Colin Kaepernick 49ers QB Bad Move

[khomeinist]

6 hours ago, MaxG said:

 

His jersey is being purchased to be set aflame in effigy.  

 

- MG

 

source?

Sincerely doubt this. Many support his right to do this. NFL is hypocritical nonsense on so many levels. Probably topic for another thread. 

[PatrickEwing]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'd also be interested to hear what your explanation is for the socio-economic metrics for African-Americans being much stronger from 1900-1965 than they have been after. I am absolutely open to another theory if it makes more sense. Perhaps there is something I'm failing to recognize.

NSX,

I'm glad you posted that earlier statement. As someone still very new to cigars, I have appreciated your insight to the hobby and enjoy your posts. While I understood your intent to favor a devil's advocacy view on the socio-economic environment of a thankfully bygone era, the words were trending a little too close for comfort and could be construed as pining for the ol' days. That stance seemed to be out of character and I'm relieved to see your latest comment. Again, it's clear your intention now. Thanks. 

As to your question and if the premise is correct, I suggest it may be most directly correlated to the industrial decline of the Midwest. Following the Great Migration and the abnormal global industrial vacuum the US filled following post WW2, there were a surfeit of manufacturing jobs to employ all people. This included African Americans who had already traveled North and would continue to do so chasing well-paying, middle class inducing employment. The '40s through the '60s were truly boom years and all people (very generally speaking) had a chance to succeed. Industry started to decline rapidly however, and without any concrete evidence, you have to consider how factory owners and managers respond to necessary job cuts. Assuming all employed men were viewed as comparably competent workers, would we expect any job loss then to occur at random amongst races? In an ideal world, sure. But I can't believe that. All people get tribal on some level and when your employees attend the same church, your children attend the same school and play on the same little league teams, what will the outcome be? And let's assume it was equitable reduction of employees, how would the long-standing populations of these towns and small cities feel about recent black interlopers taking coveted manufacturing jobs? Nativism ensues. Nothing loves racism more than unemployment and lack of opportunity. Fingers start pointing and blame gets apportioned out. 

It doesn't take long to see how unemployment or underemployment in the late 60s and through to the 80s can have disastrous effects on later generations. The children of these workers are well until adulthood with children and grandchildren of their own. In a loop of unemployment and lack of opportunity, families become broken, traditions and values become frayed and cities decline. A separate thread in this discussion has been the lamentation of a lack of a "bootstrap, go get em" attitude in these areas. I wish there were more of that attitude and it's easy to get frustrated by the apparent lack of it. But there is a glaring lack of support and education to provide the foundation for that attitude. If we are writing on this cigar blog, then we all have attained a level of education attendant to do so as well as a level of economic security that can provide a luxury that we truly burn into the air. I'd argue we have all had our share of support along the way - let's not take that for granted.

Last point: the black on black crime narrative is getting old (and the term white privilege for that matter). I don't live in a unicorn and rainbows world and think we're going Hands Across America anytime soon, but as was stated earlier any statistic can be proffered to advance any point. Midwest whites sell more heroin to Midwest whites than anyone else. Why can't we control our suburban whites anymore? These are American problems, not them over there problems.

 

[khomeinist]

11 hours ago, PigFish said:

Commie, how the hell are ya' brother? Where'ya been hiding? -Piggy

Still ducking and dodging man. My jab is still potent. Abandoned the overhand right.  

Loving Texas until I don't. 

Cheers my friend. 

[NSXCIGAR]

4 hours ago, hjmclain22 said:

I'm not even sure if this premise is correct.  There are articles/studies by Gavin Wright out of Stanford that indicate since 1965 and the advent of the civil rights act that these metrics have improved.  

I'm glad you said that as we always need to make sure we are using the same data and definitions.

Mr. Wright is indeed correct in that the black poverty rate is in fact lower than it was at any time prior to 1965, but I'd argue this fact alone is neglectful of two things. First, the awesomely rapid decline of black poverty between 1945-1965 that was occurring prior to any welfare or civil rights legislation and second, the significant rise in black poverty between 1968 and 1994. The poverty rate is most definitely the one statistic that comes with a caveat--and I think it's a big caveat.

