CDZ Is it just me?

[320 Years of History]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Being in Chicago and wandering into the wrong neighborhood will get you shot. Most people, who are lucky enough not to live in these neighborhoods, are safe. They know not to go there. Cops are paid to go there, and to engage with the worst, most dangerous products of our indifference and stupidity. Raise a human being to be a good person, through education and love, and their chances are good. Raise children in poverty and the results go from barely acceptable to monstrous.

This is a solid slice of our gun violence problem. Not cops shooting black people, but the consequence of allowing people to be raised in a manner which creates a depraved indifference to human life. We hire cops and send them into these neighborhoods because we don't want to deal with the problem. It's cheaper and easier to sit on it. To punt. It's not the cop's fault, and it certainly isn't the fault of the monsters we create. Cops want to go home, every day. That's job one. Job two is maintaining order. Not peace, just order. As Jack Nicholson said, we want them on that wall, we need them on that wall. We're not inclined to question the manner in which they achieve that order. Hence, the Tamir Rice verdict.

Notwithstanding the contrast between the words and the "tongue in cheek" tone of my OP, I don't actually believe that being black exists as part of a causal relationship with being shot by a cop, or by most anyone else.

Red:
Yes, well, that is a huge problem from where I sit.

Blue:
I don't spend much time in Chicago; I go for a meeting or event and I leave, for no other reason than having someplace else I have to go to. I was born, raised and live in D.C. Assuming what you say is so, the two cities are quite different culturally...not something I'd have expected.


I live in a very nice part of D.C., but I mentor kids who live in what can only be called slums or "projects." (I didn't meet them there, but upon taking up the task of mentoring them, which too was a serendipitous "calling," I found that to be where they live.) There are a lot of people there who are black, poorly educated, poor, poorly informed, have guns, routinely use mind altering substances, and have guns and/or other weapons. In my neighborhood, none of the residents are poor, most are non-black (as am I), all are well educated, most are well informed, nearly all routinely use mind altering substances, and many have guns and/or other weapons.

The thing is I don't feel the least bit concerned going to their neighborhood (yes, my "country club" friends and acquaintances would likely be terrified), but I have some reservation about inviting them to mine. There is a pretty heavy law enforcement presence in my part of town. I know the kids and their parents are safe at my home, but several of them have been harassed by some the Secret Service when walking from my home to the Metro station or bus stop. Nothing physically brutal, but rather being given "the third degree" when all they were doing was walking down the street. "Why are you here?" "Where are you going?" "Where are you coming from?" That sort of thing. I know this is what happened because the cops came to my home to verify they were told.

In contrast, that has not happened to me anywhere I've gone in my whole life. The closest thing to it took place some 35 years ago when, to make sure she got home safely, I accompanied a coworker home after a holiday party and thus found myself in a particularly rough neighborhood that was also entirely populated by black folks, because that's where she lived. As I walked to a busier street than hers to get a taxi -- I'd called for one and got tired of waiting after an hour and a half -- a cop drove by and asked me if I was lost. He said he could tell I wasn't from the area and thought I might want a ride to subway or police station to file a kidnapping report. The man actually thought I might have escaped captivity!!! No cop ever appeared at my coworker's door to confirm my story.

Now, call me crazy, but I think there's all kinds of wrong happening in both situations.

• There is nothing right about the cops approaching those kids and giving them "the third degree."
• The cops didn't offer any aid to the kids but they were concerned for my safety and offered me assistance, yet I was an adult.
• The kids weren't dressed differently than kids who live in the neighborhood and they were just walking. (I'm know their clothes cost a lot less than the local kids' do, but that's not something obvious to a cop driving by.) The kids may have been horsing around amongst themselves as they walked -- I wasn't there to see it, but I know that's something all kids do -- but then the cops should have addressed that, not why they were there, where they'd been, where they were going, etc.
• That one's not "matching" a place's ethic makeup is cause for law enforcement officers to presume that the reason one is there stems from something having gone wrong, so to speak, is outlandish and uncalled for, to say nothing of morally reprehensible, stereotyping.

The thing is that those kids knew they weren't doing anything wrong. They knew and know they have the right to walk on any open public street. And they know damn well that the reason they were "hassled" is because they are black. I don't want my mentorees to get the wrong viewpoint about cops, but when cops behave as the ones noted above did, how can they not?

When one lives in a world that works as I described and one is on the "short end of the stick" in that world, it's not surprising that one will be angry. That doesn't explain all the violence, but it's part of what explains it. And it's a part that (1) doesn't need to exist, and (2) that can be eliminated. Hiring and training cops to treat people with dignity and to honor the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a great first step in making that happen.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Our system wasn't designed to have a particular method of voting. We had electors, originally, for practical reasons. When we were able to have a popular vote, we initially extended the franchise to property holding males, because they were the only ones deemed sufficiently well informed to vote responsibly (Race was never a requirement in voting, though it was in immigration. Blacks have voted in every popular election held in America. Not many of them, but a few).

Then we expanded the franchise, several times. We allowed our education system to deteriorate to the point where 2/3 of our electorate cannot name the three branches of government. We put big, splashy ads on TV, with the biggest celebrities in the world exhorting people to go out and vote. Not to be informed and engaged, but just to vote.

Taking away the right to vote isn't possible. All that's left is education. An informed electoral can accomplish anything. An uninformed electorate, to quote Chuck McGill, is like a chimp with a machine gun.

Red:
With regard to the Constitution, that is true. With regard to state laws, it's not. After the Civil War, the nation enacted the 15th Amendment, and in turn, states implemented "Black Codes" to skirt the letter and spirit of the 15th Amendment.

