Political Roundtable - Part VI

[nate33]

There is very real discrimination, but is not some of it justified? Jesse Jackson himself once said that "there is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." It seems that the current Social Justice mantra is that whites should stop expecting blacks to act like criminals and then maybe they will indeed stop. I submit that they've got the order backwards.

I understand the feeling Jackson mentions, although I really don't experience it myself. The last time being attacked or the victim of a robbery was a concern, I was worried about white "townies" in Waynesboro, VA who didn't like the uniform from the military school I was in, and didn't like the black guys/girls I was walking around with.

But, I think that attitude Jackson describes is prejudice, not necessarily discrimination. One of the experiments I mentioned indicated that whites WITH a criminal record have about the same chance of getting a job as blacks WITHOUT a criminal record. Which doesn't make a damn bit of sense -- employers have time to make a decision, and their collective reasoning (at least in that study) was that (with identical credentials) they're just as likely to pick a white person with a criminal past as a black person without a criminal past.

I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that prejudice is the attitude -- the knee jerk reaction. That is what it is. Discrimination is the action that comes from the attitude.

Maybe when we're dead an in an afterlife we'll be able to see the precise causes and effects. It would interest me a lot to see how much of the current situation is a matter of personal choices? How much are the long-term impacts of slavery, segregation, and discrimination? How much is the persistent portrayal in media of blacks as stupid, lazy and criminal? How much is the result of receiving "special attention" from police? How much is the result of an ill-conceived welfare system? And so on.

Well said, Nivek. There are definitely multiple causes and we need to consider all of them. My sense is that the powers that be (media, politicians, etc.) tend to focus exclusively on those causes resulting from discrimination by whites without focusing on many of the other factors.

I'll disagree with the comment on media portral of blacks being stupid, lazy and criminal. If you watch carefully, on nearly every single movie, TV show or commercial, whenever there's a stereotypical robber or criminal, it's a white guy. Whenever there's an evil mastermind that the superheroes or the John McClean's/Jack Ryans of the the movie world have to fight, it's a white guy. Heck, most "terrorists" aren't even Middle Eastern, they're Germans or Eastern Block types. Think of the bumbling criminals in comedies like Home Alone. Look at how often the bad guy in a serialized TV show like Castle or Law and Order involve a white criminal and not a black one. Check out every home security system commercial or brochure and you will see a white guy as a criminal.

Now consider the number of black computer programmers or engineers you see. Die Hard 2, Star Trek TNG, and the Matrix come to mind. Think of the black doctors like Dr. Huxtable on the Cosby Show, Dr. Chandler on St. Elsewhere, Dr. Benton on ER, Dr. Bailey on Grey’s Anatomy, Dr. Gideon on Gideon’s Crossing, Dr. Foreman on House.

If anything, I think the media today are hypersensitive to putting blacks in any kind of unflattering light. I understand why, and don't have a problem with it, but I really don't think it's fair to accuse them of portraying blacks poorly.

[Severn Hoos]

nate, it saddens me to say that most of the negative portrayals of African Americans in media & entertainment are produced by African Americans. It may be from a misplaced (IMO) desire to honor their roots or "keeping it real" or whatever, but that does much more to set in people's minds the negative stereotypes than anything in the "mainstream" media (i.e., Network TV).

But then you find Ice Cube making family movies and it's remarkable what money will do to the "creative process"...

[TheSecretWeapon]

If you're talking about right now, and maybe the past decade, I'd mostly agree. Historically, not so much. Black actors forever just about that the only roles available to them were slaves, domestic servants or criminals. Or "black" roles where the character's racial identity is a key factor.

There have been exceptions here and there, but blacks (until recently) had not been portrayed in entertainment as fully human. Meaning: it's fine to portray a black person as a criminal, but balance it with depictions of blacks doing/being other things as well. It has gotten better in recent years, but the film/TV/entertainment industry is a little more than a century old.

Law & Order is almost like layers of sediment of racial attitudes and awareness. Go back to the old episodes, and nearly everyone in a position of power was white and male. Criminals were a mix. Nowadays the casting is a mix of colors and gender -- much more thoughtful, which isn't surprising considering the level of awareness has been raised.