However, the other metrics are without caveats. I had a difficult time finding much data on black crime before 1965, but I think it's very reasonable to assume that the black crime rate is higher today than it was from 1945-1965, and probably 1900-1945. And I'm talking violent crime only, so I'm not considering incarceration rates.

The census bureau statistics on intact black families and out-of-wedlock births clearly show higher rates today than at any point prior to 1965, going back all the way through the late 19th century. Black unemployment has never been as low as it was in 1953 or even 1968 since according to the BLS. 

So of the four metrics I'm considering (poverty, crime, unemployment and intact family structure/out-of-wedlock births) three are worse today then at any period prior to 1965. And while poverty among blacks is lower today in absolute terms, the rate of decline was much more rapid for decades prior to 1965.

PatrickEwing--a lot of thoughtful stuff to digest there--will get to you tmrw. 

[wabashcr]

11 hours ago, hjmclain22 said:

1. I would surmise that more whites kill whites than police (white or black or whatever color).  In fact 83% of whites are killed by whites per FBI...I'm not even sure what the purpose of number 1 is about.  This statement serves no purpose whatsoever except to incite the reader as wabashcr said.   I would hope that the police kill less people.  Seems like the media or whoever just throws this out to get a rouse.

2.  I think this is actually debatable according to how you want to massage the numbers.  The Department of Justice is available for one take on this.

3.   K.

4.   I don't believe this statement has any place in the context of this thread.  The only race that has arguably endured what blacks have in the US are Native Americans.  This contention omits two factors: 1. how wealth and power is created and sustained and 2. the power of generational racism.  Many groups of immigrants and white Americans were encouraged to participate in federal programs during the New Deal and LBJ whereas a large part of blacks were denied participation in the same.  So I'm not sure what other races are being referred to but they did not experience what blacks cumulatively have.  I will add blacks were not paid any form of reparations to supposedly make things right.  

5.   If you want to acquiesce to the trampling of your rights so be it, black or white or somewhere in between.

Lastly, if anyone participates in a cigar trade with me they will be receiving a Kap jersey.   

 

 

The point is not even whether or not any of this is true.  It's that these points are brought up as diversions to the issue of police violence against people of color.  Black on black crime and other racial problems are all separate issues for a separate discussion.  They only get brought up to minimize or obscure any honest discussion of the issue in question.  I view the demonization of Kaepernick the same way.  It's much easier to pile on him and spread rumors that he's converted to Islam than admit that this country is still a pretty f'd up place for a lot of black people.  

Just like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't in any way imply that other lives don't, acknowledging that the deck is stacked against many people of color doesn't mean white people are bad or don't deserve what they've worked for.  At some point we have to address the fact that there are some deeply rooted problems with the way police interact with black people.  We can deny and divert all we want, it's not going away.  It's not a comfortable, cozy discussion.  The longer we put it off, the lower the likelihood of a peaceful, effective solution.

[forgop]

The point is not even whether or not any of this is true.  It's that these points are brought up as diversions to the issue of police violence against people of color.  Black on black crime and other racial problems are all separate issues for a separate discussion.  They only get brought up to minimize or obscure any honest discussion of the issue in question.  I view the demonization of Kaepernick the same way.  It's much easier to pile on him and spread rumors that he's converted to Islam than admit that this country is still a pretty f'd up place for a lot of black people.  

Just like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't in any way imply that other lives don't, acknowledging that the deck is stacked against many people of color doesn't mean white people are bad or don't deserve what they've worked for.  At some point we have to address the fact that there are some deeply rooted problems with the way police interact with black people.  We can deny and divert all we want, it's not going away.  It's not a comfortable, cozy discussion.  The longer we put it off, the lower the likelihood of a peaceful, effective solution.