Blue:
The blue text is what I think is the central theme and point of your post, and with it I fully concur. I don't see that that truism is affected by one's race.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. If there were a way to ensure that the only people permitted to vote, regardless of race or gender, had to be any of the following, Rhodes Scholars, Mensa members, Nobel Laureates, holders of master's or higher degrees from nationally accredited colleges/universities, and/or have earned some other credentials that show them to at least be intelligent, I could live with it just fine, regardless of whether I met the criteria. I know there's no way to fairly implement such an idea, and if there were, nobody currently "in power" would let it be implemented anyway because it'd put their power at risk.

I don't mind that folks disagree with me and would vote differently than I because for many issues (I haven't counted, but perhaps even most issues) I know the "right" position is not at all a "cut and dried" thing. Quite often, "trial and error" is the only way to really know what is the "right" answer, that is, what be the right end and/or what be the right way to achieve any given end. I mind that idiots have the ability to vote and by doing so they have the potential to adversely affect the way my life happens.

What matters most to me is good leadership and innovation, not whether someone always themselves has the right answer. My career has taught me that the best leaders often aren't the source of the best ideas, but they nearly without exception, by their good leadership skills, discover the owners of those ideas, champion those people and ideas and ultimately bring them to fruition. That, and their having earned my trust, is what I look for in someone who asks me to vote for them.

It has been suggested that high school diplomas should not be granted if the students are unable to pass a citizenship test. Many states have started to mandate this. Will it be effective? If not, more, much more, needs to be tried.

I don't think we're producing people who are incapable. As you noted, there are many reasons why people do not fulfill their responsibility to be reasonably well informed on both the structure of their government and the main players in the current political mix. I'd just love to see a commercial where some big star asks people, "Do you know who the Vice President is? If not, stay home on election day! Don't vote."

 

[Fishlore]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

 

[jillian]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

seems to be a bit of a problem. I think the concealed carry types mean those rights only apply to white people.

 

[koshergrl]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I take it you're in favor of not putting criminals in prison. Go figure.

 

[2aguy]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Not really....police shootings of black thugs is way down...and notice....they almost never shoot people who cooperate when told to stop doing whatever they are doing.

And the Death by Cop thing is not a common cause of death...the most common cause of death for blacks is by black thugs.....

 

[2aguy]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

seems to be a bit of a problem. I think the concealed carry types mean those rights only apply to white people.

See..there you go posting when you have no idea what you are talking about. The 2nd Amendment supporters want all law abiding people to be armed regardless of race....in fact, the Patron Saint of Concealed carry was a black man tired of being robbed in Chicago. So please...do some freaking research...it will so much more interesting for the reader when you post.

 

[2aguy]

What I find unusual is the nobody from the loner gun nut crooning over his weapons collection to the Black Lives Matter activist organizing campus protest, thinks the system is working, nobody. The two presidential candidates with the greatest voter enthusiasm are both running against a political system including their own respective parties which, they charge, isn't getting the job done. Neither one is thought to have a chance of being elected.

The initial thought I had about your comments was "yes, there's a lot of situational irony there." Immediately after thinking that, however, I realized that the irony is but a smokescreen for the real irony being of the tragic variety.

I think what's going on is that people allow themselves to be told what to think, and not knowing how to think, or bothering to (due to time constraints, information overload, apathy, ignorance, presumed political impotence, etc.) if they do know how, connect themselves with an ideology that, on the face of things, seems generally consistent with how they want to perceive themselves. The outcome of that is that people not only do what they are supposed to do -- trust the elected leaders of the republic to do their best and do so with integrity, that is, let leaders lead -- but also they allow leaders to lead them in the analysis and choice of whom to elect to be the leaders. People allow themselves to be pandered to.

When voters let that happen, the result is that the people and interests that truly "give a damn" about what happens and how things happen, and who are also willing to make sure it does, willing to do what it takes to have their way, are able to successfully obfuscate the reality and recast to the detriment of the pandered to, all the while the manipulators' fortunes rise, and the pandered to are left disappointed yet again and still complaining as before that "the system is broken."

I don't think the system is broken. I think it works exactly as the people controlling it want it to. It works just as they have manipulated it to work. Why do I think this? Well, mainly just from what I've observed re: the correlation between some folks' economic position and their political preferences.

I come across a pretty wide variety of folks, but not especially huge quantities of folks, and with about some 50 or so of them, I occasionally have political discussions with them. Some of those folks could easily be Republicans or Democrats, and I understand that, and I don't have a thing to say about which party they prefer; they'll make out just fine regardless of which party controls things at any given time. They may be a little better off with one or the other party running the show, but in the scheme of things, their life's not going to be materially different either way. That's clear to me and to them. Among the folks in that group, some of them vote based on what they think is best for the nation, that is, best for others in general, and some of them vote based on what works best for them personally.

I also know some folks who are Republican, and for the life of me, I swear that their party choice makes no sense at all. For example, a fair number of the working class poor to middle income folks whom I know say they are Republicans. I don't understand that at all. What the heck have Republicans ever done that actually is good for working class people? The folks who most need things to change are supporting the party least interested in changing the status quo. I mean really; at the most basic level, that's what it means to be conservative.

Some of these folks have said to me they vote Republican because they are pro-life. This as some of them (as individuals or as a couple) can hardly afford to just be pregnant, let alone actually raise a child, or another child. But they have that one idea in their mind -- pro-life -- that is so important to them that they'd sooner vote for a candidate who is going to foster the aims of the very organizations and interests that have no real interest in them except what they can get out of them. It's tantamount to cutting off their nose to spite their face. I don't criticize them for their views; I just know they won't go far in life overall, not because they lack ability, but because they refuse to see the entirety of their own circumstances. The very folks whom I would expect to vote for their own and their kids' self interest, the folks who can reliably expect that nobody is going to do a damn thing on their behalf and thus must vote to elect someone who'll give them a fair shot, don't. I don't get it.

