Mickey

In terms of their records, I think Martz and Sherman should be the front runners. They have HC experience and have been to the playoffs numerous times. There are plenty of other issues to examine in selecting a HC but for me, those two start off with an edge. The most intriguing candidate for me is April. Our special teams have been just incredible. I am on the edge of my seat every time we are getting ready to return a kick off. I wish I knew why our special teams were so special. Are we just lucky enough to have some talent out there like McGee and Stamer? Is it because April is willing to put starters like Fletcher on the return units? Is April pulling off some unseen brilliance with the x's and o's? Is our unpredictability (trying reverses, on-side kicks, fake punts, etc) giving our opponents too much to worry about to be effective? Is April just inspiring these guys to treat every kick like it was the most important play in the game? Was it because Mularkey was willing to devote the extra time and players needed to make our special teams unit a top performer? Anybody have a theory as to why we have been so good on ST's? If I knew why that was, I would be able to have a more informed opinion on whether April should be given serious consideration as our HC. Maybe April is just a smart guy who knows football and not just some sort of highly skilled specialist who would flop if ever asked to do more. I wonder if we don't have a real gem hidden in plain sight.

I think you hit it on the head where TD is concerned. He never could resist taking a shot at a "reach". I don't know if he was trying to show that he was smarter than the average GM or liked the headlines that come with those kinds of moves. The motivation is a mystery but he was unable to resist the attraction of those kinds of moves. Moth to a flame. That having been said, I don't know if we ever had a GM who worked harder than he did to try and make us a winner. It was time for him to go but I wish him the best and am grateful for the effort despite the results.

They also count one "incident" that has multiple victims as just one incident. For those numbers you would have to look at "offenses" as opposed to "incidents" which they do track but if I used just those numbers, I would have been accused of slanting the numbers so I stuck with just "incidents" where ever that data was available. I also didn't include, in the stats on who was committing the crimes, whites or blacks, in incidents where the offenders were not known or their race was unkown. Some of these crimes were never solved so you don't know any details about the offender. Plenty of crimes in general are solved and there was therefore not enough information to include it among "racially motivated" crimes. There are problems with the numbers both ways so you can pick and choose among them to try an pitch them as being too high or too low. Imperfect though they may be, they are all I could find for now.

Tom, the link I provided, if you follow it to each year's report has a lot of that information. There may indeed be devils in those details but there just is no good way to track racism, either the criminal kind or the most common kind which I believe would be non-criminal. Despite its warts, its one of the few resources I could find with numbers, not anecdotes.

We have laws against murder but they don't stop all murders. Yet we do what we can. Laws won't elimenate racism any more than laws against theft or muder have magically ended all murders and all thefts but they are a start. At the very least, they are a statement by society as to what is worthy of opprobrium. Funny how you offer a critique of liberal talking points by repeating one of the most trite, brainless, knee jerk, sloganeering-in-place-of-thought, conservative talking points around. I suppose next your going to chant "tax and spend".

They don't keep stats on racism, not sure how they would, but they do keep these stats on racially motivated crime which at least offer us some information on the problem. We both agree that there is "a problem" we apparently just disagree on its scope. I think it is a problem worth considering. I think it is a problem that should be able to be raised without a knee jerk reaction from some quarters that all claims of racism are false or exagerrated. An interesting thing about racism, it can regenerate itself. It is not something where once it is defeated it is defeated for all time.

Perhaps you could supply us with a list of your favorite white power web sites?

Ummm....the point wasn't that racist crime is signigicant in terms of overall crime. Thanks for making the point anyway because the obvious needs pointing out. The issue is racism, not just the worst form of it, ie, racially motivated crime. Unfortunately, they don't keep stats on non-criminal racism. Besides, I'm not sure what your point would be even if you assumed that the incidence of criminal racism occurred at the same frequency as all other racism. Is it that blacks are persecuted, they just aren't persecuted enough for you to care? How many racially motivated assaults have to happen for you to consider it to be a problem that can be discussed hereabouts without the immediate reaction that all claims of racism are false or overblown?

The quality of your car may not be the sole measure of "oppression". If the guy owns a great car but can't enjoy it becasue every time he gets behind the wheel he gets pulled over by the police for no good reason, isn't he "oppressed" compared to a white guy with the same care who can drive it all he wants without a problem? Certainly, it is not "oppression" on a par with what many others have to endure in different places and in different circumstances.