Yeah, let's blame the police for everything and remove ownership of those seeking special attention. I'm far from being a police apologist, but sometimes you get what you give. I wasn't around for MLK, but he sure as hell didn't advocate for the nonsense being spewed by the BLM crowd-whose lives only matter when shot by police, not the daily shootings that happen every day within the black community.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[suggs]

5 hours ago, forgop said:

 

Yeah, let's blame the police for everything and remove ownership of those seeking special attention.
 

 

Who, specifically, has made this point?

[NSXCIGAR]

13 hours ago, PatrickEwing said:

NSX,

I'm glad you posted that earlier statement. As someone still very new to cigars, I have appreciated your insight to the hobby and enjoy your posts. While I understood your intent to favor a devil's advocacy view on the socio-economic environment of a thankfully bygone era, the words were trending a little too close for comfort and could be construed as pining for the ol' days. That stance seemed to be out of character and I'm relieved to see your latest comment. Again, it's clear your intention now. Thanks. 

As to your question and if the premise is correct, I suggest it may be most directly correlated to the industrial decline of the Midwest. Following the Great Migration and the abnormal global industrial vacuum the US filled following post WW2, there were a surfeit of manufacturing jobs to employ all people. This included African Americans who had already traveled North and would continue to do so chasing well-paying, middle class inducing employment. The '40s through the '60s were truly boom years and all people (very generally speaking) had a chance to succeed. Industry started to decline rapidly however, and without any concrete evidence, you have to consider how factory owners and managers respond to necessary job cuts. Assuming all employed men were viewed as comparably competent workers, would we expect any job loss then to occur at random amongst races? In an ideal world, sure. But I can't believe that. All people get tribal on some level and when your employees attend the same church, your children attend the same school and play on the same little league teams, what will the outcome be? And let's assume it was equitable reduction of employees, how would the long-standing populations of these towns and small cities feel about recent black interlopers taking coveted manufacturing jobs? Nativism ensues. Nothing loves racism more than unemployment and lack of opportunity. Fingers start pointing and blame gets apportioned out. 

It doesn't take long to see how unemployment or underemployment in the late 60s and through to the 80s can have disastrous effects on later generations. The children of these workers are well until adulthood with children and grandchildren of their own. In a loop of unemployment and lack of opportunity, families become broken, traditions and values become frayed and cities decline. A separate thread in this discussion has been the lamentation of a lack of a "bootstrap, go get em" attitude in these areas. I wish there were more of that attitude and it's easy to get frustrated by the apparent lack of it. But there is a glaring lack of support and education to provide the foundation for that attitude. If we are writing on this cigar blog, then we all have attained a level of education attendant to do so as well as a level of economic security that can provide a luxury that we truly burn into the air. I'd argue we have all had our share of support along the way - let's not take that for granted.

Last point: the black on black crime narrative is getting old (and the term white privilege for that matter). I don't live in a unicorn and rainbows world and think we're going Hands Across America anytime soon, but as was stated earlier any statistic can be proffered to advance any point. Midwest whites sell more heroin to Midwest whites than anyone else. Why can't we control our suburban whites anymore? These are American problems, not them over there problems.

 

OK, let's tackle this.

Your premise is that economic conditions in the late 60s onward resulted in disproportionate black unemployment, which caused other socio-economic metrics to decline. Let's see if this holds.

First, we have the fact that black unemployment was generally the same or higher from 1900-1945 than it was throughout most of the 70s and 80s, excepting the early 80s when it hit about 19%. We have crime and family structure statistics that are better during that time (1900-1945). So it appears that general unemployment level isn't correlated with crime or family/illegitimacy stats.

Also, the poverty rates, crime rates and family stats had already begun to decline from 1968 on before the unemployment rate began to rise in 1970-1971. So clearly, if anything, the other metrics of crime, family and poverty are the leading indicators, and unemployment the trailing indicator. A stronger case could be made for the other metrics causing or contributing to the unemployment metric rather than vice versa.

