https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-carter-dies-18c198c20352c835bca3eec276020dd7
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jimmy-carter-former-us-president-nobel-peace-prize-recipient-dead-100-atlanta-2024-12-29/
AP and Reuters has confirmed that Jimmy Carter is gone at 100.
Not the best president, but certainly the best human being ever to be president.
RIP. So close to seeing 2025
RIP.
Too good a human being to be saddled with the presidency.
I don't want to derail this thread into politics but I have to say this, be damned if I'm banned: If Mr. Carter couldn't make it another 50 months (at least), I'm glad he passed now when he can be recognized with some dignity.
I was born during his administration. I don't think I would consider myself either (left or right), but I really appreciate what he did for the nation during and especially after his presidency.
There's the time he shook hands with possibly everyone on plane on a commercial flight. The perks of being a former President is that you outrank the flight crew...?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+carter+shaking+hands+with+everyone+on+plane
Rest in peace. Glad he's with Rosalynn now.
He was a good guy but a horrible president.
He was the best President of the past 60 years.
It's hard to believe that almost three months before we had this:
Quote from: Henry on October 01, 2024, 11:51:55 PMThe 39th POTUS had his centennial today:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carter-turns-100-birthday/
At least he made it to 100, and hopefully we'll have a few more former politicians reaching that age, although I wouldn't hold my breath.
Not the best President by any stretch, but he had the best life after the White House with his humanitarianism and charitable deeds. Truly a gentleman, and he deserves to be celebrated in the years to come.
Also, the grounds on which he and Rosalynn built their home and where they'll now be buried together is soon going to be turned into a national park, so that is really an honor in itself, plus it'll put the town of Plains, GA, on the map.
Huh. Looks like the Carter Compound has already been part of the Jimmy Carter NHP for quite some time. It's just been closed to the public for obvious reasons.
How many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1977-Jan. 20, 1981)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 20, 1980)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
Actually 1977-1981.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 20, 1980)?
I was around then.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 20, 1980)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
A little bit. I had fun on the playground, so it couldn't have been all Iranian hostages and gasoline shortages.
I am a little concerned about his post-presidency being portrayed as perfect. He definitely tried to follow Christian values to a T, but his meddling in standing Presidents' foreign policy, whether Bush or Clinton, was concerning.
Quote from: Big John on December 30, 2024, 02:47:23 PMQuote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1976-Jan. 20, 1980)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
Actually 1977-1981.
Corrected in the original.
He was a good diplomat and great physis. People knocked him for being a Peanut Farmer, but truth is he graduated from Annapolis with a degree in Nuclear Physics.
He was also an advocate for nuclear energy during his term.
Much like Herbert Hoover, Carter was a one term president who became a byword for ineptness but succeeded in redeeming his reputation through philanthropy and wound up living a very long life.
Pfft. Hoover nosediving us into The Great Depression and ordering MacArthur to set the Bonus Marchers ablaze in Anacostia are much worse acts than Carter ever committed.
...
Oh crap, this is just another k12 post.
I was alive, but too young to remember the Carter presidency. I do remember the Reagan-Bush 41 years that had ended his presidency and had turned it into a punchline and something to avoid - a lesson even learned by his own party. I was happy to see that history has been kinder to him, especially his many good deeds post-presidency.
I remember the Begin- Sadat Peace Treaty he brokered.
I remember the way he handled the Hostage Crisis as he was chastised at that.
I don't remember the other things although the economy was not that great when he served. However, Ford handled the economy badly too hence his one short term.
Back then both sides of the aisle would agree and if a president was bad, he was bad by fellow lay party members. Parties then weren't cult icons as they are today.
I remember the Carter years, though not so much his presidency as various things that happened during those years. The Iran hostages are an obvious one, and I certainly remember the long lines for the gas stations. The 1980 presidential election was the first one of which I was aware, which makes sense given that I was three years old in 1976.
Give Carter some credit on the energy issues because he practiced what he preached instead of taking a "rules for thee, but not for me" approach. My father's work took him to the White House several times during the Carter Administration and he said everyone was complaining that it was quite cold during the winter—because Carter ordered them to turn down the thermostat—and quite warm and dark during the summer because Carter had them set the AC higher and close the drapes to keep the sun from warming the building too much. (Regarding the winter temperature, my parents set the heat at 65° when we were at home, so I don't think my father found the White House to be all that cold.)
I read somewhere that Carter originally insisted that his motorcade stop at red lights to reduce the disruption to DC traffic. That was obviously a bad idea from a security standpoint and it took the Secret Service a surprisingly long time to convince him of that fact.
I remember the 1980 election very well. My mom voted for Reagan and my dad Carter. My dad only voted for Carter out of pity when polls were showing a blowout with Reagan beating the pants off ole Jimmy. He wanted Ronnie, but knew already he won so figured pull the lever for Carter anyway.
I was only 15 so I couldn't vote then. My first election I voted was Mondale- Reagan and voted for Fritz over Ronnie over the Star wars Weapon plan. Not too mention I didn't like Reagan either, but I was born in 65 and didn't become 18 until 1983.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 30, 2024, 06:07:43 AMHe was a good guy but a horrible president.
He wasn't a horrible president. He was a mediocre President during a difficult time.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2024, 05:11:49 PMI remember the Begin- Sadat Peace Treaty he brokered.
I remember the way he handled the Hostage Crisis as he was chastised at that.
I don't remember the other things although the economy was not that great when he served. However, Ford handled the economy badly too hence his one short term.
Back then both sides of the aisle would agree and if a president was bad, he was bad by fellow lay party members. Parties then weren't cult icons as they are today.
Neither Ford nor Carter "handled" the economy badly. The world economy was reeling from an unprecedented growth of the workforce that sent interest rates through the roof due to the increased demand for capital.
I also remember Ted Kennedy running in a primary against Carter. Running against a sitting president in a primary is been traditionally non existent as we always allow a President the party nomination during reelection time.
But Carter was the first ( unless there were others at one time) that didn't get the default only candidate in a reelection primary as Ted Kennedy wanted to run for president over Jimmy Carter due to his failings.
K12^^^^^
I was too young to remember much of the economy, but many at the time did blame Ford and Carter for economic drawbacks.
I was in college when Carter beat Ford. (I didn't vote for him; still think Ford was the better choice but that may be some hometown bias too.) It was the first presidential election I voted in.
In the college commons the next day, there was a poster to sign up to take a charter a bus to Australia.
I also admired how both Ford and Carter buried their animosity towards one another once their election ended as the 1976 election was bitter. Not as bitter as the last three elections, but both were explicit in their tones then.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 30, 2024, 05:58:59 PMQuote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2024, 05:11:49 PMI remember the Begin- Sadat Peace Treaty he brokered.
I remember the way he handled the Hostage Crisis as he was chastised at that.
I don't remember the other things although the economy was not that great when he served. However, Ford handled the economy badly too hence his one short term.
Back then both sides of the aisle would agree and if a president was bad, he was bad by fellow lay party members. Parties then weren't cult icons as they are today.
Neither Ford nor Carter "handled" the economy badly. The world economy was reeling from an unprecedented growth of the workforce that sent interest rates through the roof due to the increased demand for capital.
And OPEC's iron grip control over most oil production.
(https://i.imgur.com/48MqvPm.png)
It's remarkable how much the life expectancy of presidents has increased. Every one since Gerald Ford has lived into their 90s, and Nixon made it past 80. Before then, most kicked the bucket in their 60s. LBJ died 1 year before he would've become eligible for the Medicare program that he signed into law.
(https://i.imgur.com/FYI41h1.png)
Also interesting is that America has consistently had 5-6 living Presidents since 1993, except for the brief period between Gerald Ford's death and Barack Obama's inauguration. 20 years earlier, in 1973, LBJ died, capping off a 10 year period with 5 Presidential deaths (JFK in 1963, Herbert Hoover in 1964, Eisenhower in 1969, and Harry Truman in 1972) leaving just the then-incumbent Richard Nixon as the only surviving President until his resignation 1 year later.