I also come by folks who are doing well; they aren't the X% of the 1% folks I first mentioned, but are getting on quite well in terms of earnings. Yet a good number of these folks are just one catastrophe (or near catastrophe) away from ruin, and they yet are keen on the Democrats. They are folks who have good jobs and whose livelihood depends on the fortunes of corporate America. These are the very folks whom I'd expect to be Republican because fiscal conservatism is exactly what is going to move them from "teetering on the edge" to joining the ranks of the "quite secure."

It's the "strange" political affiliations that I see among "regular folks," and all the groups I've described are comprised almost entirely of "regular folks," that makes me think that it's the polity that's "broken," not the system. To achieve one's own betterment -- economic, social, whatever -- one has to have a clear picture of what one's own situation is and what is the intended outcome of the various individuals whom one empowers as leaders. The system isn't going to tell one what either of those things are. It wasn't designed to do that.

The sytem is designed to allow and give well informed, bright people who have a track record of success the opportunity to vote for the person whom they believe will best represent their interests. When our nation was founded, whom was given the right to vote? White male landowners. And what distinguished that segment of society from all the others? White male landowners were the folks who had the brains and education to critically evaluate matters, in large part because they were the people who were given an education (however they came by it) and who had the resources to exert political influence.

Our nation has evolved so that one need not be white, male or a landowner to exert influence, but the influence one can exert is limited largely to one's vote. If one also isn't well educated, well informed and willing to use those two things to critically assess one's own position and that of aspiring political leaders, one is consigned to letting things happen rather than making things happen. Well, if one does that, one is hardly likely to find the things happening are what one would have wanted. What will happen is what someone else wants, and one will be left griping about broken systems and just complaining in general. Isn't that about where we are in this country? Surprise!

An interesting analysis. Thanks. It does seem that, so far at least, the voter base of our two parties has switched. Trump owns the rural white men with no college while Bernie Sanders has a base of college grads. It is hard to see how left Democrats and right Republicans can switch base voters but it looks like they have. How the big middle majority will respond we will have to wait and see.

Blue collar americans work.....college students have part time jobs and want the tax payers to pay for their college.

 

[2aguy]

What I find unusual is the nobody from the loner gun nut crooning over his weapons collection to the Black Lives Matter activist organizing campus protest, thinks the system is working, nobody. The two presidential candidates with the greatest voter enthusiasm are both running against a political system including their own respective parties which, they charge, isn't getting the job done. Neither one is thought to have a chance of being elected.

The initial thought I had about your comments was "yes, there's a lot of situational irony there." Immediately after thinking that, however, I realized that the irony is but a smokescreen for the real irony being of the tragic variety.

I think what's going on is that people allow themselves to be told what to think, and not knowing how to think, or bothering to (due to time constraints, information overload, apathy, ignorance, presumed political impotence, etc.) if they do know how, connect themselves with an ideology that, on the face of things, seems generally consistent with how they want to perceive themselves. The outcome of that is that people not only do what they are supposed to do -- trust the elected leaders of the republic to do their best and do so with integrity, that is, let leaders lead -- but also they allow leaders to lead them in the analysis and choice of whom to elect to be the leaders. People allow themselves to be pandered to.

When voters let that happen, the result is that the people and interests that truly "give a damn" about what happens and how things happen, and who are also willing to make sure it does, willing to do what it takes to have their way, are able to successfully obfuscate the reality and recast to the detriment of the pandered to, all the while the manipulators' fortunes rise, and the pandered to are left disappointed yet again and still complaining as before that "the system is broken."

I don't think the system is broken. I think it works exactly as the people controlling it want it to. It works just as they have manipulated it to work. Why do I think this? Well, mainly just from what I've observed re: the correlation between some folks' economic position and their political preferences.

I come across a pretty wide variety of folks, but not especially huge quantities of folks, and with about some 50 or so of them, I occasionally have political discussions with them. Some of those folks could easily be Republicans or Democrats, and I understand that, and I don't have a thing to say about which party they prefer; they'll make out just fine regardless of which party controls things at any given time. They may be a little better off with one or the other party running the show, but in the scheme of things, their life's not going to be materially different either way. That's clear to me and to them. Among the folks in that group, some of them vote based on what they think is best for the nation, that is, best for others in general, and some of them vote based on what works best for them personally.

I also know some folks who are Republican, and for the life of me, I swear that their party choice makes no sense at all. For example, a fair number of the working class poor to middle income folks whom I know say they are Republicans. I don't understand that at all. What the heck have Republicans ever done that actually is good for working class people? The folks who most need things to change are supporting the party least interested in changing the status quo. I mean really; at the most basic level, that's what it means to be conservative.

Some of these folks have said to me they vote Republican because they are pro-life. This as some of them (as individuals or as a couple) can hardly afford to just be pregnant, let alone actually raise a child, or another child. But they have that one idea in their mind -- pro-life -- that is so important to them that they'd sooner vote for a candidate who is going to foster the aims of the very organizations and interests that have no real interest in them except what they can get out of them. It's tantamount to cutting off their nose to spite their face. I don't criticize them for their views; I just know they won't go far in life overall, not because they lack ability, but because they refuse to see the entirety of their own circumstances. The very folks whom I would expect to vote for their own and their kids' self interest, the folks who can reliably expect that nobody is going to do a damn thing on their behalf and thus must vote to elect someone who'll give them a fair shot, don't. I don't get it.

I also come by folks who are doing well; they aren't the X% of the 1% folks I first mentioned, but are getting on quite well in terms of earnings. Yet a good number of these folks are just one catastrophe (or near catastrophe) away from ruin, and they yet are keen on the Democrats. They are folks who have good jobs and whose livelihood depends on the fortunes of corporate America. These are the very folks whom I'd expect to be Republican because fiscal conservatism is exactly what is going to move them from "teetering on the edge" to joining the ranks of the "quite secure."

