doesn't help the situation, today, on the ground. It's worthy goal, but the time horizon is too long. I've always believed people aren't born racist; it's inculcated in them by the biases of the generations ahead of them. Their parents, their extended family, their community. Very little that I can do to try to raise my own children properly will help avoid racism in those who are being taught wrongly elsewhere. Which makes trying to solve racism, while a wonderful goal and one that we should pursue, too little and too late to help people today.

I believe that most police officers are good people who chose that life because they want to make their communities safer. The problem is caused by a small minority, but the effects that small minority have on the whole are disastrous. I believe those good officers may detest the actions of the bad ones, but feel powerless to stop it for many--completely understandable--reasons. Sadly, the end result is a system that shields the bad apples from the consequences of their actions.

But we CAN make this better. And we can make this better in a shorter term, by changing the incentives that police have TODAY to act badly, and increasing the incentives to actually weed out the bad apples among them.

House Representatives Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash are circulating a letter arguing that Congress can put an end to one of the key shields the bad actors in our police system hide behind: Qualified Immunity.


https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1268353415295500289

Today it's possible to sue the police department in civil court for excessive force / brutality / wrongful death. But due to qualified immunity--and in particular the way qualified immunity is adjudicated--it is NEARLY impossible to sue the individual offending officer in civil court and have any chance of success.

So while cities may occasionally feel the pain in their pocketbooks due to losing a lawsuit (and it's just taxpayer dollars anyway), the individual officers are mostly shielded from civil liability.

Now, it can be argued that we don't want to subject officers to financial ruin because of a lawsuit. As politicians, I'm certain that some of your constituents and supporters, and possibly campaign contributors (police and their union) will argue that this will be the outcome. But that need not be the case, for it's a faulty argument. The medical malpractice insurance industry already gives us a blueprint to avoid that. By ending qualified immunity but also requiring police to carry malpractice insurance, we create a financial system that incentivizes good behavior and punishes bad, and can be tailored to each individual officer based upon their history and risk profile.

Here's how I see it potentially working.

• The police malpractice insurance industry will need to have ways to accurately risk-price individual officers. Much like getting auto insurance, your risk is mainly tied to your own actions, and there are clear red flags that suggest you're a higher risk (in auto insurance, regularly getting speeding tickets or causing accidents, for one).
• Those red flags might be things like citizen complaints against officers, IA investigations, history of lawsuits brought, etc. Some officers [such as Derek Chauvin, who had a history of malfeasance before murdering George Floyd] may find themselves eventually priced out of policing due to their risk profile being so bad that they can't afford the insurance. Want to weed out the bad apples? They'll price themselves out by their own actions.
• Officers could possibly qualify for premium reductions by doing things like regularly taking alternative escalation training, community sensitivity courses, etc. You can find ways to reinforce positive behavior and make it in officers' financial interests to do so. 

The only way that I see to improve this system in the short term--at the federal level which affects all departments--is to end qualified immunity. It is within Congress' power to do so. While this will be fought, I hope that the above will help deflect the arguments which would be used against the bill.

Representative Porter, I ask that you cosponsor Rep Pressley's bill when it is written, and do everything you can to help it pass.

Thank you for your time.

Below was sent to Rep Katie Porter, and slightly different wording to Senators Feinstein and Harris (asking they publicly support the House version and push for similar in the Senate). I also sent a copy to Ayanna Pressley, but Justin Amash's web site doesn't allow email from out-of-district zip codes, so I couldn't forward to him.

If any of you want to submit something similar to your own Representatives/Senators, feel free to use whatever you like from the below as a template.