I'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
I remember the days when Dan Akeroyd was on SNL. He used to play Jimmy Carter in skits then and he did a great job in playing Jimmy Carter.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2024, 06:15:09 PMI also admired how both Ford and Carter buried their animosity towards one another once their election ended as the 1976 election was bitter. Not as bitter as the last three elections, but both were explicit in their tones then.
Well it was a different time. Ford and Carter had their differences but both were fairly moderate members of their party who probably agreed on a lot. Nothing like today.
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2024, 10:49:25 PMI'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
It's very simple: they looked at when Presidents were born and could tell which future presidents were alive in any given year, hence the big drop since 1961 when our youngest living President, Obama, was born.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1977-Jan. 20, 1981)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
I was in the Navy, then. We got the two largest pay rises in the last 50 years during his administration.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 12:57:33 AMQuote from: Rothman on December 30, 2024, 10:49:25 PMI'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
It's very simple: they looked at when Presidents were born and could tell which future presidents were alive in any given year, hence the big drop since 1961 when our youngest living President, Obama, was born.
Look at the number of future presidents in recent years, silly boy. There are over five future presidents out there somewhere.
Quote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1977-Jan. 20, 1981)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
I was born during his presidency.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 30, 2024, 05:52:06 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 30, 2024, 06:07:43 AMHe was a good guy but a horrible president.
He wasn't a horrible president. He was a mediocre President during a difficult time.
He wasn't even mediocre. I stand by what I said.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 31, 2024, 12:48:27 AMQuote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2024, 06:15:09 PMI also admired how both Ford and Carter buried their animosity towards one another once their election ended as the 1976 election was bitter. Not as bitter as the last three elections, but both were explicit in their tones then.
Well it was a different time. Ford and Carter had their differences but both were fairly moderate members of their party who probably agreed on a lot. Nothing like today.
It was a different time then and people were different for sure. They considered voting a civic duty and picking a candidate that is the lesser of two evils where now everyone is treating their candidate as the chosen one to make the world utopia.
Back then if you made fun of a candidate no one would take offense and laugh along with the joke. Look at Saturday Night Live when Dan Akeroyd roasted Jimmy Carter fans laughed and took no offense at it unlike today where people see that Alec Baldwin is imitating Trump and Trump followers get upset and get hasty.
People then respected each others opinions and never held grudges to anyone who had different likes. Today people on Twitter point out that if you are a conservative ( if the account holder is liberal) that they don't want them following themselves at all. Ditto for Conservatives with Liberals on social media. It's like we are at war with each other fueling the conspiracy theories galore of the Biblical prohephecies as those theories all talk about future disturbances.
Then if your a member of neither party you are treated as a member of the opposing party instead of accepting those as a neutral person. I got accused of voting for Obama when I wrote in my own candidate during the Romney vs Obama Election by a conservative intern at a local bar. Then recently I got accused of being a Trump lover because I posted on Social Media that I saw no hope in a better country if either candidate won this past election.
People are so into politics more than ever these days and look for arguments rather than discussing.
Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2024, 06:58:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 12:57:33 AMQuote from: Rothman on December 30, 2024, 10:49:25 PMI'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
It's very simple: they looked at when Presidents were born and could tell which future presidents were alive in any given year, hence the big drop since 1961 when our youngest living President, Obama, was born.
Look at the number of future presidents in recent years, silly boy. There are over five future presidents out there somewhere.
It's a wonky graph. The future presidents graph is completely misleading. The actual number is the difference between the past presidents and the future president's respective values on the graph. So in 2000 the graph shows a difference of 3 (Obama, Trump, Biden) while the last year shows 0 difference as you would expect. The past president value as implied in the graph is actually the total number of people alive that year who are/were/will become president.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 30, 2024, 10:01:55 PMt's remarkable how much the life expectancy of presidents has increased.
I'm not sure why you consider it "remarkable." There is a strong correlation between household income and life expectancy, especially among men. And former presidents possess both high income and ready access to some of the highest quality health care in the world.
I'm wondering more why there was a drop in life expectancy from the first 10 or so presidents to the early 1900s.
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 31, 2024, 09:10:02 AMI'm wondering more why there was a drop in life expectancy from the first 10 or so presidents to the early 1900s.
The "Founding Fathers" were wealthy, land owners who did little menial labor. As the Presidency became more "democratic" and drew more candidates from outside that wealth, the life expectancy started to mirror more the general public's.
Not to mention that a number of them were assassinated in the late 1800s.
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 08:02:58 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 30, 2024, 05:52:06 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 30, 2024, 06:07:43 AMHe was a good guy but a horrible president.
He wasn't a horrible president. He was a mediocre President during a difficult time.
He wasn't even mediocre. I stand by what I said.
LOL. Do you think people care what you say if you provide no argument to back up your assertions?
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 31, 2024, 08:39:35 AMQuote from: Rothman on December 31, 2024, 06:58:23 AMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 12:57:33 AMQuote from: Rothman on December 30, 2024, 10:49:25 PMI'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
It's very simple: they looked at when Presidents were born and could tell which future presidents were alive in any given year, hence the big drop since 1961 when our youngest living President, Obama, was born.
Look at the number of future presidents in recent years, silly boy. There are over five future presidents out there somewhere.
It's a wonky graph. The future presidents graph is completely misleading. The actual number is the difference between the past presidents and the future president's respective values on the graph. So in 2000 the graph shows a difference of 3 (Obama, Trump, Biden) while the last year shows 0 difference as you would expect. The past president value as implied in the graph is actually the total number of people alive that year who are/were/will become president.
A situation like we have right now makes it a bit screwier in that one of the past presidents now living is also a future president. (The other three living past presidents are all constitutionally ineligible to be future presidents, of course.)
What makes any chart of that sort difficult is that by definition, we know that there are living future presidents now (other than Trump) because you have to be 35 years old at the time you are sworn in. The person who will take office in 2029 is now living, for example, as are the people who will take office in 2033, 2037, 2041, 2045, 2051, and 2055—we just don't know who those people are yet. (The person who will be sworn in in 2061 is probably alive now as well, of course. Thirty-five years prior to January 2061 is January 2026, so in theory someone not yet born today could become president that year, but given that the youngest person ever elected was 43 and the youngest person ever to become president was 42, the chances of someone that young becoming president seem very slim in my view.) But even knowing that those people are alive now doesn't give you a way to be able to tell how many future presidents are alive at any one point because you can't account for whether a given president will serve one term or two, whether there are any "unscheduled" presidencies (if a president dies in office, resigns, or is removed), whether there might again be a "once and future president" in the Cleveland–Trump scenario, etc.
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 31, 2024, 09:10:02 AMI'm wondering more why there was a drop in life expectancy from the first 10 or so presidents to the early 1900s.
If LBJ, the last president to die relatively young, is any indication, the mass production of cigarettes and liquor didn't help
Quote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The best time of my life was back when he was President.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 11:57:45 AMQuote from: hotdogPi on December 31, 2024, 09:10:02 AMI'm wondering more why there was a drop in life expectancy from the first 10 or so presidents to the early 1900s.
If LBJ, the last president to die relatively young, is any indication, the mass production of cigarettes and liquor didn't help
LBJ had a massive heart attack in 1955, which is when he quit smoking. After leaving the presidency, which basically broke him, he essentially let himself go. He resumed smoking, not dieting anymore, etc. It's as if he knew he'd die young, and he did. It's remarkable given the ages at death of Truman (88), Eisenhower (79), Nixon (81), Ford and Reagan (93), Bush 41 (94) and now Carter at 100.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on December 31, 2024, 02:59:45 AMQuote from: hbelkins on December 30, 2024, 02:36:14 PMHow many posters here were actually alive and have a memory of the Carter administration (Jan. 20, 1977-Jan. 20, 1981)?
I was a teenager then, and I certainly remember his presidency.
I was in the Navy, then. We got the two largest pay rises in the last 50 years during his administration.
That was only to keep up with inflation though
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2024, 10:49:25 PMI'd like to know how they determined the number of future presidents. Should probably talk to those people.