It's the "strange" political affiliations that I see among "regular folks," and all the groups I've described are comprised almost entirely of "regular folks," that makes me think that it's the polity that's "broken," not the system. To achieve one's own betterment -- economic, social, whatever -- one has to have a clear picture of what one's own situation is and what is the intended outcome of the various individuals whom one empowers as leaders. The system isn't going to tell one what either of those things are. It wasn't designed to do that.

The sytem is designed to allow and give well informed, bright people who have a track record of success the opportunity to vote for the person whom they believe will best represent their interests. When our nation was founded, whom was given the right to vote? White male landowners. And what distinguished that segment of society from all the others? White male landowners were the folks who had the brains and education to critically evaluate matters, in large part because they were the people who were given an education (however they came by it) and who had the resources to exert political influence.

Our nation has evolved so that one need not be white, male or a landowner to exert influence, but the influence one can exert is limited largely to one's vote. If one also isn't well educated, well informed and willing to use those two things to critically assess one's own position and that of aspiring political leaders, one is consigned to letting things happen rather than making things happen. Well, if one does that, one is hardly likely to find the things happening are what one would have wanted. What will happen is what someone else wants, and one will be left griping about broken systems and just complaining in general. Isn't that about where we are in this country? Surprise!

I also know some folks who are Republican, and for the life of me, I swear that their party choice makes no sense at all. For example, a fair number of the working class poor to middle income folks whom I know say they are Republicans. I don't understand that at all. What the heck have Republicans ever done that actually is good for working class people? The folks who most need things to change are supporting the party least interested in changing the status quo. I mean really; at the most basic level, that's what it means to be conservative.

As one of those republicans you describe above I understand the difference between Republicans and democrats....the Republicans don't care about skin color, conservative republicans don't want all the money I earn and they are the ones trying to limit governments control over normal people.

You write about the status quo....you do realize that blacks have been voting over 95% for democrats since the 60s and how has that worked out for them? Anyone with sense would ask why on earth would blacks keep voting for a political party that owned their ancestors as slaves, hung their ancestors when they were freed and now, through government welfare slavery has destroyed the lives of generations of black children.........

Blacks keep voting for the racist party and wonder why their lives have only gotten worse...

Explain that.....

 

[320 Years of History]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Not really....police shootings of black thugs is way down...and notice....they almost never shoot people who cooperate when told to stop doing whatever they are doing.

And the Death by Cop thing is not a common cause of death...the most common cause of death for blacks is by black thugs.....

Red:
No, it's not. Way back at post #21, I essentially said I'm well aware of the overstatement in the third bullet of my OP. That bullet point is very definitely an instance of dramatic hyperbole, and not at all a statement of fact, or near fact.

I didn't, when I wrote the post, know what the leading cause of death was among black folks, or even what are the top ten causes of death in that segment of the population. I was reasonably sure that "death by cop," as a specific type of homicide, wasn't one of the top 10, even though I suspected homicide might be in the top 10.

Truly, I don't even know whether "death by cop" is growing or declining type of homicide, among black folks or anyone else. I do know that I feel as though, based largely on the news of the past year, "death by cop" has become a larger share of the overall homicide figures.

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue collar americans work.....college students have part time jobs and want the tax payers to pay for their college.

??? You lost me. How does that fit into the remarks that preceded them in the quoted flow of discussion?

 

[320 Years of History]

As one of those republicans you describe above I understand the difference between Republicans and democrats....the Republicans don't care about skin color, conservative republicans don't want all the money I earn and they are the ones trying to limit governments control over normal people.

You write about the status quo....you do realize that blacks have been voting over 95% for democrats since the 60s and how has that worked out for them? Anyone with sense would ask why on earth would blacks keep voting for a political party that owned their ancestors as slaves, hung their ancestors when they were freed and now, through government welfare slavery has destroyed the lives of generations of black children.........

Blacks keep voting for the racist party and wonder why their lives have only gotten worse...

Explain that.....

Red and Blue:
I cannot speak for a whole segment of the population. I don't know of any scholarly studies that address your specific question. I cannot tell you why "blacks" do what they do any more than I can tell you why "non-blacks" do what they do.

I can tell you why the black individuals whom I know do what they do, provided they've shared with me why. Whether theirs is the experience had by the majority of black people is not something I can say. I cannot identify the specific experiences "blacks" have, but I can say that insofar as the black folks I know (or white, Latin, male, female, "whomever") have had "this or that" experience, it's more likely than not that they are not unique or rare among black people (or white, Latin, male, female, "whomever"). After all, at what level of interaction do one's experiences become unique?

• Unique interaction --> Billy and cop did/discussed "such and such"
• non-Unique interaction --> The cop observed Billy's driving, pulled him over, and gave Billy a moving violation ticket.
• non-Unique interaction --> The cop observed a person's driving, pulled him over, and did not give them a moving violation ticket.
  
  Absent specific data, there's no way to tell whether this or the preceding experience is the more common one. All I am reasonably certain of is that the person's experience of not receiving a ticket is most likely something that's happened to other people, and many of them, even if I don't know how many.

You'll recall from my "long post" that I wrote with regard to specific people whom I know and remarked on the dichotomy between the facts of their situations and the foreseeable outcomes of policy positions the respective political parties have taken.

Red:
I can't believe you wrote that in communicating with me. This is not the first time you've engaged me in dialog on USMB. I'm teetering on the edge of wondering whether you wrote that as a sly/wry way to insult my intelligence. (I'm not convinced, but the thought crossed my mind.)

Aside from the fact that the name is the same, in what regard(s) does the present day Republican party resemble, in spirit and action, the one of Abraham Lincoln's day?

