kareem abdul-jabbars opinion piece on ferguson

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

There is a correlation of the breakdown of the black family unit and the increase in black crime and arrests. There is also a correlation between the blacks shift to the democratic party and said family breakdown and also the increase in black crime and arrests. Shall we throw dependence on government in there too?

[birdog1960]

There is a correlation of the breakdown of the black family unit and the increase in black crime and arrests. There is also a correlation between the blacks shift to the democratic party and said family breakdown and also the increase in black crime and arrests. Shall we throw dependence on government in there too?

you wanna show me the numbers? i highly doubt anything you can find will be as compelling as the drug data.

 

So you jump to a conclusion based on what you inferred, but it's my language that's at fault? OK.

 

The reason there's a huge difference between usage statistics and arrests for possession is that one usually occurs in a private setting with little danger to others, while the other usually occurs in a situation where there's a contributing factor to the arrest.

 

See the difference?

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?

Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960

[GG]

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.

 

Ok, take the logical progression and see how those cases would matter in a possible arrest, which is the point of your statistics.

 

How did you ever get out of school?

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

If I go to the trouble to look it up and throw some numbers out there will you quit being so obtuse?

[birdog1960]

Ok, take the logical progression and see how those cases would matter in a possible arrest, which is the point of your statistics.

 

How did you ever get out of school?

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.

Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960

[GG]

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 aren't even clever to set up a good comeback.

 

The statistics hint that the upper socioeconomic strata who don't get arrested for drug use are generally more careful to use their drugs in locations that don't arouse police activity.

[3rdnlng]

Birdog:

 

Although you haven't agreed to my terms here's part of my assertion in an old article:

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime

The central proposition in official Washington's thinking about crime is that poverty is the primary cause of crime. In its simplest form, this contention is absurd; if it were true, there would have been more crime in the past, when more people were poorer. And in poorer nations, the crime rates would be higher than in the United States. More significantly, history defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime (and improving conditions reduce it). Instead, America's crime rate gradually rose during the long period of real economic growth: 1905 to 1933. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose steadily. Most recently, during the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase.

What is true of the general population is also true of black Americans. For example, between 1950 and 1974 black income in Philadelphia almost doubled, and homicides more than doubled. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose prescriptions for social reform mirror conventional liberal ideology, admits that black-on-black homicide is not an issue of poverty. The crime rate in other communities also shows no link between low incomes and crime. The Chinese in San Francisco in the mid- 1960s, for instance, had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison.

Race and crime

There is a widespread belief that race is a major explanatory cause of crime. This belief is anchored in the large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure and all that it implies in commitment and love between adults. The incidence of broken families is much higher in the black community. Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, in a major 1988 study of 11,000 individuals, found that "the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary." The same study makes clear that the widespread popular assumption that there is an association between race and crime is false. Illegitimacy is the key factor. It is the absence of marriage, and the failure to form and maintain intact families, that explains the incidence of high crime in a neighborhood among whites as well as blacks. This contradicts conventional wisdom.

[Azalin]

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.

 

it sounds to me like you're confusing being taken into custody with access to a good attorney. it isn't that rich kids or white kids don't get arrested, but it's much more a question of their being able to get off with a lighter sentence due to better representation. if this is the case, then I think most people here would agree with you, since we've all seen incidents in recent memory dealing with priviledged people getting an outrageously light sentence for a serious crime (the 'affluenza' case being one example) based on their wealth and/or connections. I don't see race as much of a determining factor in cases like this in this day and age.

[birdog1960]

You aren't even clever to set up a good comeback.

 

The statistics hint that the upper socioeconomic strata who don't get arrested for drug use are generally more careful to use their drugs in locations that don't arouse police activity.

they don't arouse police activity because police aren't interested. even if they're arrested, they are much less likely to be imprisoned. it's not about being clever. it's about being immunized by status and connections. are you seriously proposing that there aren't places known to law enforcement that if raided wouldn't result in multiple arrests that are just left alone because of who it is that populates them?