They're only showing known future presidents. The most recently born president was born in 1961, at which time there were 11 future presidents. That number has only gone down since then. The number reduced by one when LBJ was no longer a future president, and down again when Nixon was no longer a future president. The numbers in the recent decades will go up when we find out who will be president in the future and see when they were born. We could assume a minimum age of 35 and add part of their lives now, but either way the graph will change since they will probably all be older than 35 and because term lengths and consecutivity may vary. Since the graph changes anyway, they're just sticking with the known facts.
And the funeral date was declared a Federal Holiday (1/9). I'll probably need to figure out if I can use the day a week after since I'll be on a work trip all next week.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
I remember my elders used to say that Jimmy Carter was a weakling during his presidency. What that meant I can't be sure but I'm guessing he couldn't handle the problems he was faced with at the time.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 03:35:50 PMI remember my elders used to say that Jimmy Carter was a weakling during his presidency. What that meant I can't be sure but I'm guessing he couldn't handle the problems he was faced with at the time.
The Iran Hostage Crisis is more than like what is being referenced there.
FWIW even my far left leaning mom didn't like Jimmy Carter. He had everything going against him and couldn't even make his own supporters happy when in office. The wide consensus has pretty much always had him as a bottom third tier president.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2024, 03:38:20 PMQuote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 03:35:50 PMI remember my elders used to say that Jimmy Carter was a weakling during his presidency. What that meant I can't be sure but I'm guessing he couldn't handle the problems he was faced with at the time.
The Iran Hostage Crisis is more than like what is being referenced there.
Correct. It really was a national embarrassment, but they really couldn't have done any different without killing them. The botched rescue only made the perception worse.
Yeah that was a factor. However they got released the moment he left office.
I'm not saying that other people did better, but the fact that ordeal where Ollie North refused to testify was believed to be what got them released.
Even a former coworker who was very liberal says hanky panky got them released.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
You've said this more than once and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment increased a bit, but was pretty manageable until the early 80s.
Now I remember. My dad said that unemployment was high under Carter.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 04:50:13 PMNow I remember. My dad said that unemployment was high under Carter.
It was actually higher under Reagan, but the vibes were better.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 31, 2024, 12:46:46 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 11:57:45 AMQuote from: hotdogPi on December 31, 2024, 09:10:02 AMI'm wondering more why there was a drop in life expectancy from the first 10 or so presidents to the early 1900s.
If LBJ, the last president to die relatively young, is any indication, the mass production of cigarettes and liquor didn't help
LBJ had a massive heart attack in 1955, which is when he quit smoking. After leaving the presidency, which basically broke him, he essentially let himself go. He resumed smoking, not dieting anymore, etc. It's as if he knew he'd die young, and he did. It's remarkable given the ages at death of Truman (88), Eisenhower (79), Nixon (81), Ford and Reagan (93), Bush 41 (94) and now Carter at 100.
If we include vice-prisidents, John Nance Garner who was vice-president from 1932 to 1941, died at the age of 98.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 04:44:01 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
You've said this more than once and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment increased a bit, but was pretty manageable until the early 80s.
The lowest unemployment rate during Carter's presidency was an unimpressive 5.6% in May 1979. And even then the economy was overheating, with inflation running at 7%.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 05:02:00 PMQuote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 04:50:13 PMNow I remember. My dad said that unemployment was high under Carter.
It was actually higher under Reagan, but the vibes were better.
Of course we didn't have social media and the web then to inform us, so what might of looked good then might of not been.
I believe that is correct. Reagan was popular with people so people had positive energy for him, but Carter ( even fellow Democrats) had negative energy towards him. In a way I felt sorry that he caught a bad break.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 05:51:04 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 05:02:00 PMQuote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 04:50:13 PMNow I remember. My dad said that unemployment was high under Carter.
It was actually higher under Reagan, but the vibes were better.
Of course we didn't have social media and the web then to inform us, so what might of looked good then might of not been.
I believe that is correct. Reagan was popular with people so people had positive energy for him, but Carter ( even fellow Democrats) had negative energy towards him. In a way I felt sorry that he caught a bad break.
That is true. And I think it shows that widespread inflation leads to more negative views on the economy than unemployment does.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 05:12:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 04:44:01 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
You've said this more than once and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment increased a bit, but was pretty manageable until the early 80s.
The lowest unemployment rate during Carter's presidency was an unimpressive 5.6% in May 1979. And even then the economy was overheating, with inflation running at 7%.
Unimpressive? That was near the low point of the 1970s and lower than anything in Reagan's term until about 1987.
Quote from: formulanone on December 29, 2024, 09:57:18 PMThere's the time he shook hands with possibly everyone on plane on a commercial flight. The perks of being a former President is that you outrank the flight crew...?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+carter+shaking+hands+with+everyone+on+plane
Apparently he did this often. As a matter of fact - it happened to me once about 15 years ago. I was on a Delta flight between Baltimore and Atlanta. Before takeoff, Mr. Carter walked down the aisle and greeted everybody and shook their hand, myself included. Only time I had ever met a President (current or former).
For context, I was in college during his presidency and the 1976 election was the first election I was able to vote in.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 08:30:47 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 05:12:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 04:44:01 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
You've said this more than once and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment increased a bit, but was pretty manageable until the early 80s.
The lowest unemployment rate during Carter's presidency was an unimpressive 5.6% in May 1979. And even then the economy was overheating, with inflation running at 7%.
Unimpressive? That was near the low point of the 1970s and lower than anything in Reagan's term until about 1987.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 08:30:47 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 05:12:49 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 04:44:01 PMQuote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2024, 04:35:31 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 31, 2024, 02:10:48 PMQuote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2024, 12:35:57 PMQuote from: Flint1979 on December 31, 2024, 07:58:55 AMQuote from: bandit957 on December 30, 2024, 10:43:17 AMHe was the best President of the past 60 years.
He was much better after he was President than he was while he was President.
His foreign affairs disasters (except for getting Egypt and Israel to the same table), the 'stagflation' in the economy', etc v. his later on good works and even his years of teaching Sunday School Bible classes at his church. Great person but one of the worst presidents. R.I.P.
BTW, all USA flags to be at half-staff until late January.
Mike
The stagflation really wasn't his fault however. It was mismanagement by the Fed more than anything. The combination of Nixon's wage and price controls, OPEC's stranglehold on oil, and just bizarre decisions by Fed Chair Arthur Burns meant that neither Carter nor Ford would be able to do much to manage the economy. It was going to be a sh*tshow regardless.
And no matter who won in 1980, they would benefit from a resurgence. Reagan didn't do anything magic. Paul Volcker's taming of inflation is what got the economy going again - which is why Reagan renominated him as Chair.
Some of the other criticisms of him as president are absolutely fair. At best he was mediocre - wrong man for the time.
The real issue was something no President could control: demographics. You see, in 1950 the world's population growth suddenly skyrocketed. 18 years later, those children began working. In addition, many women decided to get paid jobs at roughly the same time. All these people entering the workforce before capital stock could be created for them to work meant an increase in the unemployment rate and the increased demand for capital simultaneously caused equilibrium interest rates to shoot through the roof.
You've said this more than once and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment increased a bit, but was pretty manageable until the early 80s.
The lowest unemployment rate during Carter's presidency was an unimpressive 5.6% in May 1979. And even then the economy was overheating, with inflation running at 7%.
Unimpressive? That was near the low point of the 1970s and lower than anything in Reagan's term until about 1987.
That's my point. The structural unemployment rate was much higher in the 70s and 80s. Consider that we're currently at 4% unemployment with an inflation rate below 3%.
I think Jimmy Carter was too decent and moral of a person to be President of the United States. I think other people in the government used his principals against him. Even though I was just a kid in the late 1970's I keenly remember a lot of the details. Things weren't all that great when Carter was sworn in as President. The situation with price inflation was largely out of his control. But Americans needed a scapegoat and the peanut farmer from Georgia was a good enough target.