As far as unemployment being worse for blacks than whites because blacks are more likely to be laid off during economic downturns (certainly a logical hypothesis), the data shows that unemployment between blacks and whites from 1965 onward (and possibly earlier) moves almost in precise proportional lockstep. Yes, black unemployment rates have always been higher than whites (except for black youth unemployment which was lower than whites in the 1950s and early 60s) but in terms of proportion, they appear virtually identical. This would seem to indicate that the same proportion of whites and blacks lost their jobs at the same times. Also, economic downturns hit all races hard, yet the statistics for the blacks are so disproportionately worse than all other races it begs the question as to whether the sole culprit is the economy. The Asians actually prospered faster than even whites during this period (1968-1994). 

Then there's the great depression. The most serious economic downturn of them all did not result in a decline in these metrics among blacks that was seen from 1968-1994. Not even close. This puts another hole in the theory that economic hardship and unemployment cause increases in crime and family structure disintegration, and lends credence to the theory that crime and family disintegration contribute to or even cause unemployment. There was no greater period of unemployment and lack of opportunity than the 1930s, yet no groups in American society, including blacks, displayed the type of crime rates and family breakdown that the blacks did between 1968-1994. And don't forget, Jim Crow was alive and kicking hard at this time. Yet black crime was in proportion with their population and black families were largely intact.

The real question is, therefore, what causes the black crime and family disintegration, leading to the unemployment and poverty? I've stated my position--primarily, the welfare state, minimum wages (an expressly anti-minority law at its inception) and the war on drugs--not primarily racism. Also important to note that early minimum wages were generally set below the marginal productivity of most low-skilled workers or often not enforced at all, and it didn't really begin to exceed that until--surprise--the mid-1960s. All of these factors converged around 1970. Welfare state policies enacted in the mid-60s were now being widely implemented, the war on drugs was ramping up, and the minimum wages had been eliminating many low-skilled or apprenticeship-type jobs. It should be no surprise, then, that the socio-economic stats for blacks began falling through the floor at that very moment, and kept falling as these policies were applied to a greater and greater degree throughout the 1970s and 1980s and the early 90s. 

[Colt45]

8 hours ago, wabashcr said:

The point is not even whether or not any of this is true.  It's that these points are brought up as diversions to the issue of police violence against people of color.  Black on black crime and other racial problems are all separate issues for a separate discussion.  They only get brought up to minimize or obscure any honest discussion of the issue in question.  I view the demonization of Kaepernick the same way.  It's much easier to pile on him and spread rumors that he's converted to Islam than admit that this country is still a pretty f'd up place for a lot of black people.  

Just like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't in any way imply that other lives don't, acknowledging that the deck is stacked against many people of color doesn't mean white people are bad or don't deserve what they've worked for.  At some point we have to address the fact that there are some deeply rooted problems with the way police interact with black people.  We can deny and divert all we want, it's not going away.  It's not a comfortable, cozy discussion.  The longer we put it off, the lower the likelihood of a peaceful, effective solution.

This discussion has wandered, as many here do - to me, this is the most succinct observation regarding the crux.

[ethosan]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:59 AM, PapaDisco said:

Yes to Free Speech.  Yes to Colin is a self absorbed idiot.  And they really ought to call them the Santa Clara 49ers, not San Francisco.

We do have a problem in the U.S. with police training and tactics, but that problem is not visited dis-proportionally on any one community.  60 years ago, the police were generally trained to control a situation out of respect.  For example, I remember traffic stops where it was entirely acceptable to get out of your car to discuss the matter with the officer (yeah, I tend to drive fast  ), however since then police training has emphasized intimidation as a method for controlling every and all situations.  One certainly wouldn't even think about getting out of the drivers seat today, nor even remove your hands from the wheel as the officer questions you from your left rear quarter, ready to draw at any twitch. Likewise the proliferation of SWAT teams in all major cities has militarized the police and perhaps help draw to it a collection of personalities with serious hostility issues (to any and all races).  In part this is reflective of the irrational hyper-arming of American citizens (thank you NRA  ).  I do not intend this to be a universal generalization, but it seems a common one to me.  There are lots of exceptions of course: I remember a few years back when a crazy drunk dude pulled a wicked big knife in one of the bars in my neighborhood; one of San Francisco's finest just happened to be within ear shot on foot patrol and the officer never pulled his gun but rather waded into the situation at great risk to himself and disarmed the guy by hand.  Likewise my brother-in-law (a deputy sheriff) has suffered broken bones successfully subduing suspects by hand rather than draw his sidearm.  So there are lawmen doing their best at this, but my sense remains that the transition to 'overwhelming' force has meant that that force gets used.  