Some of the negative portrayals made today are indeed made by black producers. That wasn't the case historically because, of course, blacks weren't getting hired to be producers or show runners.

[dckingsfan]

I'm sorry but what in the entire history of government spending since the human race began led anyone to believe that politicians would not put short term benefits ahead of long term fiscal health?

It's not just pensions; the US government is piling up ridiculous deficits as well, spending appreciably more than they are taking in. There is a reason politicians have both low approval ratings as a class (long term needs of the country) while enjoying extremely high reelection rates(short term benefits for their districts).

And usually these things only get fixed when there is a crisis. Until that gets fixed - I don't see the Baltimore/Detroit/etc. issues getting fixed.

Short-term it is easier for the Ds to continue to pay the teachers unions and the Rs to back the tough on crime/protect the police unions.

For these things to get fixed we need a leading D (or set of Ds) to back limitations on teachers unions and a leading R (or set of Rs) to say that the war on crime was a failure.

Just don't see it...

[nate33]

and a leading R (or set of Rs) to say that the war on crime was a failure.

Failure?


The violent crime rate is down almost 75% from it's peak in 1991.

[dckingsfan]

Yes, failure - It is literally bankrupting CA for example. It is unsustainable.

We have many incarcerated that certainly shouldn't be... we are right there with Russia

[nate33]

Yes, failure - It is literally bankrupting CA for example. It is unsustainable.

We have many incarcerated that certainly shouldn't be... we are right there with Russia

That's certainly a good point. I would say the results of the War on Crime are "mixed". There is no doubt that it significantly reduced violent crime (though demographics may have played a role as well) and in that aspect, it's hard to call it a failure. But there were certainly consequences such as the incarceration rates and financial cost.

I just felt it necessary to point out the crime stats. Before we drastically change our philosophy of law enforcement, we need to consider the ramifications. Lowering the incarceration rates sounds great in theory, but it may well lead to more violent crime. These factors need to be weighed carefully.

[dckingsfan]

Maybe I am being to harsh - but I think any unsustainable program is a failure. And law enforcement including the incarceration rates is unsustainable and therefore a failure and needs to change.

I would also argue that the defense of local police unions and the lack programs to reduce police violence is also a failure. I understand the indemnification issue - not withstanding that, it still needs to be drastically improved.

In both cases - the "tough on crime" crowd has kept these changes from happening. And I think the leadership on getting us out of the mess falls on the Rs (that part is no doubt an opinion).

[TheSecretWeapon]

Yes, failure - It is literally bankrupting CA for example. It is unsustainable.

We have many incarcerated that certainly shouldn't be... we are right there with Russia

That's certainly a good point. I would say the results of the War on Crime are "mixed". There is no doubt that it significantly reduced violent crime (though demographics may have played a role as well) and in that aspect, it's hard to call it a failure. But there were certainly consequences such as the incarceration rates and financial cost.

I just felt it necessary to point out the crime stats. Before we drastically change our philosophy of law enforcement, we need to consider the ramifications. Lowering the incarceration rates sounds great in theory, but it may well lead to more violent crime. These factors need to be weighed carefully.

This is another one of those issues with complex causes and solutions. One theory I've read about (and seems interesting and perhaps plausible) is that exposure to lead was a contributing factor to the steady increase and then steady decline in the crime rate. The theory goes that lead exposure from automotive exhaust (leaded fuels) built up over time and may have contributed to at-risk populations committing more crimes. And then, the switch to unleaded fuels over time (about 20 years) contributed to a similar decrease in crime rates.

There's debate about how valid this research is. Superficially, it's plausible. In various places around the world, there's very similar data showing crime rates going up over roughly a 20-year period as exposure to atmospheric lead increases, and then a steady drop in crime rates as unleaded fuel is introduced and atmospheric lead exposure is reduced. I don't think anyone would call it a "cause" of crime (except maybe Kevin Drum), but it seems plausible that it's a contributing factor.