The American hostage crisis in Iran is largely what cost Carter any chance of reelection. I still remember the evening news programs counting the number of days American citizens were held hostage. People were pissed off enough about the price of a Coca-Cola™ doubling in the late 1970's, but the hostages thing and the failed rescue pretty much doomed Carter's bid to be reelected. Let's not forget: it was Carter's administration that negotiated and secured the release of the American hostages. The Iranian government (and the Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rolla) gave Carter a little "fuck you" message by not releasing the hostages until just after Ronald Regan was inaugurated.
Still, even though certain aspects of the late 1970's totally sucked ass, that period of time was one of the greatest ever for American pop culture. The first "Star Wars" movie was released in May of 1977. I mean, holy shit, that was a BIG DEAL back then. Disco music was big at that time, but then Punk and the next generation of Metal arrived. We're talking the Sex Pistols and Van Halen. I really feel sorry for young people growing up today. Back in the late 1970's and going into the 1980's the music industry was adventurous as hell. So much great shit was getting made back then. Carter was on the down-slope of his Presidency when "The Empire Strikes Back" was released in 1980. That is still pretty much the best "Star Wars" film ever. There was a lot of stuff about life that sucked ass in the late 1970's going into the early 1980's, but American culture was sure hitting a high point during that period.
Meh...considering how obsessive people got over Star Wars I think that I could do without it.
There's no denying the original pop-culture frenzy surrounding Star Wars when it was first released. Hell, there was even a cheesy disco version of the theme song that became a big radio hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3kV3Icm28
My dad's Marine Corps career had us stationed in Japan through this period, which insulated us for awhile. But when we moved back state-side in 1980 the culture shock (or price shock rather) was pretty brutal.
Star Wars aside, the late 1970's going into the early 1980's was one of the last great periods of American music innovation before the big media labels started suffocating the shit out of everything. The late 1980's, with the arrival of grunge bands like Nirvana and Jane's Addiction, as well as "gangsta rap" acts like NWA, seemed like the last gasps of originality coming from America's music industry. Over the 30 years since then the music industry has been slowly shitting out the same old flavors of familiar fluff. It's no wonder why so many people, even young people, listen to old-ass music. I have a great niece that loves listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That might be cool on one level, but she should have her own music from her own generation, not old people shit from my generation.
Star Wars was almost fifty years ago. Nerds took a good thing and ruined it by constantly complaining.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2024, 04:50:13 PMNow I remember. My dad said that unemployment was high under Carter.
It got up to over 10% under Reagan in 1982.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:58:15 AMI really feel sorry for young people growing up today. Back in the late 1970's and going into the 1980's the music industry was adventurous as hell.
This reeks of nostalgia instead of reality.
Young people growing up today have all sorts of "adventerous" music to listen to though nearly unlimited forms of media. Growing up in the 70s and 80s meant you largely listened to what record companies decided they wanted to produce, and your consumption was limited by the radio stations you could pick up.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 01:45:52 AMThere's no denying the original pop-culture frenzy surrounding Star Wars when it was first released. Hell, there was even a cheesy disco version of the theme song that became a big radio hit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3kV3Icm28
My dad's Marine Corps career had us stationed in Japan through this period, which insulated us for awhile. But when we moved back state-side in 1980 the culture shock (or price shock rather) was pretty brutal.
Star Wars aside, the late 1970's going into the early 1980's was one of the last great periods of American music innovation before the big media labels started suffocating the shit out of everything. The late 1980's, with the arrival of grunge bands like Nirvana and Jane's Addiction, as well as "gangsta rap" acts like NWA, seemed like the last gasps of originality coming from America's music industry. Over the 30 years since then the music industry has been slowly shitting out the same old flavors of familiar fluff. It's no wonder why so many people, even young people, listen to old-ass music. I have a great niece that loves listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That might be cool on one level, but she should have her own music from her own generation, not old people shit from my generation.
Many songs of today ( or at least a few ) are covers of old songs because they seem to have writers block nowadays.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 01, 2025, 07:02:35 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:58:15 AMI really feel sorry for young people growing up today. Back in the late 1970's and going into the 1980's the music industry was adventurous as hell.
This reeks of nostalgia instead of reality.
Young people growing up today have all sorts of "adventerous" music to listen to though nearly unlimited forms of media. Growing up in the 70s and 80s meant you largely listened to what record companies decided they wanted to produce, and your consumption was limited by the radio stations you could pick up.
Bob Seger released a hit song complaining about the quality of 1970s music. He said it didn't have "the same soul" as "that old time rock and roll"
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2025, 10:51:22 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on January 01, 2025, 07:02:35 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:58:15 AMI really feel sorry for young people growing up today. Back in the late 1970's and going into the 1980's the music industry was adventurous as hell.
This reeks of nostalgia instead of reality.
Young people growing up today have all sorts of "adventerous" music to listen to though nearly unlimited forms of media. Growing up in the 70s and 80s meant you largely listened to what record companies decided they wanted to produce, and your consumption was limited by the radio stations you could pick up.
Bob Seger released a hit song complaining about the quality of 1970s music. He said it didn't have "the same soul" as "that old time rock and roll"
I had a long conversation with a couple of my kids over Christmas about the Smiths. I am hardly a Smith expert, but I enjoyed them back in the day when I discovered them in college. It was hard to impress on them that the main way you could find music like that was through word of mouth. They weren't being played on the radio except for some low power alternative stations, and of course there was nothing on the internet.
Now people have access to all sorts of music, like the Smiths, with just a few keystrokes.
Don't feel sorry for people who are growing up now. They have access to all sorts of great music from yesterday to today.
Late '70s nostalgia never has gotten the respect it deserves. But living standards and pop culture probably peaked around that time, at least in our society.
There's no question that music, TV, and movies were better. Disco, new wave, hard rock, and country rock dominated the charts. 'The Dukes Of Hazzard' and 'CHiPs' filled our TV screens.
Man, did the late '70s ever rule!
Guys, the Malaise era just plain isn't fondly remembered by the cultural median...it's okay. Doesn't mean any of you can't enjoy individual aspects of the decade. I like some of the music and the "so bad it's good" emissions cars.
I don't know. The era of "FORD TO NYC: DROP DEAD" certainly had its drawbacks.
I think we all think that music of our youth ( no matter what generation we are) think those were the best times. My mom thought the forties were the best.
My cousin thought the sixties had it.
Then when something derails the trend we complain. When I graduated High School when Let's Dance by Bowie was popular on the radio, but that's when David Bowie began changing his sound from his previous to a new age. People were like WTF why is Bowie doing this. Ditto with Come Dancing by the Kinks as that was New Age from their 70s era sound. Both were out in 1983.
I am surprised Rick Astley when he came out with Never Gonna Give You Up made it several years after Disco died considering that tune was pure Disco. In fact I thought that particular was a leftover from the 70s Disco Era, but it was released in the mid eighties.
Never Gonna Give You Up was a regularly played song on the radio when it was new. It got rediscovered when Rick Rolling became thing in the early 2000s.
The music industry is very different today from what it was in the 1970's. Music labels and radio stations had far more independence decades ago. That all disappeared with all the mergers and buy-outs. I have friends who work in radio. They can't do anything like play listener requests. The corporate higher-ups give them their music play lists. It's basically the same ten songs over and over again for months on end, punctuated with lots of commercials. It's no wonder so many people have gravitated to services like Spotify and Amazon Music.
Speaking of Amazon, brick and mortar music stores are pretty much a thing of the past. The music section in Walmart is hardly a good substitute. I doubt many bands are mourning the loss since the record labels screw them out of seeing any royalties. Most bands have to make their money touring and selling merchandise (and of course the music labels want all that money too).
Back in the 1970's the style trends in music were changing in a volatile way. Disco was popular and then suddenly it sucked. Van Halen hit the scene and led to Ozzy Osbourne quitting Black Sabbath. The Sex Pistols were revolutionary. Today the music industry does not allow anything unpredictable like that to happen. All trends are tightly controlled. As a result, so much of it is stale. I think the arrival of Nirvana and death of hair band metal in the early 1990's was one of the last big sudden style shifts in the music industry. Over the 30 years since then styles have been changing in a very slow, gradual and controlled process.
