birdog1960

so you mean that law enforcement is less likely to enforce the same laws and the same violations in different situations on the basis of race and socioeconomic status? you're finally getting it. as an aside, have you ever been in a frat house. if not let me tell you, nothing nefarious ever happens there.

you wanna show me the numbers? i highly doubt anything you can find will be as compelling as the drug data. no i don't. i see that those that use a drug always, at some time possess it. they possess it when it's metabolites course their vessels. whether that possession occurs in a boardroom, wall street bar, frat house, mens room, back alley or crack house matters little. and what exactly was the relevance of the drug dealing comment?

tell me, do people get arrested for using? does a positive drug screen land someone(excluding those on probation) in jail in any state? i was being generous in interpretation of your statement re using versus dealing. i assumed you understood that point and just inadvertantly replaced possession with usage. silly me. never anticipated such a weasel defense. and we're still left to wonder what your comment about dealing had to do with any of this. no, a virtuous society results in less poverty. poverty is in no way virtuous.

using implies possession, no? this is desperation on your part. argue straight up you pu$$

what/s your point, again? doesn't require causality to document inequality. the numbers show inequality, plain and simple.

yes, the data points to a very strong correlation between a higher likelihood of being arrested for drug possession if one is black than if one is white. it absolutely does not speak to causation. the question was inequality under the law. the correlation supports that premise. so what was the point ypou made about most blacks being arrested for dealing and not possession about? care to defend that? and how does it relate to the question of inequality under the law?

perhaps you missed the part of the argument that starts "regardless of the causes, it points to inequality". i've given several further solid examples that make that point. hell, the food stamps one was teed up so high that 5 year old could've hit a 9 degree driver off it. your anger is showing. i'm wondering if that's at "white liberals", "black apologists" or something else that you're so resentful of.

no. i hoped for reasoned rebuttals from those that disagree. it was a very small hope.

really? are you that pathetic or was this supposed to be funny? http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/opinion/stoehr-farm-bill-food-stamps/index.html. some of you dolts really don't have a clue do you?

i do my own homework. one would expect someone that works in finance would have some facility with numbers. how do those numbers advance your argument? 82.8% of arrests were for possession. if everyone of the 16.7% of the drug arrests for dealing was exclusively on blacks, that still doesn't come close to explaining the discrepancy in overall arrests. Ya know what's most disturbing here? that these numbers exists for any reason and that anyone doesn't conclude that there is something fundamentally and intrinsically wrong with a system that results in virtual certain failure for a large percentage of a particular segment of the population. not to acknowledge a problem can only be due to ignorance, willful or not.

that's what i thought.

really? show me the data. i showed you raw numbers from the naacp. show me yours.

most prisoners are in for drugs. read the numbers. there are more whites using drugs than blacks. did it occur to you that law enforcement may be more aggressive in arresting and prosecuting black drug users than whites.

i heard a number the other day that astounded me. every black kid born tomorrow has a 1/3 chance of future incarceration. ya think the number for white babies approaches half that? regardless of the causes, it points to inequality. and i think jabaar makes a valid point. what are the odds of a poor baby's incarceration versus those of a rich one? additionally, the power of lobbying and buying influence that is so pervasive in american gov't is exclusively in the realm of the wealthy with the poor powerless to fight against it. citzens united made matters much worse. usury laws are a great example. who do the current ones benefit? who would benefit from strengthening them? minimum wage - same thing. voter registration laws. redistricting. the list goes on... http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

lew alcindor grew up in nyc in relatively modest circumstances from what i can garner. his perspective may well be consistent with the "white liberal" view (as if there is one and only one for all white liberals) but he is most assuredly not white.

i'd have been even more surprised if larry bird wrote the article. professional athletes aren't usual renowned for their writing skills.but i also felt that part of the essay was perplexing.

enlighten me in this case what do you see as the sx? rioting? and the diagnosis? i'm guessing you don't see it as poverty and class inequality under the law. what then is the dx professor?

c'mon i know that more than a few here at least glance at drudge. and this http://time.com/3132...-class-warfare/ tops his recent page. amazingly, there's no where on the link for hordes of right wing extremists to post incendiary comments as nearly every other drudge link does. but who knew that kareem had spent so much time at ucla in class? can't deny the quality of the writing. and surprisingly, i agree almost wholeheartedly with his argument. i'm guessing others here don't. comments?

still falls on brandon/whaley. why was nix even involved by then? really, why was he ever involved? you can bet though that if manuel steps up, they'll take credit. i still don't think it will be enough to keep their jobs, especially brandon.

why would any new owner want to continue the embarrassing legacy of his predecessor? most if not all will be gone and rightfully so. does anyone here believe any one of them is the best at his job in the nfl? the top 10? the top 20? hopefully new ownership will not settle for adequate.

malcolm gladwell in "david and goliath" proposes an intriguing look at the "big fish in a small pond" idea in regards to universities: http://blog.petersons.com/2013/11/14/malcolm-gladwells-david-and-goliath-and-your-college-decision/. i think it's very applicable to undergrad and med school. probably not so much for residency since you don't pay but are rather paid (about $10/hour) and that is where you truly learn your trade.

med school: med university of Ohio (as in state resident). residency: u of Michigan

he'll get off. too many favors owed. but i'd rather see him in the prez election. might knock out someone else with a prayer of a chance of beating the dem nominee.

wow. didn't know that. have they lost accreditation in any of those programs? the other point i would make is that texas has historically had one of the lowest applicant to acceptance ratios in the country. much less than NYS. i'll bet that's still the case. if you're on the bubble (candidate wise), austin or any of the other ut schools would be better bets. if you're a stellar applicant and can pick your spot, i'd recommend choosing with cost as a high priority. leaving with less debt will look very good in 4 years and may open options for lower paying specialties that you might not be able to choose with huge loans to repay. you mostly get trained to be a doctor in residency and fellowship, not med school. and it's easier to be near the top of your class at a middling school than at a prestige school.

depends on how you define organized crime. many of these shysters have been fined millions for illegal fees and interest rates. it's stealing. they're criminals. it's organized. the big difference is that if their customers stole a fraction of what they have, they'd be in jail.