I never thought that whether or not racism is a problem in America, or even a significant one, would be a seriously disputed notion. Apparently there is which is why so many claims of racism on this board are treated as if they were made up, exagerrated, overblown, etc. Measuring racism is not an easy thing to do. Racists don't exactly check in with regularly available reports. There are however some statistics available that shed some light on the question. Fortunately, the FBI collects data on hate crimes, including where the police themselves concluded that the crime was motivated by racial hatred. Other stats on other motivations, such as ethnicity, religion and sexuality, are also tracked but here, I will stick to race. Please understand that I am not of a mind to think that murdering someone because you are a sadistic whack is not as bad as murdering someone because you are a racist sadistic whack. That is not the point here. Save the objections to hate crime legislation for another day, this is just about the numbers and what they say about racism in the US. Note that not all jurisdictions or law enforcement agencies report their data and among those that do, not all of them are able to get their numbers in every quarter. For example, in 2000, agencies reported covering around 84% of the country and among those, 10% were unable to report all of their numbers but 90% did. That means that these numbers are less than they would be if all agencies reported all of the time. Further, with 84% of the country covered and 90% reporting fully, the numbers are pretty comprehensive. Also note that these numbers include only crimes agains persons, not property. Thus, if a racist vandalizes a person's home by spraypainting a swastika on the door, I am not including it just to focus on the most serious offenses, those committed against persons such as rape, murder and assualt. Lastly, note that I am giving the numbers just for "single bias" crimes. Sometimes a given crime against a person can be motivated by more than one factor tracked in hate crime stats. For example, a crook who assaults a gay black man for being gay and being black would find his crime reported in the "multiple bias" section. Since we are talking about the significance of racism, I thought it would avoid some criticisms by sticking to crimes that were motivated by race and not some other factor tracked such as religion or sexual orientation. The result though is that I am leaving out a lot of crimes where racism was a significant factor. 2000: There were 4,337 racially motivated crimes and 2,884, or 66% of them were against blacks. Anti-white crimes accounted for 20% of the total. White offenders committed 84% of the anti-black crimes while blacks were responsible for 59% of the anti-white crimes. Racially motivated crimes that year included 10 murders, 4 rapes and 1,685 assaults among others. 2001: There were a total of 5,290 racially motivated criminal incidents and of those, 2,899 were against blacks, or 54%, and of those, 71% were committed by whites. Anti-white crimes, 891 of them or 17% of all racially motivated criminal incidents were committed by blacks 58% of the time. There were 4 racially motivated murders, 2 rapes and 1,779 assaults. 2002: There were 3,642 racially motivated crimes, again, these are single bias crimes with the lone bias being race. Of those, 2,486 were anti-black crimes, or 68% of the total. 719 anti-white crimes were committed which is 29% of the total. 68% of the anti-black crimes were committed by whites and 69% of the anti-white crimes were committed by blacks. The racially motivated crimes include 4 murders, 2 rapes and 1,608 assaults. 2003: There were 3,844 criminal incidents motivated by race. 2,548 (66%) were anti-black incidents and 830 (21.5%) were anti-white. 64.4% of the anti-black crimes were committed by whites while 52% of the anti-white crimes were committed by blacks. The crimes include 5 murders, 1 rape and 1,530 assaults. 2004: There were 4,042 racially motivated criminal incidents. 2,731 (68%) were against blacks and 829 (21%) against whites. 66% of the anti-black crimes were committed by whites and 60% of the anti-white crimes were committed by blacks. The crimes committed include 3 murders, 4 rapes and 1,642 assaults. All told, there were 21,155 criminal incidents motivated by racism from 2000-2004. 13,548 of those were perpetrated against blacks which is 64% of all racially motivated criminal incidents. Blacks make up only about 12.9% of the population at large according to the 2005 CIA World Fact Book (CIA Factbook) and yet are the victims of 64% of racially motivated crimes in the US. In that time span, there were 26 racially motivated murders, 13 rapes and 8,244 assaults. Obviously, the racism present in this country includes far more than just the racially motivated crimes enumerated here and these numbers do not address the racism that may be out there in so many other ways besides racially motivated crime. These can all be found at the FBI's web site at FBI

Certainly there is some irony there but at the same time, just because he is driving a jaguar doesn't mean he has forfeited any right to be upset that he is getting pulled over repeatedly for no reason. Apart from anecdotes such as this, the stats show that crimes motivated by race, including black against white as well as white against black are not insignificant. These are stats where the racism was bad enough that it was actually criminal. I don't think it is a stretch to conclude that most racsim, as bad as it is, doesn't rise to the level of criminality and so does not show up in those stats. I am pulling the numbers together to see what they say but I haven't had the time finish it yet. Later.