 

Birdog:

 

Although you haven't agreed to my terms here's part of my assertion in an old article:

 

http://www.heritage....f-violent-crime

 

The central proposition in official Washington's thinking about crime is that poverty is the primary cause of crime. In its simplest form, this contention is absurd; if it were true, there would have been more crime in the past, when more people were poorer. And in poorer nations, the crime rates would be higher than in the United States. More significantly, history defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime (and improving conditions reduce it). Instead, America's crime rate gradually rose during the long period of real economic growth: 1905 to 1933. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose steadily. Most recently, during the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase.

What is true of the general population is also true of black Americans. For example, between 1950 and 1974 black income in Philadelphia almost doubled, and homicides more than doubled. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose prescriptions for social reform mirror conventional liberal ideology, admits that black-on-black homicide is not an issue of poverty. The crime rate in other communities also shows no link between low incomes and crime. The Chinese in San Francisco in the mid- 1960s, for instance, had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison.

Race and crime

There is a widespread belief that race is a major explanatory cause of crime. This belief is anchored in the large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure and all that it implies in commitment and love between adults. The incidence of broken families is much higher in the black community. Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, in a major 1988 study of 11,000 individuals, found that "the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary." The same study makes clear that the widespread popular assumption that there is an association between race and crime is false. Illegitimacy is the key factor. It is the absence of marriage, and the failure to form and maintain intact families, that explains the incidence of high crime in a neighborhood among whites as well as blacks. This contradicts conventional wisdom.

Birdog:

 

Although you haven't agreed to my terms here's part of my assertion in an old article:

 

http://www.heritage....f-violent-crime

 

The central proposition in official Washington's thinking about crime is that poverty is the primary cause of crime. In its simplest form, this contention is absurd; if it were true, there would have been more crime in the past, when more people were poorer. And in poorer nations, the crime rates would be higher than in the United States. More significantly, history defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime (and improving conditions reduce it). Instead, America's crime rate gradually rose during the long period of real economic growth: 1905 to 1933. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose steadily. Most recently, during the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase.

What is true of the general population is also true of black Americans. For example, between 1950 and 1974 black income in Philadelphia almost doubled, and homicides more than doubled. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose prescriptions for social reform mirror conventional liberal ideology, admits that black-on-black homicide is not an issue of poverty. The crime rate in other communities also shows no link between low incomes and crime. The Chinese in San Francisco in the mid- 1960s, for instance, had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison.

Race and crime

There is a widespread belief that race is a major explanatory cause of crime. This belief is anchored in the large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure and all that it implies in commitment and love between adults. The incidence of broken families is much higher in the black community. Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, in a major 1988 study of 11,000 individuals, found that "the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary." The same study makes clear that the widespread popular assumption that there is an association between race and crime is false. Illegitimacy is the key factor. It is the absence of marriage, and the failure to form and maintain intact families, that explains the incidence of high crime in a neighborhood among whites as well as blacks. This contradicts conventional wisdom.

not seeing many numbers there. and the single one, 11,000, is unimpressive. where are the relative risk numbers? we are left to take the authors word that this is significant. the power of a study is highly influenced by the number studied. the crime statistics are in the 6 figures. those that you cited are more than a factor of 10 less powerful. Edited August 18, 2014 by birdog1960

[GG]

they don't arouse police activity because police aren't interested. even if they're arrested, they are much less likely to be imprisoned. it's not about being clever. it's about being immunized by status and connections. are you seriously proposing that there aren't places known to law enforcement that if raided wouldn't result in multiple arrests that are just left alone because of who it is that populates them?

 

Even if cops raided all those places that you're thinking of, it wouldn't change the statistics much. The statistics will change when you change the school drop out rates in inner cities. Why don't you think about passing more laws that address that.

 

But since you also brought up fraternities, why don't you show the arrest statistics between Sigma Chi members and Kappa Alpha Psi members. My guess is that they would be pretty equivalent and not at all representative of the national arrest statistics. I wonder why?