Is it too often used?  Hard to say.  We are a long way from the stereotypical English Bobby of yesteryear.  Suffice to say that the biggest cause of violent death among blacks in the U.S. is black-on-black violence.  Police are about 0.6% of the rest, and it is in proportion to the rate of crime.  And when they shoot a suspect, those suspects come from all races in proportion to their participation in the crime rate.  An officer is more likely to be shot, than do the shooting.

So Colin is guilty of buying into the unfortunate narrative spun in the Press, and making a big stink over something he's not thought through critically.  That's lazy, political grandstanding in my book by an undeservedly big ego.

Well said my friend!!

Would love to be able to smoke one and talk about this and other issues with you.

[Smallclub]

Where can I purchase these socks? Please PM me if you have a source.

And I'm not a racist, my dog is black…

 

 

 

 

[earthson]

"You cannot reason somebody out of an opinion they did not reason themselves into."

Oops - wrong thread!

[hjmclain22]

On 9/8/2016 at 0:52 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

.

However, the other metrics are without caveats. I had a difficult time finding much data on black crime before 1965, but I think it's very reasonable to assume that the black crime rate is higher today than it was from 1945-1965, and probably 1900-1945. And I'm talking violent crime only, so I'm not considering incarceration rates.

The census bureau statistics on intact black families and out-of-wedlock births clearly show higher rates today than at any point prior to 1965, going back all the way through the late 19th century. Black unemployment has never been as low as it was in 1953 or even 1968 since according to the BLS. 

So of the four metrics I'm considering (poverty, crime, unemployment and intact family structure/out-of-wedlock births) three are worse today then at any period prior to 1965. And while poverty among blacks is lower today in absolute terms, the rate of decline was much more rapid for decades prior to 1965.

 

Again, my research tends to show that crime, family structure, poverty, were on the rise among the races within these time periods, particularly 1945 to present.   One could argue that a disproportionate uptick in blacks in crime and family was due to the fact that blacks are more heavily policed than whites; i.e. a black and a white man (particularly from 1945-1990) who commit the same crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested and incarcerated.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html... If black men are being incarcerated more of course their families will suffer.   Of course, they shouldn't be putting themselves in that position to begin with, but as brutal as recidivism is, blacks are in a tougher position in our society compared to their white counterparts.  http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-05/news/mn-43270_1_african-american-men.  The argument can be made that police are targeting more blacks by virtue of their patrols than any other segment of the population, is that in part based upon racist ideals, at some level I would argue yes.

Rather than beat a dead horse, perhaps the rates of crime, unemployment and intact family structure/out-of-wedlock births have gone up, but I wouldn't credit that to the welfare state alone.  So...back on task, as has been stated police training needs to improve and a switch from the hyper-militarization tactics does need to take place.  Similarly there are things that citizens can do to improve matters.  

[NSXCIGAR]

9 hours ago, hjmclain22 said:

Again, my research tends to show that crime, family structure, poverty, were on the rise among the races within these time periods, particularly 1945 to present.   One could argue that a disproportionate uptick in blacks in crime and family was due to the fact that blacks are more heavily policed than whites; i.e. a black and a white man (particularly from 1945-1990) who commit the same crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested and incarcerated.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html... If black men are being incarcerated more of course their families will suffer.   Of course, they shouldn't be putting themselves in that position to begin with, but as brutal as recidivism is, blacks are in a tougher position in our society compared to their white counterparts.  http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-05/news/mn-43270_1_african-american-men.  The argument can be made that police are targeting more blacks by virtue of their patrols than any other segment of the population, is that in part based upon racist ideals, at some level I would argue yes.