• Party Realignment And The New Deal | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
  
• http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform
  
• Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
  
• History of the Republican Party (United States) - encyclopedia article - Citizendium
  
• The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties

Blue and Red:
On the whole and as political parties, I don't believe either party has racially discriminatory objectives among the ends of any of their stated policies/platforms. Years ago, sure, they did, but not now. I think that discrimination is some that today remains somewhat widespread. I think in some instances it's racially driven and in others it's a circumstantial (and unfortunate) outcome, but not actively intended. Lastly, I think in many cases, the folks who advocate/implement policies that have a circumstantially discriminatory impact, rather than accepting that the impact has occurred, redirect the discussion to whether it was intended, whether they are racists, or any number of other things.

In my mind, the questions, that is, the situational analysis and decision making steps, regarding how one views the party/candidate positions and impacts (positive or negative) with regard to race are:

1. Did or will a given policy (or set thereof) have a discriminatory impact(s)? If yes, what are the nature, timing and plausible extent of the discriminatory impact(s)?
2. What options exist to ameliorate the discriminatory impact? Who are the "winners and losers" associated with each ameliorative alternative? Will/Is the "winning and losing" experienced in fact (not in theory) largely at an individual level, or largely at a class-of-people level?
3. What are the ethical considerations associated with having and not having the identified discriminatory impacts?
4. What weighting does one (the party/candidate) place on each of the ethical considerations?
   What weighting does one (the voter) place on each of the ethical considerations?

I believe the process outlined above will produce the same answers regardless of one's race, except perhaps for the last question in number four. Presumably, black folks feel that, in general, Democratic candidates/officials conclude more nearly to the way they'd, as individuals, would also conclude on the matter.

More disconcerting to me than why black folks vote for Democrats or Republicans is that the matter of "what's good for black folks?" has been consistently framed as a "zero sum" game. I truly don't believe that all the good answers to that question necessarily mean "something" must be "bad" for non-blacks.

I believe that the best policies are those that result in black folks, white folks, Latin folks, etc. are collectively all better off, even if some individuals in each group may, as a result of a given policy, suffer/be worse off. Does that mean I'm willing to accept a certain extent of "worsening" (or non-improvement) with regard to the potentially discriminatory impact of a given policy (or set thereof) on some individuals in the population as a whole? Yes, it does. I don't have perfection as a required outcome, even though "perfection" is what is aimed for.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is this a contest to see who can write he longest post without saying anything?

 

[Fishlore]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I take it you're in favor of not putting criminals in prison. Go figure.

I do think we put too many people in prison for too long for some crimes. A large part of the prison population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. Locking them up, along with the guys who are behind in child support, couldn't pay a fine, embezzlers etc. don't use guns, may not even own guns. Their incarceration has no effect on the process that turns legal guns into illegal guns.

You have tried to deflect the issue away from the lax gun laws that allow illegal guns to be created from legal guns effortlessly. The criminal justice system has nothing to do with gun show loopholes, fuzzy background checks, trivial dealer licensing etc. etc. I know why you don't: you can't. It's been a lot of fun anyhow...

 

[koshergrl]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I take it you're in favor of not putting criminals in prison. Go figure.

I do think we put too many people in prison for too long for some crimes. A large part of the prison population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. Locking them up, along with the guys who are behind in child support, couldn't pay a fine, embezzlers etc. don't use guns, may not even own guns. Their incarceration has no effect on the process that turns legal guns into illegal guns.

You have tried to deflect the issue away from the lax gun laws that allow illegal guns to be created from legal guns effortlessly. The criminal justice system has nothing to do with gun show loopholes, fuzzy background checks, trivial dealer licensing etc. etc. I know why you don't: you can't. It's been a lot of fun anyhow...

Your entire post there is logical fallacy. You state as fact things that are NOT fact, and move on from there. There isn't even anything of enough value to respond to...none of it is true.

 

[jillian]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

seems to be a bit of a problem. I think the concealed carry types mean those rights only apply to white people.

See..there you go posting when you have no idea what you are talking about. The 2nd Amendment supporters want all law abiding people to be armed regardless of race....in fact, the Patron Saint of Concealed carry was a black man tired of being robbed in Chicago. So please...do some freaking research...it will so much more interesting for the reader when you post.

If they're shot before the cop's car even stops then I'm pretty sure that you aren't interested in the gun rights of black men.

And really until you know anything at all you really shouldn't be insulting anyone else.

 

[Elvis Obama]

It is only I who is beginning to feel that:

• Being in Chicago while black has a pretty high risk of being fatal?
• Possession of a weapon anywhere in the U.S. while black is criminally fatal?
• Death by cop is moving "up the ladder" as one of the most common causes of death?

Being in Chicago and wandering into the wrong neighborhood will get you shot. Most people, who are lucky enough not to live in these neighborhoods, are safe. They know not to go there. Cops are paid to go there, and to engage with the worst, most dangerous products of our indifference and stupidity. Raise a human being to be a good person, through education and love, and their chances are good. Raise children in poverty and the results go from barely acceptable to monstrous.

This is a solid slice of our gun violence problem. Not cops shooting black people, but the consequence of allowing people to be raised in a manner which creates a depraved indifference to human life. We hire cops and send them into these neighborhoods because we don't want to deal with the problem. It's cheaper and easier to sit on it. To punt. It's not the cop's fault, and it certainly isn't the fault of the monsters we create. Cops want to go home, every day. That's job one. Job two is maintaining order. Not peace, just order. As Jack Nicholson said, we want them on that wall, we need them on that wall. We're not inclined to question the manner in which they achieve that order. Hence, the Tamir Rice verdict.

Notwithstanding the contrast between the words and the "tongue in cheek" tone of my OP, I don't actually believe that being black exists as part of a causal relationship with being shot by a cop, or by most anyone else.

Red:
Yes, well, that is a huge problem from where I sit.