[birdog1960]

i guess i was wrong. this is pretty clever: http://www.brobible.com/college/article/brobible-fraternity-risk-management-guide/

[GG]

i guess i was wrong. this is pretty clever: http://www.brobible....nagement-guide/

 

And they're lacrosse players than you get a double woody?

[Doc]

How do we make everyone equal then?

[keepthefaith]

Poor people are always taken advantage of. I lean more to the right, somewhat Libertarian/Republican, but the price gauging is just plain wrong.

 

Young people are poor people get way higher interest rates on things. I understand there is more risk, but the concept of credit scoring kills poor people.

 

Gas prices are crazy higher, I mean 40 cents higher in poor neighborhoods. I can drive 6 miles from my house and be in a really poor and run down area, I doubt one white person lives there, and they charge 40 cents more per a gallon of gas.

 

 

It simply costs more for lenders to lend money to people who present higher risk or are borrowing smaller amounts. As for gas, some of that difference is the difference in taxation on a gallon of gas from one county or city/town to the next. None of this is to prey on the poor. It's just math.

[birdog1960]

How do we make everyone equal then?

so you're conceding inequality under the law?

[Doc]

so you're conceding inequality under the law?

No. Just asking how we make everyone equal.

[birdog1960]

No. Just asking how we make everyone equal.

well for the answer to be meaningful, it must first be agreed that everyone is not.

[keepthefaith]

really? are you that pathetic or was this supposed to be funny? http://www.cnn.com/2...amps/index.html. some of you dolts really don't have a clue do you?

 

Hard to believe this had support from Dems in the House, Senate and the White house. Obviously there's more to this bill than the author states in his piece.

 

well for the answer to be meaningful, it must first be agreed that everyone is not.

 

We agree on that so do you think there should be a birthright guarantee to make equal people who are not?

[3rdnlng]

well for the answer to be meaningful, it must first be agreed that everyone is not.

 

Everyone is not equal. That's life. Here's another article for you. The sources are off to the right if you click on the link:

 

http://www.discovert...ory.asp?id=1261

 

It bears mention that the astronomical illegitimacy rate among African Americans is a relatively recent phenomenon. As late as 1950, black women nationwide were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9 percent of black families with children were headed by a single parent. In the 1950s, black children had a 52 percent chance of living with both their biological parents until age seventeen; by the 1980s those odds had dwindled to a mere 6 percent. In 1959, only 2 percent of black children were reared in households in which the mother never married; today that figure approaches 60 percent.

 

The destruction of this stable black family was set in motion by the policies and teachings of the left, which for decades have encouraged blacks to view themselves as outcasts from a hostile American society; to identify themselves as perpetual victims who are entitled to compensatory privileges designed to “level the playing field” in a land where discrimination would otherwise run rampant; and to reject “white” norms and traditions as part and parcel of the “racist” culture that allegedly despises blacks. It is not inconceivable that one of those traditions which many blacks have chosen to abjure is the institution of marriage. In their landmark bookAmerica in Black and White, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom make this profoundly important observation:

“In the past three decades the proportion of intact married-couple families has declined precipitously even though the fraction of black women aged fifteen to forty-four who were divorced, separated, or widowed also went down.… It is thus not divorce but the failure to marry that has led to such a momentous change in black family patterns. The marriage rate for African Americans has plummeted in the past third of a century. In 1960 …

lack women were only a shade less likely to marry than white women.... Today a clear majority of African American women aged fifteen to forty-five have never been married, as compared with just a third of their white counterparts…. Many fewer black women are marrying, and yet they continue to have children—which was not the case in an earlier era.”

Edited August 18, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Everyone is not equal. That's life.

 

In this country, we are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. It's the heart of what makes us free.

 

But instead of realizing this, you are justifying inequality in the eyes of the law because so far it hasn't affected you directly. But it will, sooner or later. That's why it's an issue to be seriously debated and considered rather than pawned off as politics.

 

It's shocking to me how short sighted some people are being.