[Zonkerbl]

The burden of proof HAS to lie on the person proposing to spend a huge amount of money for a system that is blatantly racist and whose primary outcome is the destruction of opportunity for an entire lifetime for every person exposed to it.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. No amount of deterrent is worth the enormous social cost the current prison system imposes on us. The only reason we still have it is the people it hurts the most are the politically disenfranchised, and they're politically disenfranchised by the very system they don't have the voice to complain about.

It's a disgrace and a failure in every aspect of its operation and should be drastically reduced or, if possible, eliminated.

[Induveca]

The burden of proof HAS to lie on the person proposing to spend a huge amount of money for a system that is blatantly racist and whose primary outcome is the destruction of opportunity for an entire lifetime for every person exposed to it.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. No amount of deterrent is worth the enormous social cost the current prison system imposes on us. The only reason we still have it is the people it hurts the most are the politically disenfranchised, and they're politically disenfranchised by the very system they don't have the voice to complain about.

It's a disgrace and a failure in every aspect of its operation and should be drastically reduced or, if possible, eliminated.

Not going to happen, no matter the supposed merits. Too many variables involved, with far too much subjective interpretation for every single one.

Any argument for or against are basically "moral" arguments. Too many people are incarcerated from my perspective, but I do remember late 80s NYC. Something is working.....my old neighborhood is largely crime free and spotless. And it's a poor area in uptown Manhattan.

Either all the knuckleheads are locked up, or 20 years of punishing those knuckleheads ensured their offspring didn't follow in their footsteps. Of course I speak only for NYC, where there are plenty of jobs. "Deal drugs vs work at xyz corp" isn't such an easy option in economically comatose cities like Baltimore.

[dckingsfan]

The burden of proof HAS to lie on the person proposing to spend a huge amount of money for a system that is blatantly racist and whose primary outcome is the destruction of opportunity for an entire lifetime for every person exposed to it.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. No amount of deterrent is worth the enormous social cost the current prison system imposes on us. The only reason we still have it is the people it hurts the most are the politically disenfranchised, and they're politically disenfranchised by the very system they don't have the voice to complain about.

It's a disgrace and a failure in every aspect of its operation and should be drastically reduced or, if possible, eliminated.

Not going to happen, no matter the supposed merits. Too many variables involved, with far too much subjective interpretation for every single one.

Any argument for or against are basically "moral" arguments. Too many people are incarcerated from my perspective, but I do remember late 80s NYC. Something is working.....my old neighborhood is largely crime free and spotless. And it's a poor area in uptown Manhattan.

Either all the knuckleheads are locked up, or 20 years of punishing those knuckleheads ensured their offspring didn't follow in their footsteps. Of course I speak only for NYC, where there are plenty of jobs. "Deal drugs vs work at xyz corp" isn't such an easy option in economically comatose cities like Baltimore.

Disagree - but from a sustainability standpoint. Taking an example: California just can't afford the costs. Many elected officials ran on the "tough on crime" platform. But now, they can't figure out how to pay for it. In the case of CA - they had to let a big chunk of low-level criminals go (judicial intervention).

[Induveca]

Exactly dckingsfan, financially feasible or not crime has plummeted. One side will scream "reduce incarceration, it's immoral!" (Oh and we can't afford it). The other side will scream "we'll find the money and cut costs, let's keep our streets safe!" Then they'll pull out the violent crime statistics which are very persuasive (albeit in question).

The "absence of lead" resulted in plunging crime argument will be a joke (although I do find if fascinating) to the general public.

[dckingsfan]

Okay, you laid out the political arguments pretty well.

But the decisions are actually being made by the courts now - you don't have adequate facilities, you have to let them go. So, prosecuting low level crimes like drug use - that is going to go the way of the Cuckoo bird, IMO...

On another note, it is going to be interesting to see how they pay for the unfunded retirement funds - it is going to be a very interesting battle. Generally the two biggest state expenditures are on prisons and schools - and both are being pretty well mismanaged.

[dckingsfan]

Yeesh

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... cross.html

[popper]

It's going to be very difficult for the country to solve our many problems when reams of research confirm that most of the electorate is ignorant to the basic facts and information necessary to make informed decisions. For many politicians, an ignorant voter is the best constituent.