These days I listen mostly to alternative rock music. It takes effort to find new bands that are making good, interesting music. It's impossible to "discover" anything new and good by listening to the radio.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 01:59:02 PM....
These days I listen mostly to alternative rock music. It takes effort to find new bands that are making good, interesting music. It's impossible to "discover" anything new and good by listening to the radio.
I think the last time I discovered a new band I went on to like and listen to regularly (and see perform live several times) was when Bruce Springsteen joined the Gaslight Anthem onstage at the 2009 Glastonbury festival; later that day, the Gaslight Anthem's lead singer, Brian Fallon, joined Springsteen and the E Street Band onstage during their performance. They repeated that a few days later at Hyde Park Calling in London. At the time I had not heard of the Gaslight Anthem, but I figured that if Springsteen was into their music, it was worth getting one of their albums. So I did and I liked it.
One way I used to find out about new bands was by going to concert festivals. I'd never heard of System of a Down until I saw them live at Ozzfest '99 at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas. Black Sabbath (original lineup with Ozzy) and Rob Zombie were the headliners. Anyway, System of Down guitarist, Daron Malakian, was covered in glittery silver body paint. He was wearing silver gym shorts. He had a glitter silver Ibanez Iceman guitar to match. The guy's head was shaved except for a little patch on the top. The look was outrageous and funny as hell. I saw System of a Down in concert a couple more times years later.
Today, concert-going is yet another thing about the music industry that totally sucks ass. The Ticketmaster-Live Nation monopoly has ruined it. Sky high prices and crappy seats is all you get watching a concert at any big arena. If I want to watch bands play live I'll check out small venues and up-and-coming bands.
It's really sad how nothing is as good as it used to be.
To say that the 2020s are better than the 1970s is laughable.
Depends on what you mean by "as good?" Yeah sure, something like a modern car has a planned obsolescence factored in (especially if it an EV or hybrid). While my dad and I did keep my grandparents 1978 Chevette running into the mid-1990s there wasn't much point beyond their generation (depression era) being infamously stingy.
Quote from: bandit957 on January 01, 2025, 05:45:09 PMIt's really sad how nothing is as good as it used to be.
To say that the 2020s are better than the 1970s is laughable.
You are warmly remembering back to when you were a child with a child's view of the world. Now you are an adult with adult responsibilities.
I feel like I'm one of the few people on this forum who has enjoyed their adult life more than their childhood.
I don't know.
Certainly, I have a lot of nostalgia for my very young years running around my neighborhood with friends and a limited view of the world.
I also certainly enjoy my current financial stability which affords me more freedom than I've ever had in my life.
In the middle, there were tough years and challenges I have no desire to repeat again.
When it comes down to it, I prefer the freedom of today to the innocence of yesteryear.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2025, 06:59:13 PMI feel like I'm one of the few people on this forum who has enjoyed their adult life more than their childhood.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2025, 07:25:52 PMI don't know.
Certainly, I have a lot of nostalgia for my very young years running around my neighborhood with friends and a limited view of the world.
I also certainly enjoy my current financial stability which affords me more freedom than I've ever had in my life.
In the middle, there were tough years and challenges I have no desire to repeat again.
When it comes down to it, I prefer the freedom of today to the innocence of yesteryear.
Agree with both of you.
Quote from: bandit957 on January 01, 2025, 05:45:09 PMIt's really sad how nothing is as good as it used to be.
To say that the 2020s are better than the 1970s is laughable.
Death by heart disease has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
Vehicle-related deaths have fallen by 1/2 since the 1970s.
Death by cancer has fallen by 30% since the 1970s.
Homicide rates have fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Overall crime rate has fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Life expectancy has increased by 7 years since the 1970s.
Infant mortality rate has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
Now we can quibble about subjective things like movies (I think '70s were definitely better), TV (I think today is better), music ('70s, although not my favorite, is better than today), etc., but I'll trade any of that for the statistics above.
My opinion (and I felt this way as a child in the 1970s as well) is that it was one of the tackiest decades from an aesthetic standpoint. Even by the 1980s having ironic disco-themed parties was a thing. I hated (and still hate) the mustard-yellow/avocado green/brown template that was so prevalent then.
Modern medicine has indeed improved and one thing that we have now than in the seventies was Autism Awareness.
Back in the 70s people thought it was just an Atypical behavior problem and never thought to have an examination of the behavior. Autistic Meltdowns were regarded as simple tantrums and even shrinks now prescribe medicine rather than couch therapy.
Although I wouldn't say the meds are good totally, but at least something to attack the chemical imbalances that spectrums cause. Couch therapy can only do so much, but the problems still exist.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 01, 2025, 08:10:24 PMQuote from: bandit957 on January 01, 2025, 05:45:09 PMIt's really sad how nothing is as good as it used to be.
To say that the 2020s are better than the 1970s is laughable.
Death by heart disease has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
Vehicle-related deaths have fallen by 1/2 since the 1970s.
Death by cancer has fallen by 30% since the 1970s.
Homicide rates have fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Overall crime rate has fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Life expectancy has increased by 7 years since the 1970s.
Infant mortality rate has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
Now we can quibble about subjective things like movies (I think '70s were definitely better), TV (I think today is better), music ('70s, although not my favorite, is better than today), etc., but I'll trade any of that for the statistics above.
My opinion (and I felt this way as a child in the 1970s as well) is that it was one of the tackiest decades from an aesthetic standpoint. Even by the 1980s having ironic disco-themed parties was a thing. I hated (and still hate) the mustard-yellow/avocado green/brown template that was so prevalent then.
I feel as though poop brown and vomit green were the defining car colors of the Malaise era automotive landscape.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 01, 2025, 08:10:24 PMQuote from: bandit957 on January 01, 2025, 05:45:09 PMIt's really sad how nothing is as good as it used to be.
To say that the 2020s are better than the 1970s is laughable.
Death by heart disease has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
Vehicle-related deaths have fallen by 1/2 since the 1970s.
Death by cancer has fallen by 30% since the 1970s.
Homicide rates have fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Overall crime rate has fallen by 50% since the 1970s.
Life expectancy has increased by 7 years since the 1970s.
Infant mortality rate has fallen by 2/3 since the 1970s.
*citation needed*
In terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PMIn terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Fear mongering, safety theater and security theater actually do have a mitigating effect. People are safer from violent crime than have been in half century but yet don't feel safe. People who don't feel safe report things to the police.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2025, 10:48:25 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PMIn terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Fear mongering, safety theater and security theater actually do have a mitigating effect. People are safer from violent crime than have been in half century but yet don't feel safe. People who don't feel safe report things to the police.
"That [enter minority here] is in the park..."
Sounds great.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2025, 10:50:34 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2025, 10:48:25 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PMIn terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Fear mongering, safety theater and security theater actually do have a mitigating effect. People are safer from violent crime than have been in half century but yet don't feel safe. People who don't feel safe report things to the police.
"That [enter minority here] is in the park..."
Sounds great.
It isn't. I loathe each one of the items I listed. To me the trade off of constant surveillance for safety sake isn't worth the price.
Safety theater at work in particular has been a PIA for me. It has replaced actual safety mitigation practices in my workplace. We rather try to scare people than provide adequate training or corrective managment when necessary.
In some respects the rapid proliferation of surveillance technology doesn't prevent certain kinds of crimes. That's because many of the people who are criminally inclined are not blessed with intelligence or impulse control. They do stupidly rash and violent things when they're in the moment. After the fact they make sloppy attempts to cover their tracks. But ever improving technology gets their tit caught in the ringer at an ever more efficient pace.