Rather than beat a dead horse, perhaps the rates of crime, unemployment and intact family structure/out-of-wedlock births have gone up, but I wouldn't credit that to the welfare state alone.  So...back on task, as has been stated police training needs to improve and a switch from the hyper-militarization tactics does need to take place.  Similarly there are things that citizens can do to improve matters.  

I definitely agree that there appears to be bias in the system. No explanation for the longer sentences imposed for blacks with the same histories for the same crimes, for example. Higher conviction rates are also troubling. And yes, incarceration decimates communities and functions as a vicious circle. But we must ask--how did we get here in the first place?

In my view, these particular unfortunate circumstances can be traced almost entirely to the war on drugs. The illicit drug trade is much more likely to be embraced by the less wealthy groups in a society. In the late 60s, that group happened to be the blacks still living in urban areas. Blacks were rapidly climbing out of poverty and gradually closing the gap with whites (see below chart), but they weren't quite there yet. According to John Erlichman, one of Nixon's top advisers, this policy was designed to target the blacks and the young "hippies".  And yes, it's much easier for police to shake down and "over-police" poorer communities, so the predictable concentration of drugs and drug crime in these areas was easy pickings for the police who generally prefer low-hanging fruit, thus beginning the incarceration cycle. Also, the nature of policing victimless crimes is so intrusive and violative of civil liberties that it tends to create great strife between communities and the police, further exacerbating the problem. It's just a real bad scene.

The problem of black socio-economic decline doesn't really seem to be racism among the general population. Rather, it is racist government policies that actually affected the blacks most severely. The minimum wage was expressly understood at the time of its inception and was supported by labor unions specifically to protect white employment from minorities that might out-compete whites through harder work and lower wages. This wouldn't have been necessary if private employers hadn't been demonstrating the willingness to hire blacks instead of whites. There wouldn't have been a need for laws keeping blacks in the back of the bus if the bus companies were wanting to put them there voluntarily.

Also, here are some of the stats I used for:

family structure:

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/205/four-in-10-children-are-born-to-unwed-mothers

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2012/09/sr117/chart10.ashx?w=600&h=740&as=1

socio-economic gaps between blacks and whites were narrower prior to the 1960s:

http://wonkwire.com/2015/03/10/race-inequality-refuses-budge/

Black unemployment since 1962:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-ch1-07/

 Poverty by race since 1959 (chart in the middle of article):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

 

 

[hjmclain22]

30 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I definitely agree that there appears to be bias in the system. No explanation for the longer sentences imposed for blacks with the same histories for the same crimes, for example. Higher conviction rates are also troubling. And yes, incarceration decimates communities and functions as a vicious circle. But we must ask--how did we get here in the first place?

In my view, these particular unfortunate circumstances can be traced almost entirely to the war on drugs. The illicit drug trade is much more likely to be embraced by the less wealthy groups in a society. In the late 60s, that group happened to be the blacks still living in urban areas. Blacks were rapidly climbing out of poverty and gradually closing the gap with whites (see below chart), but they weren't quite there yet. According to John Erlichman, one of Nixon's top advisers, this policy was designed to target the blacks and the young "hippies".  And yes, it's much easier for police to shake down and "over-police" poorer communities, so the predictable concentration of drugs and drug crime in these areas was easy pickings for the police who generally prefer low-hanging fruit, thus beginning the incarceration cycle. Also, the nature of policing victimless crimes is so intrusive and violative of civil liberties that it tends to create great strife between communities and the police, further exacerbating the problem. It's just a real bad scene.

The problem of black socio-economic decline doesn't really seem to be racism among the general population. Rather, it is racist government policies that actually affected the blacks most severely. The minimum wage was expressly understood at the time of its inception and was supported by labor unions specifically to protect white employment from minorities that might out-compete whites through harder work and lower wages. This wouldn't have been necessary if private employers hadn't been demonstrating the willingness to hire blacks instead of whites. There wouldn't have been a need for laws keeping blacks in the back of the bus if the bus companies were wanting to put them there voluntarily.