Okay, keep running away from your own assertions, we'll narrow it down some more since now you are down to a defense that there is a real difference between asserting no racism and there being no significant racism, ie "overblown". Ignoring for a minute that you said: "Fact is: blacks are not persecuted in America." And that you also said: "As a whole, however, this country doesn't hold any group down." And we will also forget that you said: "I don't think racists are running around subverting opportunities for non-whites." We will forget all of that for now and concentrate on the position you seem at last willing to stick by, that racism is not significant, that it is "overblown". Going back to the quote from you: "I think a lot of black people are brought up to think that they are victims of racism and that they won't be allowed to succeed in America and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their motivation to stay in school and go to college has to suffer. You tell someone every day of their life that they're worthless and they'll start to believe it. You tell someone every day of their life that everyone else hates them because of their skin and eventually they'll believe that too." I'll ask the same questions only changing "no racism" to "no significant racism" or "overblown racism". Who is bringing up these black people to erroneously beleive that racism is a significant problem, that it isn't overblown? Who is lying to them about the significance of racism? Why aren't they able to see what you see, that racism is not significant, that it is overblown? Why are they so blind and why are you able to see this so much more clearly than they despite their actually being black and experiencing the "insignificance" of racsim first hand? Now, lets reconsider some of things you said that we put aside. Why can't these blacks see for themselves what you so clearly see, that they are not persecuted, they are not being held down and that there are no racists subverting them?

No, you weren't excusing it, you were just attacking me for calling it into question. Big difference. I read the source you cited, how old was it? How relevant was it? What did it have to do with Amanpour? To save you any embarassment, I didn't bother bringing it up. Oh well, at least I got to enjoy another round of your infantile, 12-year-old-in-a-locker room, insults. Always good to be reassured of what level you are operating on.

The didn't happen. You must have imagined the whole thing because racism is dead. It no longer exists in America. Apparently the wonder of e-mail and cable TV somehow killed it. Who knew?

What exactly are you arguing here? I don't get it. You take me to task for leaving out additional victims of white racism and then mock the concern for white racism with this "kill all the honkies" thing. I suspect that the whole point he was making that white on black is not the only type of racism was meant to include black on white racism as a problem. What would you say has been a bigger problem in the US historically, racist whites or racists blacks?

You said: "I think a lot of black people are brought up to think that they are victims of racism and that they won't be allowed to succeed in America and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their motivation to stay in school and go to college has to suffer. You tell someone every day of their life that they're worthless and they'll start to believe it. You tell someone every day of their life that everyone else hates them because of their skin and eventually they'll believe that too." Your point seems to be that there is no racism, the problem is that someone is telling blacks that there are racists when there aren't and they are mistakenly believing that. Since you don't think there is racism, then who ever is bringing them "up to think they are victims of racism" is lying or terribly mistaken according to your theory that there is no racism. You know, the theory based on what you see on TV. So...who is telling them or bringing them up to believe that there are racists when, in your view, there are none? Why would it make a difference if the reality is that there is no racism, won't blacks be able to see that despite all these lies they are being fed by whoever is bringing them up? If there is no racism, why can't blacks see that as clearly as you do? Why do they believe it resulting in losing "their motivation to stay in school and go to college"? Tell me why they aren't able to see what you see? Really, are you seriously offering the presence of black entertainers on your TV dial as proof that there is no racism? That was a joke right? Ever heard of minstrel shows? Even in the worst days of Jim Crow blacks were accepted as entertainers. Plenty of strides against racism have been made and in truth, many of the toughest battles have already been fought and won. However, the idea that there is no racism, coming from a 24 year old boy who thinks the world began when he was born and that his limited observations of people on TV are sufficient to declare an end to the most resilient and ancient of evils is laughable. Stop watching TV and google "modern racism" and do some reading. By the way, you need to sharpen your reading skills anyway. Even though I put it in bold, you still missed that the lynching I referred to was only the last MASS lynching. The last lynching was that of James Byrd in Texas in 1998. Guess his killers hadn't heard the news from your TV that racism was dead.