Here in Lawton the local police department has been installing license plate readers at certain intersections in town. Some of the patrol cars also have mobile versions of these plate readers. The idea is automate checks to see if vehicles on the streets have valid insurance. People driving with no insurance is a giant problem in Oklahoma. The plate readers have also had the side effect of helping solve a couple homicides in the short time they've been in service. Those license plate readers in conjunction with surveillance cameras installed at homes and businesses can be a pretty powerful "big brother is watching" tool. Of course we have the big brother thing in our smart phones.
It isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
We didn't have cyber crimes in the seventies. No one back then, even if they know your ss #, couldn't walk into a bank to withdraw money from your account as signature check was used to verify it's you.
Sure we had physical crimes to worry about, so in retrospect things changed but crime really hasn't. Just changed methods.
I'd like to think that lower homicide rates since the 1980s are indeed a major change...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Quote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 12:59:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Right and for the most part the average normal person is okay with feeding said data leviathan. Things didn't exactly play out how Orwell thought they would. I suppose someone could just opt out to modern tech if they really wanted to. Problem is that one has be a pretty hardened (and likely dedicated) social outcast for that to be viable.
Even if someone completely avoided using social media he could still end up having his movements and activities tracked pretty easily. Having a mobile phone is a big one. Even if location services are turned off in the phone a person's location history can still be approximated based on tower communications.
I mentioned the license tag readers earlier. I think we'll see far more of them (and other RFID tag readers) in the future. Getting tough on crime will have these tag/plate readers instantly looking for expired insurance, outstanding warrants and other stuff. Surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology will continue to improve.
Those tools can be alright if they're only used to improve public safety and catch criminals. But the same surveillance tools can be weaponized by any government dipping its toes into autocratic behavior.
Do you consider having a cell phone a necessity or luxury? I view it as the latter myself. I know you guys complain about a lot of things being fully phone app enabled but it isn't a hassle I've encountered myself.
I don't know, nowadays I kind of roll my eyes whenever I see someone making claims about impending dystopia.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 03:03:56 PMDo you consider having a cell phone a necessity or luxury?
It's basically a necessity these days. But I'm very thrifty about it, like I am with most things.
Quote from: bandit957 on January 02, 2025, 03:06:07 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 03:03:56 PMDo you consider having a cell phone a necessity or luxury?
It's basically a necessity these days. But I'm very thrifty about it, like I am with most things.
It isn't though. There isn't a single thing in my day to day life that couldn't be done a more analog way.
After scrolling through three new pages of this topic, I'm convinced that it got derailed when someone took the reference to "Star Wars" literally and started discussing the movie and the accompanying music.
This has basically turned into the 1970s thread.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 03:25:01 PMThis has basically turned into the 1970s thread.
That's because the 1970s were just so cool.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PMIn terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Telling the public they are much more likely to die from poor dietary habits and vehicular accidents seems to annoy news outlets' sponsors.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 03:03:56 PMI don't know, nowadays I kind of roll my eyes whenever I see someone making claims about impending dystopia.
It's more of a
soft landing for most folks than a hard one; we give up more information each year, we give up a little more privacy each year, we allow for businesses to perpetually advertise to us, allow think tanks to let us determine how happy we are, we're okay with poorer quality goods and services and greater monopolization, we allow those in power to continue to decide what's best for themselves and their wealthy donors and are demonized for trying to cut them off. And there's so many voices telling us we dare not question anyone's motives to systematically and surgically remove our collective wallets from our collective backside pockets, lest it be considered un-American.
But we can easily forgive and forget all of these things because we remind ourselves how easy many of us have it; lower crime, labor is easier to perform, we don't tax our brains as much as before, we can get some level of healthcare, there's access to mental health (and it's talked about more freely / less stigmatized than before), we don't waste as much time repairing when we can just buy new stuff. And even if the average
schmo doesn't understand nor care about any of these things, we can forget it even more easily since we have greater access for entertaining ourselves, finding quick pleasures, and feeding our desires quicker and easier than ever before. And maybe that tips the scales for a lot of folks in the overall scheme of things.
I guess it depends on where you find yourself in the present tense, and how you rate your own personal success, as to whether you think all of these things are helping you or hindering you. Nobody should be expected to solve all of life's problems for everyone and everyone without having a massive breakdown.
The news outlets also don't like mentioning the statistic a person is 3 times more likely to kill himself than be killed by someone else.
Quote from: formulanone on January 02, 2025, 04:36:32 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 10:29:00 PMIn terms of violent crime, the US hit a historic peak in 1980. Nationally the homicide rate was over 10 murders per 100,000 people. The rate hovers around half that level or less today. The public wouldn't know this with the way the media reports "news." All the emotional amplification to instill fear and anger would have viewers thinking crime is worse than ever.
Telling the public they are much more likely to die from poor dietary habits and vehicular accidents seems to annoy news outlets' sponsors.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 03:03:56 PMI don't know, nowadays I kind of roll my eyes whenever I see someone making claims about impending dystopia.
It's more of a soft landing for most folks than a hard one; we give up more information each year, we give up a little more privacy each year, we allow for businesses to perpetually advertise to us, allow think tanks to let us determine how happy we are, we're okay with poorer quality goods and services, we get less for our paycheck, we allow those in power to continue to decide what's best for themselves and their wealthy donors and are demonized for trying to cut them off. And there's so many voices telling us we dare not question anyone's motives to systematically and surgically our collective wallets from our collective backside pockets, lest it be considered un-American.
But we can easily forgive and forget all of these things because we remind ourselves how easy many of us have it; lower crime, labor is easier to perform, we don't tax our brains as much as before, we can get some level of healthcare, there's access to mental health (and it's talked about more freely / less stigmatized than before), we don't waste as much time repairing when we can just buy new stuff. And we forget it even more easily since we have greater access for entertaining ourselves, finding quick pleasures, and feeding our desires quicker and easier than ever before.
I guess it depends on where you find yourself in the present tense, and how you rate your own personal success, as to whether you think all of these things are helping you or hindering you. Nobody should be expected to solve all of life's problems for everyone and everyone without having a massive breakdown.
For me two things happened as I got older. For one I really began to care way less about what takes place in the world outside of my immediate circle of family/fiends. At the same time I began to care much less about how I presented myself to the external world.
I guess in that sense it makes sense why I'm not particularly paranoid about what I put online. No matter what I do it isn't likely going to generate much interest from malefactors.
Bringing this back to roads for a moment...
The Carter Administration was responsible for those 85 mph speedometers you saw in cars made after 9/1/1979 and 1982 with 55 mph prominently marked on them (FMVSS 127). He also made federal standards on enforcing the 55 mph speed limit on the states that had previously been approved by Nixon and Ford.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 01:08:19 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 12:59:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Right and for the most part the average normal person is okay with feeding said data leviathan. Things didn't exactly play out how Orwell thought they would. I suppose someone could just opt out to modern tech if they really wanted to. Problem is that one has be a pretty hardened (and likely dedicated) social outcast for that to be viable.
I suspect most people don't really know (or pay attention to) how far information can spread and what can be discovered when it's aggregated together. They figure "I don't care if X knows Y or if A knows B", not realizing that someone who knows both Y and B can infer Z.
The post-9/11 "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" conditioning probably doesn't help either.
Quote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 09:52:52 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 01:08:19 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 12:59:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Right and for the most part the average normal person is okay with feeding said data leviathan. Things didn't exactly play out how Orwell thought they would. I suppose someone could just opt out to modern tech if they really wanted to. Problem is that one has be a pretty hardened (and likely dedicated) social outcast for that to be viable.
I suspect most people don't really know (or pay attention to) how far information can spread and what can be discovered when it's aggregated together. They figure "I don't care if X knows Y or if A knows B", not realizing that someone who knows both Y and B can infer Z.
I guess that I don't really care what people think they know or infer about me.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2025, 02:54:21 PMI mentioned the license tag readers earlier. I think we'll see far more of them (and other RFID tag readers) in the future. Getting tough on crime will have these tag/plate readers instantly looking for expired insurance, outstanding warrants and other stuff. Surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology will continue to improve.