Also, here are some of the stats I used for:

family structure:

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/205/four-in-10-children-are-born-to-unwed-mothers

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2012/09/sr117/chart10.ashx?w=600&h=740&as=1

socio-economic gaps between blacks and whites were narrower prior to the 1960s:

http://wonkwire.com/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/

Black unemployment since 1962:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-ch1-07/

 Poverty by race since 1959 (chart in the middle of article):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

 

 

Thanks for sharing.  

Shannon Sharpe had shared some of his thoughts on this issue this week.   If you haven't seen it you should check it out.  

[PigFish]

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In my view, these particular unfortunate circumstances can be traced almost entirely to the war on drugs. The illicit drug trade is much more likely to be embraced by the less wealthy groups in a society. In the late 60s, that group happened to be the blacks still living in urban areas. Blacks were rapidly climbing out of poverty and gradually closing the gap with whites (see below chart), but they weren't quite there yet. According to John Erlichman, one of Nixon's top advisers, this policy was designed to target the blacks and the young "hippies".  And yes, it's much easier for police to shake down and "over-police" poorer communities, so the predictable concentration of drugs and drug crime in these areas was easy pickings for the police who generally prefer low-hanging fruit, thus beginning the incarceration cycle. Also, the nature of policing victimless crimes is so intrusive and violative of civil liberties that it tends to create great strife between communities and the police, further exacerbating the problem. It's just a real bad scene.

 

 

While I have not done research on this, perhaps you have data, or data that I did not see, that sentences for drugs favored by certain groups carry higher minimum prison times. While the laws and policies may or may not be deliberately racist in intent, one can certainly see a 'discriminatory' effect. I do believe that the drugs favored by one side of the tracks should not carry different penalties by those favored by the other!

I see the war on drugs as a means by which to impose massive new powers to the federal government, and it would not surprise me, that like most centrally planned endeavors, it creates a communitiy of most, or greater effected people!

I am a believer that drug laws should be controlled by the states and localities where the problems and solutions are closer to the people being served by those laws.

-Piggy

[NSXCIGAR]

7 minutes ago, PigFish said:

While I have not done research on this, perhaps you have data, or data that I did not see, that sentences for drugs favored by certain groups carry higher minimum prison times. While the laws and policies may or may not be deliberately racist in intent, one can certainly see a 'discriminatory' effect. I do believe that the drugs favored by one side of the tracks should not carry different penalties by those favored by the other!

I see the war on drugs as a means by which to impose massive new powers to the federal government, and it would not surprise me, that like most centrally planned endeavors, it creates a communitiy of most, or greater effected people!

I am a believer that drug laws should be controlled by the states and localities where the problems and solutions are closer to the people being served by those laws.

-Piggy

Yes, it was and may still be true that crack cocaine sentencing guidelines were exponentially harsher than powder cocaine guidelines for decades. 

And as I acknowledged above, the data appears to clearly show a bias in terms of conviction rates and sentencing lengths for blacks vs. whites. 

[PatrickEwing]

On September 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, PatrickEwing said:

 

Hi NSX,

Thanks for the response. I'll pause my portion of the discussion because Id rather rely on actual data than just supposition, and since I'm on my honeymoon and my new wife has had just about enough of cigar blogging, I'll return to my previously scheduled routine of wine and lounging and the occasional 10 mins of exercise. To be continued...

[TCContender]

3 hours ago, PatrickEwing said:

Hi NSX,

Thanks for the response. I'll pause my portion of the discussion because Id rather rely on actual data than just supposition, and since I'm on my honeymoon and my new wife has had just about enough of cigar blogging, I'll return to my previously scheduled routine of wine and lounging and the occasional 10 mins of exercise. To be continued...

Congrats!

[bman75]

Until about a year ago, I would have been actively engaging in a historical/data/research-based argument about why we have such unfortunate conditions in the US among minority populations.   My recent experiences are driving my view now.