Blue:
I don't spend much time in Chicago; I go for a meeting or event and I leave, for no other reason than having someplace else I have to go to. I was born, raised and live in D.C. Assuming what you say is so, the two cities are quite different culturally...not something I'd have expected.


I live in a very nice part of D.C., but I mentor kids who live in what can only be called slums or "projects." (I didn't meet them there, but upon taking up the task of mentoring them, which too was a serendipitous "calling," I found that to be where they live.) There are a lot of people there who are black, poorly educated, poor, poorly informed, have guns, routinely use mind altering substances, and have guns and/or other weapons. In my neighborhood, none of the residents are poor, most are non-black (as am I), all are well educated, most are well informed, nearly all routinely use mind altering substances, and many have guns and/or other weapons.

The thing is I don't feel the least bit concerned going to their neighborhood (yes, my "country club" friends and acquaintances would likely be terrified), but I have some reservation about inviting them to mine. There is a pretty heavy law enforcement presence in my part of town. I know the kids and their parents are safe at my home, but several of them have been harassed by some the Secret Service when walking from my home to the Metro station or bus stop. Nothing physically brutal, but rather being given "the third degree" when all they were doing was walking down the street. "Why are you here?" "Where are you going?" "Where are you coming from?" That sort of thing. I know this is what happened because the cops came to my home to verify they were told.

In contrast, that has not happened to me anywhere I've gone in my whole life. The closest thing to it took place some 35 years ago when, to make sure she got home safely, I accompanied a coworker home after a holiday party and thus found myself in a particularly rough neighborhood that was also entirely populated by black folks, because that's where she lived. As I walked to a busier street than hers to get a taxi -- I'd called for one and got tired of waiting after an hour and a half -- a cop drove by and asked me if I was lost. He said he could tell I wasn't from the area and thought I might want a ride to subway or police station to file a kidnapping report. The man actually thought I might have escaped captivity!!! No cop ever appeared at my coworker's door to confirm my story.

Now, call me crazy, but I think there's all kinds of wrong happening in both situations.

• There is nothing right about the cops approaching those kids and giving them "the third degree."
• The cops didn't offer any aid to the kids but they were concerned for my safety and offered me assistance, yet I was an adult.
• The kids weren't dressed differently than kids who live in the neighborhood and they were just walking. (I'm know their clothes cost a lot less than the local kids' do, but that's not something obvious to a cop driving by.) The kids may have been horsing around amongst themselves as they walked -- I wasn't there to see it, but I know that's something all kids do -- but then the cops should have addressed that, not why they were there, where they'd been, where they were going, etc.
• That one's not "matching" a place's ethic makeup is cause for law enforcement officers to presume that the reason one is there stems from something having gone wrong, so to speak, is outlandish and uncalled for, to say nothing of morally reprehensible, stereotyping.

The thing is that those kids knew they weren't doing anything wrong. They knew and know they have the right to walk on any open public street. And they know damn well that the reason they were "hassled" is because they are black. I don't want my mentorees to get the wrong viewpoint about cops, but when cops behave as the ones noted above did, how can they not?

When one lives in a world that works as I described and one is on the "short end of the stick" in that world, it's not surprising that one will be angry. That doesn't explain all the violence, but it's part of what explains it. And it's a part that (1) doesn't need to exist, and (2) that can be eliminated. Hiring and training cops to treat people with dignity and to honor the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is a great first step in making that happen.

I grew up in a city project in Brooklyn. It was very nice when it was built, for the returning GIs after WWII. Then it went downhill, fast. We moved away eventually, but it had become dangerous well before then. I've only been to Chicago a couple of times, but I've worked in inner city neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Florida, and I doubt Chicago is much different.

The reality is that nothing is the same in these areas. Nothing. Not the stores, or the schools, or any other basic services. Certainly not the police. I have no objection to civilian involvement with police operations, review boards and such, but they have to be informed about what the reality is like. They have to be cognizant of police safety requirements when so-called rules of engagement are developed. The general public should also be aware that there is a world of difference between words on paper and dangerous situations. The people who answer the call to be a peace officer are generally tough. The ones who police the inner cities are tougher. The perfect policeman is hard to come by, especially under stress.

Police can't fix what's wrong with these neighborhoods. They are themselves trapped in an unbreakable reality, the thin blue line. All organizations form an "us and them" mentality to some degree or other. The police have a very high degree of that. That culture won't change. Teachers can't fix what's wrong with these neighborhoods either, and certainly not social workers.

We have created a bizarre distillation process by which we have purified poverty. The "permanent underclass" is the term used to describe the end result of this process. Anyone with talent and drive gets up and out, and leaves behind the dysfunctional ones. This is all an unintended consequence of doing something good. Removing the barriers to upward mobility for black people.

Where we go from here is the question. Early childhood education is a step in the right direction, imo.

 

[320 Years of History]

...

We have created a bizarre distillation process by which we have purified poverty. The "permanent underclass" is the term used to describe the end result of this process. Anyone with talent and drive gets up and out, and leaves behind the dysfunctional ones. This is all an unintended consequence of doing something good. Removing the barriers to upward mobility for black people.

Where we go from here is the question. Early childhood education is a step in the right direction, imo.

Interesting perspective....

Based on and accepting the premise that removing the barriers to upward mobility allows talented and driven folks to escape the "depressed" areas from within which they developed their drive and nurtured their talent, it seems that a plausible inference from that premise (assuming it holds true) is that "underclass" folks' (no matter their ethnicity/race) being "clustered tightly," if you will, results in higher rates of violence than would otherwise occur if, rather than focusing on racial integration, we (as a nation/culture) focused our efforts on establishing economic integration. Do you agree, disagree and/or see any plausibility in that inference?