In Las Vegas people just drive around with no plates...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 10:15:27 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 09:52:52 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 01:08:19 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 12:59:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Right and for the most part the average normal person is okay with feeding said data leviathan. Things didn't exactly play out how Orwell thought they would. I suppose someone could just opt out to modern tech if they really wanted to. Problem is that one has be a pretty hardened (and likely dedicated) social outcast for that to be viable.
I suspect most people don't really know (or pay attention to) how far information can spread and what can be discovered when it's aggregated together. They figure "I don't care if X knows Y or if A knows B", not realizing that someone who knows both Y and B can infer Z.
I guess that I don't really care what people think they know or infer about me.
Right. And if the cops want to scan my license to make sure I have insurance, go right ahead.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2025, 08:58:21 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 10:15:27 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 09:52:52 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 01:08:19 PMQuote from: vdeane on January 02, 2025, 12:59:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 12:10:44 AMIt isn't exactly "big brother" when people voluntarily put everything about their life on social media.
I mean, the government has stood by while big tech created the big data leviathan; I heard that we even had legislation moving through Congress to ban all the tracking and data selling that pervades the internet now, but then 9/11 happened and user privacy was suddenly no longer of interest.
Right and for the most part the average normal person is okay with feeding said data leviathan. Things didn't exactly play out how Orwell thought they would. I suppose someone could just opt out to modern tech if they really wanted to. Problem is that one has be a pretty hardened (and likely dedicated) social outcast for that to be viable.
I suspect most people don't really know (or pay attention to) how far information can spread and what can be discovered when it's aggregated together. They figure "I don't care if X knows Y or if A knows B", not realizing that someone who knows both Y and B can infer Z.
I guess that I don't really care what people think they know or infer about me.
Right. And if the cops want to scan my license to make sure I have insurance, go right ahead.
And to that end I've been pulled numerous times. There has been a handful of "what are you doing here?" type stops included in that mix. The last time it happened was in Texas circa 2016. I was moving from Florida to California and apparently was suspicious being on I-20 versus I-10. I just told the officer that I what I was doing (I was seeing Carlsbad Caverns and heading to Las Cruces for the night) and that was the end of it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 10:15:27 PMI guess that I don't really care what people think they know or infer about me.
The problem comes when people think they know or infer something wrong and that becomes your problem somehow.
Suppose the cops are investigating a crime and your name comes up. You didn't commit the crime, and in fact have a pretty solid alibi. However, due to dirt on the lens causing the OCR software to register a 0 as an 8, the cops' plate reader shows your car was seen in an area that doesn't match your alibi. Now they want to know why you're "lying" to them.
If the system were fundamentally honest and fair, this would be easily rectified. But...
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 05, 2025, 10:05:23 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2025, 10:15:27 PMI guess that I don't really care what people think they know or infer about me.
The problem comes when people think they know or infer something wrong and that becomes your problem somehow.
Suppose the cops are investigating a crime and your name comes up. You didn't commit the crime, and in fact have a pretty solid alibi. However, due to dirt on the lens causing the OCR software to register a 0 as an 8, the cops' plate reader shows your car was seen in an area that doesn't match your alibi. Now they want to know why you're "lying" to them.
If the system were fundamentally honest and fair, this would be easily rectified. But...
I mean hey, I gave an example of where I've been questioned by the police. It wasn't the only time I've been questioned either.
If you haven't done anything you don't have to talk to the police. The burden is on them need to produce enough evidence to file charges or get cause even "search".
I was pulled over once in Scottsdale circa 2007 because I forgot to pay my registration and it was a month overdue (forgot to change my address with the DMV). The officer kept asking if he could search my car (a crap basket 2002 Mustang) during the stop and I told him no. He tried to twist my arm about it and said it was suspicious I wasn't letting him search.
It even got to the point where I told the officer that he could try to get reasonable cause to search my car. He ultimately had to let me go and let me be on my way. Although, there is a fair chance I was spite ticketed for the expired registration.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2025, 10:30:17 AMThe burden is on them need to produce enough evidence to file charges or get cause even "search".
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Because cops don't need proof of criminal activity to legally declare you a suspicious person, and what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion is entirely up to the officers involved and can be invoked on cosmetic factors like you being nervous, your car being messy, you just fitting a description/stereotype, or any number of things unrelated to what you do or don't tell him, and a "better safe than sorry" view regarding guilty until proven innocent that dovetails with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality referenced by vdeane, they can easily invent a narrative and for all practical purposes your rights end where a cop's reasonabe suspicion begins. Because a search is the only 100% way to prove guilt or innocence, cops who want to continue to pursue them either to prove a point that they won't tolerate you refusing one, or because they legitimately believe they've hit the big one, will always have a lane to do so.
Refusing a search is not supposed to be used while building their case against you, but a lot of cops do anyway because no one is going to do anything to them for it.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 06, 2025, 10:42:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2025, 10:30:17 AMThe burden is on them need to produce enough evidence to file charges or get cause even "search".
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Because cops don't need proof of criminal activity to legally declare you a suspicious person, and what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion is entirely up to the officers involved and can be invoked on cosmetic factors like you being nervous, your car being messy, you just fitting a description/stereotype, or any number of things unrelated to what you do or don't tell him, and a "better safe than sorry" view regarding guilty until proven innocent that dovetails with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality referenced by vdeane, they can easily invent a narrative and for all practical purposes your rights end where a cop's reasonabe suspicion begins. Because a search is the only 100% way to prove guilt or innocence, cops who want to continue to pursue them either to prove a point that they won't tolerate you refusing one, or because they legitimately believe they've hit the big one, will always have a lane to do so.
Refusing a search is not supposed to be used while building their case against you, but a lot of cops do anyway because no one is going to do anything to them for it.
I mean hey, the car I mentioned was a shit box and looked the part. I was in my mid-20s at the time and probably also looked probably the part of a supposedly younger male. At the end of the day the officer didn't come away with anything even with all his questions and prodding. Even if he found an excuse to search my car there wasn't anything to find.
And if anyone is wondering I was pulled over five times in that Mustang. I only ever came away with a citation for the expired registration. In one case Tempe officers pulled me over for not using the most extreme lane out of a parking lot. They even brought a dog to sniff and obtain "reasonable cause" to search. The dog didn't pick up anything and I was soon on my way.
And no, it isn't lost on me that I haven't been pulled over since January 2016. I'm way older in appearance now, I don't drive beat up stuff like V6 Mustangs and my wife probably makes me appear probably less suspicious by default. I'm also not insinuating they any of the above were enjoyable experiences or might not rattle someone's nerves if something similar happened to them.
I mean, I'd rather not interact with the cops at all. If I'm getting pulled over, that's going to ruin my day, regardless of whether anything comes of it. And I've watched enough videos of police brutality, false confessions, and whatnot to have a more than healthy fear of law enforcement regardless of whether I've done anything wrong (crossing the border, too; I'm always worried about whether everything will go smoothly or whether this will be the trip where I end up like one of those stories of people who are detained for hours, have computers confiscated to be searched and have spy devices installed, etc.).
I mean hey, my entire life has involved interactions with enforcement. My college education was in Criminal Justice and a large part of my job involved me interrogating and interviewing people. I'm gathering that I probably have way more comfort (not that it is ever a comfortable process) being directly questioned than many in this thread.
I've never had a scary interaction with law enforcement.
Had one interaction with an "all hat, no cattle" law enforcement NPS ranger in VA once where he tried to berate me for some undeclared infraction, saying I was endangering my kids and whatnot. Ended up that he thought I didn't come to a complete stop coming out of Cold Harbor, where the stop sign was behind an earthen berm you couldn't see around.
After his chestpounding, he gave me a warning, but warned me that I was in "the system" and that if I was ever caught again in a national park that the next ranger would know.
My kids busted up laughing.
I prefer not to have any encounters with police officers at all, ever. And I'm a middle aged white guy. Far too often, a person legally refusing a request from a police officer to search his vehicle, give up his right to remain silent by talking, etc runs a risk of getting the living shit beaten out of him by said officer. Police officers are trained to de-escalate situations. Unfortunately there is a school yard bully culture of "I am the boss of you and I'll knock your teeth out if you make me angry" running through many departments across the country.