About a year ago, gunshots rang out in front of my house.  I saw my Section 8 neighbors running inside.  It has been a series of violent arguments outside of my home since.  Just last night it sounded like I was going to hear shots again after loud arguing after midnight.  Do I call the police and risk being targeted or risk the neighbors being treated unfairly or brutalized (I didn't)?  Hard to get a good night's sleep for work. 

My home that I bought for $80K US is now worth $15k.  Not that I care that much.  i have been more worried about my safety and property for the past year.  There has been a constant stream of trash on the street coming from their un-bagged trash cans.  The neighbor's yard and house is completely unmaintained. I can't influence or have a civil conversation with my neighbors.  They might as well be from a different planet.  I restrain cigar purchases knowing that what I have is uninsured.  Tens of millions in the same situation have decided to take "flight" to outlying areas over the past several decades.  Were that all wrong and just bigoted? 

I guess what I'm saying is that it is very easy to take a side on this issue if you haven't been personally affected.  There are MANY who have been unfairly targeted by policy and yes, we do have a major problem with police brutality in the USA.  There are many (of all races) like me who are being victimized by a delinquent culture of criminality and anti-intellectualism.  There are cultural issues that are not being addressed in the current discourse, which prevents constructive solutions.  This is a complex issue, but there is too much polarization on each side to come to an effective path to resolution.  

Just one man's experience over the past year, but I think Kapernick would benefit from being in my situation for a few months.  Two sides to this issue and they both need to be addressed.

[trike]

Several weeks later, has America's collective awareness increased on the topic Kap wants us to focus upon?

Wait until the NBA Basketball season starts.  More fireworks?

[forgop]

Several weeks later, has America's collective awareness increased on the topic Kap wants us to focus upon?

Wait until the NBA Basketball season starts.  More fireworks?

I think it's created even more hostility myself.

NBA has a rule that players must stand. They can be suspended. Unfortunately the other leagues do not, but a coach with any stones that says he will cut/bench a player for sitting is within his right as a coach to require it. Freedom of speech is not applicable for what the player does on the team's time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeht]

Not reading these long books people are writting, but anyone who thinks jim crow/civil era didn't have an impact on blacks in this country .. you are completely out of touch. As i said before, my mom who was born in the mid 40's had to go to black only schools. The oppression during the era wasn't too far removed from a 100yrs ago. In the small southern towns.  Many of these major universities didn't get their 1st black students till a few yrs before i was born.

A could write a book, but its not needed. The one's who are out of touch..will continue to be. Why, because it doesn't affect them. You will never be profiled. NO you will never be discriminated against.. the list goes on and on. 

[hjmclain22]

2 hours ago, trike said:

Several weeks later, has America's collective awareness increased on the topic Kap wants us to focus upon?

Wait until the NBA Basketball season starts.  More fireworks?

You do realize that the presidential candidates discussed this issue on Monday for almost twenty minutes??

[NSXCIGAR]

26 minutes ago, jeht said:

Not reading these long books people are writting, but anyone who thinks jim crow/civil era didn't have an impact on blacks in this country .. 

I can tell you haven't read any of the posts in this thread because I don't recall seeing any post, mine or by another, that suggests that the Jim Crow era had no impact on blacks.

The point that I was trying to make and apparently still am trying to make is that there is a particularly peculiar set of historical facts that are very difficult to explain with the mainstream theory that racism is the sole cause of the ills in modern minority communities. If that theory is true, than surely the socio-economic indicators for a given group would be worse in an environment such as the Jim Crow era. However, that's not what the data shows.

Not only does the data appear to show an improvement for blacks in many socio-economic indicators throughout the Jim Crow era but it also shows that the stagnation and subsequent decline in these socio-economic indicators happens to precisely correspond to the period when welfare, the war on drugs and the minimum wage were de facto implemented. I therefore believe that is a far more sound theory to use in explaining the problems in black communities that have persisted for 45 years. Those causes, however, are far more difficult and painful to address in modern society. I'd have a lot more respect for someone who protested to bring attention to those issues--the real issues, in my view.