Being a mentor to several low income, low hope, and little to no access to "organically-arising-opportunity " kids, I have observed that merely by having access to mainstream modes of perception and thought, my mentorees have come to exhibit behavioral patterns that are the exception among their colocated peers. My own kids, on the other hand, have never really been exposed to anyone other than high achieving role models and peers, be it neighbors, their mother's husband, me, their grandparents, teachers, classmates, friends and close acquaintances, camp counselors, etc.

My own kids' experiences, and my own for that matter, suggest (albeit anecdotally) that if one is only aware of "modes A and B" for doing things, one won't ever consider that other ways exist and work. I suspect the same thing occurs among folks having less fortunate circumstances than my kids and I.

If one accepts the idea of attempting economic integration, the next step is to consider how to implement such a thing. It's certainly so that jurisdictions across the nation provide housing subsidies and build housing for low income folks. That could conceivably happen such that all middle or upper middle income areas also include some (I don't know how much) housing that could be earmarked for low income folks (whatever their race) to live in.

A problem with the idea is that "stuff," besides just housing, in close proximity to wealthy areas tends also to be expensive, and that would mean that even being able to live among upwardly mobile and/or generally higher achieving folks, low income folks might have to incur high transportation costs (and the related cost in time) to purchase routine goods and services. That may be a minor problem of no real import; I don't know. Were the idea attempted in my neighborhood, it would not be a problem; more affordable shops aren't that far away seeing as I live in the middle of the city and one doesn't have to have a car.

There will surely be other problems to overcome. The one thing I don't see as a problem is the monetary cost of implementing the idea; the U.S. has more than enough money to make such a thing possible, at least on a trial basis to see what happens.

My gut tells me that if such a program were somewhat pricier than are the current aid programs, that'd be okay if it is effective at moving tens of millions of people off the "dole rolls" and into the tax base. Just toying with the numbers, and I'm doing this "quick and dirty" as I write and don't know what I'll find....let's say that of the 46.5 million folks who receive welfare, half of them enter economic integration program and "succeed" (the rest continue to receive benefits) and as a result move into at least the top 25% income bracket. (I used the~$36K/year and ~$75K/year salary marks -- the minimum salaries for the respective earnings quartiles -- and the 14.3% and 16.4% tax rates, respectively, shown at the link for those sums) That would mean at the least, we'd add between ~$103B and ~$246B to the tax base per year, more as their incomes increase over time. Based on a U.C. Berkeley study, we spend ~$153B per year on welfare programs (Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, EITC, and food stamp programs).

Looking at that "quick and dirty sniff test," the idea seems at least worth exploring. The key would be "how much more, if at all, it would cost to implement the idea of economic integration. The idea seems to have the potential to boost the fortunes of poor people -- black, white, Latino, etc. -- and do so and do so for less than the cost to keeping the very same people on the "dole rolls." Now I think the real gains come when the former welfare recipients have kids and their kids have kids. That's when we begin to have seriously huge quantities of folks who begin life on the "right foot" and remain as contributors.

So when you ask "what do we do about it?", the answer, IMO, has to be that we take a long view toward overcoming the problem. The problem will persist as long as we take the approach of "don't let them starve today" and stop there, which is basically the theme of our current approach to aid programs. Truly, for you, I and other adults like us, I don't foresee the cost of aid going down in our lives, or in the near term of them. We can establish foundations that allow that to be so for our kids and grandkids. That to me is more "worth it" than is whether "things" cost me a bit more or "a lot" (not "a lot" more) now.


Red:
I have to agree with that. I'm hard pressed to identify a good reason for delay and education (but not indoctrination) is rarely a bad thing.

 

[Fishlore]

You stop legal guns from turning into illegal guns by keeping criminals in prison where they belong. Most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories.

What is your source for the statement that "most gun crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal histories"?

We already have the highest incarceration rate on the planet and it is costing us billions. How many more people must we lock up to stop the use of guns to commit crimes?

I take it you're in favor of not putting criminals in prison. Go figure.

I do think we put too many people in prison for too long for some crimes. A large part of the prison population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. Locking them up, along with the guys who are behind in child support, couldn't pay a fine, embezzlers etc. don't use guns, may not even own guns. Their incarceration has no effect on the process that turns legal guns into illegal guns.

You have tried to deflect the issue away from the lax gun laws that allow illegal guns to be created from legal guns effortlessly. The criminal justice system has nothing to do with gun show loopholes, fuzzy background checks, trivial dealer licensing etc. etc. I know why you don't: you can't. It's been a lot of fun anyhow...

Your entire post there is logical fallacy. You state as fact things that are NOT fact, and move on from there. There isn't even anything of enough value to respond to...none of it is true.

You say my post is a logical fallacy but trying to explain gun issues to gun fetishists isn't a logical fallacy it is a chronological fallacy, that is, a waste of time. You say I state as facts things that are not facts but you don't tell me what facts are not facts, so I take it you can't remember what they were. You say there isn't anything of enough value to respond to, then you respond with your witty and compassionate analysis of my post. I thank you from taking time away from your busy day to show us all how your mind works. It's fascinating.

 

[Elvis Obama]

...

We have created a bizarre distillation process by which we have purified poverty. The "permanent underclass" is the term used to describe the end result of this process. Anyone with talent and drive gets up and out, and leaves behind the dysfunctional ones. This is all an unintended consequence of doing something good. Removing the barriers to upward mobility for black people.

Where we go from here is the question. Early childhood education is a step in the right direction, imo.

Interesting perspective....

Based on and accepting the premise that removing the barriers to upward mobility allows talented and driven folks to escape the "depressed" areas from within which they developed their drive and nurtured their talent, it seems that a plausible inference from that premise (assuming it holds true) is that "underclass" folks' (no matter their ethnicity/race) being "clustered tightly," if you will, results in higher rates of violence than would otherwise occur if, rather than focusing on racial integration, we (as a nation/culture) focused our efforts on establishing economic integration. Do you agree, disagree and/or see any plausibility in that inference?