That kind of crap gets caught on camera all the time. I saw a news story the other day about a guy who was beaten to death by law enforcement officers while his hands were hand-cuffed behind him to a chair. I think that one happened in a county jail. Certain officers involved conveniently turned off their body cameras. But not everyone did. It makes me wonder how often these kinds of brutality incidents happened before the proliferation of cellular phones, dash cams, etc.
Even if a police officer follows proper procedure and the rule of law a citizen's rights can still be utterly trampled. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 greatly eroded habeas corpus. The law makes it possible for a person to be arrested and held indefinitely without being charged for anything.
People who focus on what's shown in the media, whether mainstream or social, are suffering from selection bias. It's like those compilations of idiots that can't find the U.S. on a map: They edit out the ones that can. Polite police interactions don't make the news.
That said, how we accept "Obey me, or I have the right to shoot you" is repugnant. I once saw a presentation by a police officer in Superior, Wisconsin where he proudly displayed all the non-lethal means he had at his disposal on his belt, which would have made Batman proud. But, when it comes down to it, they reach for their gun? And then the courts defend their actions, including when they shoot those that are unarmed? Blech.
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2025, 01:01:03 PMI mean, I'd rather not interact with the cops at all. If I'm getting pulled over, that's going to ruin my day, regardless of whether anything comes of it. And I've watched enough videos of police brutality, false confessions, and whatnot to have a more than healthy fear of law enforcement regardless of whether I've done anything wrong (crossing the border, too; I'm always worried about whether everything will go smoothly or whether this will be the trip where I end up like one of those stories of people who are detained for hours, have computers confiscated to be searched and have spy devices installed, etc.).
As someone who was randomly targeted and searched by cops nearly two years ago, it's impossible to convey how traumatic it actually can be until it happens to you. They had no reason to stop me when they picked me as a target, and had to wait for me to give them one. I had no criminal history, wasn't missing any documents related to the car, driving with a valid license and insurance, etc. and they still demanded a search, then forced one when I refused. I was told I "was good" and could go when they were done. With how casual they seemed about some of it, this "search and release" seemed like a common occurrence for them.
^^^
It is common which is more or less was the point I was trying to convey. Being a single male of a certain age is going to likely yield higher chances of being pulled for pretext stops of all kinds. The odds are even higher if you are driving something beat up or have out of state tags. And that isn't even getting into the deeper rabbit hole of even more problematic profiling tactics like ethnicity. About the best I can tell you is to know your rights, know what a consent search is and be ready to tell an officer "no" if the situation warrants it.
In my case I don't look at anything I described as something I would find as subjectively traumatic. Although I don't think there is a way for these kind of interactions to not be at least somewhat irksome.
Out of all the times I was pulled over the one that frustrated me the most was in 2009. I was in the middle of evicting a renter from my house in Scottsdale at about 9 PM. She has stiffed me on rent three months in a row and I had to hire process server to come legally give her notice.
On the night my renter was moving out she didn't have room in her truck for some of her stuff and her dog (a black lab named Huck). I was really just sick of her at this point so I threw the last couple items and the dog in that same shitty 02 Mustang I already spoke of already). The route to her new apartment dipped onto a freeway ramp at AZ Loop 101 on the Salt River Reservation.
As I was turning onto the freeway ramp the dog nudged me wanting to be petted. A tribal cop happened to right there and pulled me over. The officer made me do a field sobriety test which I passed because I wasn't drinking. This was particularly frustrating because the dog took a disliking to the officer and I had to calm it down while explaining that I was evicting a renter.
Yeah sure, that cop was at that ramp strategically to snipe down DUIs. All the same the person to blame for that whole interaction though was that renter. I probably shouldn't have been stupid enough to escort her dog in my car either. My rationale thinking got outweighed by my desire to see this person gone.
I was stopped and frisked by Park Hills Police just for traveling on a public right-of-way - although the right-of-way wasn't in Park Hills.
I've had a few encounters with police that weren't so great.
Two encounters were as a crime victim. I got robbed in NYC back in 1990 when I got off work after dark. The cops at Midtown South Precinct didn't seem to give a hoot. To be fair, the five boroughs of NYC were charting over 2000 homicides that year. If I didn't get severely beaten or killed the case must not have been worth pursuing. Despite what the media says NYC is friggin' Disneyland today compared to back then. My house in Lawton got burglarized about 15 years ago. LPD never caught any suspects. The investigation seemed like a "going thru the motions" effort. Several years later I did get back a handgun that was stolen in the burglary. Record all those serial numbers!
In Norman, OK I was driving down a frontage road at night on I-35, trying to reach a then-new movie theater. Some cop was, I guess, trying to direct traffic. The lady I was dating at the time was with me. The cop waves us thru with his flashlight, but then he stopped us and yelled his brains out at us. It scared the hell out of my girlfriend and got her very upset. I didn't do a damned thing wrong.
The worst is a phony, bullshit ticket I got in Lawton around 20 years ago for supposedly rolling through a stop sign near Central Mall. I waited at the corner for other cars to pass. The cop pulled me over anyway because he was training a rookie on traffic stops. I tried to fight it in court. But it was the cop's word against mine. By default the cop wins. Around a month later I get a telemarketing call from their police benevolent fund outfit asking for donations. I told the caller to talk to the fucking Comanche County Courthouse. They got all the donations I'm ever gonna make. Assholes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 07, 2025, 11:24:49 PMIn Norman, OK I was driving down a frontage road at night on I-35, trying to reach a then-new movie theater.
Was it the Hollywood Theater at I-35 and Robinson? If so, I wonder if you got tangled up in the mess where the west-side frontage road stops being two-way in front of the old Holiday Inn, and the guy was yelling at you because he thought you were trying to go the wrong way up the on-ramp or something.
Yeah, it was the Hollywood Theater. IIRC, we went there to see the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies. This was, jeez, 1997.
All I did was turn left off Robinson onto Interstate drive going Southbound. I was coming around the curve intending to take the first right turn into the theater's parking lot. This asshole cop was there, apparently just waiting to have a rage-gasm.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2025, 10:41:16 AMYeah, it was the Hollywood Theater. IIRC, we went there to see the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies. This was, jeez, 1997.
All I did was turn left off Robinson onto Interstate drive going Southbound. I was coming around the curve intending to take the first right turn into the theater's parking lot. This asshole cop was there, apparently just waiting to have a rage-gasm.
I know sometimes when businesses are new and are expected to draw a lot of traffic, they'll restrict how people can get to a place to manage queuing. I don't know why a movie theater would warrant that, but that's the only thing I could think of, if they had closed that portion of road and wanted everyone to loop around Northwest Boulevard.
That, or the universe really is a simulation and the cop with a NPC with a "begin rage-gasm" button that "God" could click for the lulz.
This idiot started waving me through with his flashlight and then stopped me as I inched forward, yelling like hell as if I did something wrong. I can't recall there being another vehicle coming up from the opposing lane into the weird jug-handle that was there. All I can figure it was night time in early November and maybe not the best of weather conditions. So he needed to take it out on some civilians.
Time to lock this one up, because we're going way off-topic now.
This has been way off topic for pages by now. Although what else is there to say about Jimmy Carter's death?
"Some of you were there, some of you weren't born, and some of you are now dead!"
Quote from: Henry on January 27, 2025, 10:41:31 PMTime to lock this one up, because we're going way off-topic now.
You don't want to read about cops getting rage-gasms?
In a couple of days the flags will all be back at full staff. I guess that we can finally get over Thomas Jefferson and John Adams dying on the same day - exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed! R.I.P.
Mike
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 12:35:53 PMQuote from: Henry on January 27, 2025, 10:41:31 PMTime to lock this one up, because we're going way off-topic now.
You don't want to read about cops getting rage-gasms?
I never said that, but this is obviously not the right thread for it. We've already paid our last respects to the man, and he's buried next to his wife, so let's move on.