You probably don't mean it that way but is sounds like you are saying that blacks themselves are not able to judge whether they are really victimized by racism or not, but that you can. I don't think blacks are any more vulnerable to being brain washed into thinking something is true that is not true. I think they are just as able to judge when they have been vicitmized by racism as anyone else. I also think that by and large they actually far better judges of how much racism there is against blacks out there than a couple of white guys arguing on a message board. Especially one who is relying on what they see on TV as proof that racism is ancient history. The last mass lynching, not the last lynching mind you, the last mass lynching was in 1946 in Georgia. Four young blacks, two girls and two boys, were shot to death by an angry white mob. As of 2003, no one was indicted, no one charged, no one was convicted, no one was punished. That was only 58 years ago. Both of my parents were old enough to read about in the papers when it happened and they are both around today. Do you think the racists in that mob all just vanished one day? Has anyone in that mob ever come forward to finger the guilty parties? No, not in the '60's, the '70's, the '80's, etc. Millions of Americans who were around then, in those ancient days of yore when racism still roamed the earth, are still around now. Some to remember it, some to condemn it, some to...... How old are you?

I didn't know what you meant, so I asked. It sounded awful bad so I thought I'd let you clear that up. Thus, in a post where I asked for a clarification first before being critical, you B word about me jumping to conclusions. Can't win with you. You are misquoting what Oliver said. The point he made, in a debate about whether or not blacks were persecuted in this country, was that their living below the poverty level in such disproportionate numbers was evidence of that persecution. He wasn't making the point that black people are poor because they are black. There was no need for you to point out that "poverty is not an issue of race". He never said it was. He did say that racism, ie, persecution of blacks, results in their being diproportionately poor. By saying that "poverty is not an issue of race", do you mean to say that racism plays no role in poverty? I am just asking for clarification. In any event, it was in response to tha point by Oliver that you piped up with the comment about being "lazy". It might be a shock to you but historically, one of the most insidious and racist stereotypes about blacks has been that they are lazy. As you say, there are plenty of reasons why a person might be poor but you didn't bring up all those others such as disability, factory closing or whatever. No, the one you reached for was "lazy" and, in the middle of a debate about racism no less. Oliver says blacks are disproportionately poor and you say the poor (the people Oliver just said are disproporionately black) are lazy. That is awful close to saying that blacks, the poor ones anyway, are lazy. Again, I didn't think that is what you meant, so I asked.

I have no idea what the percentage is. I appreciate your personal observations but they are just that. I too have had made personal observations to the contrary. I have known a number of racists in my life but almost none who thought they were. I had a boss once who very seriously believed that black people were inferior and he could prove it, he once said, because "all the good inventions were invented by white people." He didn't think he was a racist at all. As for common sense, doesn't it also seem to be common sense that racism need not be by committee or conspiracy to be significant? The guy doing the hiring, the guy deciding on whether or not to issue a loan, etc., that is all it takes, no e-mails necessary. The days of lynchings are not ancient history. Racists in America didn't all go to bed one night and awake the next completely reborn. That kind of thinking is not going to just vanish. White Power groups are on the fringes but their numbers are surprisingly large. This is really where right and left disagree on race. One side sees racism as over and done with, the other doesn't. Blacks themselves, who if their is significant racism out there experience it first hand, clearly see it as a major problem.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you are saying "all poor people are lazy..." since this is in response to a comment about blacks living under the poverty level or whatever it is he said. Is that what you meant to say?

What is that assessment, that there are no racists subverting opportunities for non-whites, based on? Are you speaking from your personal experience or from some objective study? Both?

I stand corrected, White on __________ racism has been the most troubling, historically, in this country, with the blank representing all the groups, races, etc. that whites have discriminated against, enslaved, killed, lynched, wrongfully imprisoned, etc. Thanks for pointing that out.

That is why I asked because certainly, I see little difference between "persecution" and the effects of racism. Racism isn't limited to white on black but historically, that has been the type of racism most troubling in this country. There was that whole slavery thing, Jim Crow, etc. Racism isn't limited to individuals either such as country clubs that will not allow black members or schools like Bob Jones University. Whether a person is held down "systematically", whatever that means, or in some other way doesn't change the fact that they are just as held down. If your distinction is one being made between what a government does and what people do, fine. Again however, the result is the same though the solution would be different.

Where was I when racism was defeated in the United States? How did I miss that party? Was their a declaration or something, sort of a VOR DAY, "Victory over Racism"? Maybe you mean something besides "racism" when you speak of their being "no persecution"?

Try a smiley face next time rather than the ADesque .