Being a mentor to several low income, low hope, and little to no access to "organically-arising-opportunity " kids, I have observed that merely by having access to mainstream modes of perception and thought, my mentorees have come to exhibit behavioral patterns that are the exception among their colocated peers. My own kids, on the other hand, have never really been exposed to anyone other than high achieving role models and peers, be it neighbors, their mother's husband, me, their grandparents, teachers, classmates, friends and close acquaintances, camp counselors, etc.

My own kids' experiences, and my own for that matter, suggest (albeit anecdotally) that if one is only aware of "modes A and B" for doing things, one won't ever consider that other ways exist and work. I suspect the same thing occurs among folks having less fortunate circumstances than my kids and I.

If one accepts the idea of attempting economic integration, the next step is to consider how to implement such a thing. It's certainly so that jurisdictions across the nation provide housing subsidies and build housing for low income folks. That could conceivably happen such that all middle or upper middle income areas also include some (I don't know how much) housing that could be earmarked for low income folks (whatever their race) to live in.

A problem with the idea is that "stuff," besides just housing, in close proximity to wealthy areas tends also to be expensive, and that would mean that even being able to live among upwardly mobile and/or generally higher achieving folks, low income folks might have to incur high transportation costs (and the related cost in time) to purchase routine goods and services. That may be a minor problem of no real import; I don't know. Were the idea attempted in my neighborhood, it would not be a problem; more affordable shops aren't that far away seeing as I live in the middle of the city and one doesn't have to have a car.

There will surely be other problems to overcome. The one thing I don't see as a problem is the monetary cost of implementing the idea; the U.S. has more than enough money to make such a thing possible, at least on a trial basis to see what happens.

My gut tells me that if such a program were somewhat pricier than are the current aid programs, that'd be okay if it is effective at moving tens of millions of people off the "dole rolls" and into the tax base. Just toying with the numbers, and I'm doing this "quick and dirty" as I write and don't know what I'll find....let's say that of the 46.5 million folks who receive welfare, half of them enter economic integration program and "succeed" (the rest continue to receive benefits) and as a result move into at least the top 25% income bracket. (I used the~$36K/year and ~$75K/year salary marks -- the minimum salaries for the respective earnings quartiles -- and the 14.3% and 16.4% tax rates, respectively, shown at the link for those sums) That would mean at the least, we'd add between ~$103B and ~$246B to the tax base per year, more as their incomes increase over time. Based on a U.C. Berkeley study, we spend ~$153B per year on welfare programs (Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, EITC, and food stamp programs).

Looking at that "quick and dirty sniff test," the idea seems at least worth exploring. The key would be "how much more, if at all, it would cost to implement the idea of economic integration. The idea seems to have the potential to boost the fortunes of poor people -- black, white, Latino, etc. -- and do so and do so for less than the cost to keeping the very same people on the "dole rolls." Now I think the real gains come when the former welfare recipients have kids and their kids have kids. That's when we begin to have seriously huge quantities of folks who begin life on the "right foot" and remain as contributors.

So when you ask "what do we do about it?", the answer, IMO, has to be that we take a long view toward overcoming the problem. The problem will persist as long as we take the approach of "don't let them starve today" and stop there, which is basically the theme of our current approach to aid programs. Truly, for you, I and other adults like us, I don't foresee the cost of aid going down in our lives, or in the near term of them. We can establish foundations that allow that to be so for our kids and grandkids. That to me is more "worth it" than is whether "things" cost me a bit more or "a lot" (not "a lot" more) now.


Red:
I have to agree with that. I'm hard pressed to identify a good reason for delay and education (but not indoctrination) is rarely a bad thing.

"Based on and accepting the premise that removing the barriers to upward mobility allows talented and driven folks to escape the "depressed" areas from within which they developed their drive and nurtured their talent, it seems that a plausible inference from that premise (assuming it holds true) is that "underclass" folks' (no matter their ethnicity/race) being "clustered tightly," if you will, results in higher rates of violence than would otherwise occur if, rather than focusing on racial integration, we (as a nation/culture) focused our efforts on establishing economic integration. Do you agree, disagree and/or see any plausibility in that inference?"

I guess I would agree to some extent. Concentration is the term most often used for forcing unwanted persons into specific areas. There is also a natural tendency to cluster, for reasons of establishing stores and religious centers.

There are a number of processes involved here. They are all specific to the era and circumstances of each wave. The Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans, all arrived with different levels of support and suitability to assimilate with the crazy quilt of American society. They had different standards of behavior which no doubt affected the level of violence that resulted from the mean streets each group had to contend with. West Side Story covered that one.

African people in America is a completely different subject. They are not immigrants. The moment a group of immigrants arrive in a country they start to form support groups for the next group of immigrants. Immigrants have some measure of family support. Immigrants have cultural continuity and traditions. The freed slaves had none of this. No support. No 40 acres and a mule. They were in a war torn region of the country which had gone from being the richest part of the US to the poorest in four years time. They were at 100% poverty.

Despite that, and the systematic impediments which were in place until the 1970s, 75% of Black people in America have risen above poverty. The 25% who remain are less likely to organize their own rise.

As far as the rest of what you've written goes, I think mentoring is fine and beneficial. There's not enough of it though, and it can't begin early enough to make a substantial difference. Racial and economic integration are both essential. I don't think you can achieve one without the other. The costs of poverty are undeniable, and the incentives to address the problems are pretty obvious.

As far as "red" goes, it's a theory. It makes sense to me, but it's just a theory. The main difficulty is that it takes a long time to show results. Politicians can't brag about them quickly enough, so they're not interested. The word gap is a chasm. You can state the problem easily enough, eliminate the word gap, but how? Mentoring kids when they're 11 won't make a dent in it. Living near rich people won't do it.