May 07, 2015, 06:00 am
Americans get an F in civics
By Former Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), contributor

The Pew Research Center and the U.S. Department of Education, respectively, issued recent findings on citizens' knowledge of current affairs and student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The findings showed broad failures.

If policymakers don't soon pay attention to such failures, the perpetuation of citizen understanding of the basic concepts of the American system will continue to be at risk……

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/e ... -in-civics

[TheSecretWeapon]

It's going to be very difficult for the country to solve our many problems when reams of research confirm that most of the electorate is ignorant to the basic facts and information necessary to make informed decisions. For many politicians, an ignorant voter is the best constituent.


May 07, 2015, 06:00 am
Americans get an F in civics
By Former Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), contributor

The Pew Research Center and the U.S. Department of Education, respectively, issued recent findings on citizens' knowledge of current affairs and student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The findings showed broad failures.

If policymakers don't soon pay attention to such failures, the perpetuation of citizen understanding of the basic concepts of the American system will continue to be at risk……

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/e ... -in-civics

I wonder how elected officials would do on the same kind of test.

[Induveca]

It's going to be very difficult for the country to solve our many problems when reams of research confirm that most of the electorate is ignorant to the basic facts and information necessary to make informed decisions. For many politicians, an ignorant voter is the best constituent.


May 07, 2015, 06:00 am
Americans get an F in civics
By Former Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), contributor

The Pew Research Center and the U.S. Department of Education, respectively, issued recent findings on citizens' knowledge of current affairs and student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The findings showed broad failures.

If policymakers don't soon pay attention to such failures, the perpetuation of citizen understanding of the basic concepts of the American system will continue to be at risk……

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/e ... -in-civics

I wonder how elected officials would do on the same kind of test.

Considering the ignorant masses are choosing them I would guess about the same?

[TheSecretWeapon]

It's going to be very difficult for the country to solve our many problems when reams of research confirm that most of the electorate is ignorant to the basic facts and information necessary to make informed decisions. For many politicians, an ignorant voter is the best constituent.


May 07, 2015, 06:00 am
Americans get an F in civics
By Former Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), contributor

The Pew Research Center and the U.S. Department of Education, respectively, issued recent findings on citizens' knowledge of current affairs and student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The findings showed broad failures.

If policymakers don't soon pay attention to such failures, the perpetuation of citizen understanding of the basic concepts of the American system will continue to be at risk……

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/e ... -in-civics

I wonder how elected officials would do on the same kind of test.

Considering the ignorant masses are choosing them I would guess about the same?

That'd be my guess.

[pineappleheadindc]

The internet has so much promise. Telemedicine, distance learning, e-commerce and economic development. It evens the playing field for those with disabilities and allows them to work productively and be contributors to our society. The Internet of Things -- yeah, I have my garage doors, home alarm system, lights, etc all tied to my home network.

And yet, where it has failed us a bit IMO is in the area of civic engagement. It allows people to self-segregate and not only consume their like-minded opinions in their e-friends and opinion thought leaders, it allows people to self-segregate and consumer their own distinct fact set. This sucks. It's why we are so apart on so many public policy issues, we not only have different opinions, we all have different facts. And it's only human nature to want to self-segregate into the safety and comfort of like-minded people.

Back when I worked for the Department of Army, I recall a training class where they talked about the Navy's initial Equal Opportunity efforts. They spent lots of time and manhours training sailors about tolerance, race relations, etc. The program failed. So what they did was shockingly simple: They put blacks and whites together, made them get along by *giving* everyone equal opportunity but not worrying about individual attitudes and thoughts. You can't change people's minds and prejudices, but they will change them on their own when they are on close proximity with other races, viewpoints, etc.

Self-segregating (all conservative politicians flock to Fox News, liberals to MSNBC) is the opposite of the successful Navy strategy. Belonging only to internet sites that reflect your views does that to you too.

But the ability to self-segregate fact sets and opinion leaders on the internet, that's what's really screwing up the masses (insofar as division in this country is concerned).

My dos centavos.