Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (2 Viewers)

[General Tso]

There's some great dialogue in here today. The FFA has come a long way.

This issue of whether or not the Liberal policies instituted in the 60's have helped or hurt African Americans is going tobe debated quite a bit in the coming years. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the welfare state (despite the best of intentions) has failed black people miserably. And what's interesting is that more and more black leaders are coming around to these ideas as well.

Two great books on the subject by black Conservatives - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/books/review/please-stop-helping-us-and-shame.html?referrer=&_r=0

 

[matttyl]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Either:

- I'm reading the chart wrong.

- You're reading the chart wrong.

- I don't understand what statistic you're trying to convey.

What does the chart show, exactly?

We've (or rather I) have already shown he was way off and quite honestly down right rude in his assertions of being right.

 

[timschochet]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

 

[cstu]

Look, I'm not arguing that MANY persons of diverse nationalities found themselves in horrible situations and faced racism when they came to this country. Including the Jews, Irish, Italians, etc. I agree with you on that front. And I don't mean to diminish it.

However, please don't diminish the fact that, at the end of the day, a Jew, Irish, Italian, etc., can adopt the dress, speech, look, and appearance of white america. A person with brown skin can't. Two generations in (even one, really), an a son of Italian immigrants can "appear" just was white as descendants of the Mayflower. A grandson of a former slave can't.

Black people should all marry white people and this problem will be over in a generation.

 

[DocHolliday]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

While that may be true, it does not explain the high unemployment for black people today.

Young black men have less desire to finish HS, go to college, and get a job than other races.

I am part of a management team that has manages a few plants in the midwest. Some of those plants are located in black communities. Even in those communities, we recieve very few applications from black men when jobs are posted.

Are the young black men tired of being oppressed and given up on the American Dream. Or, do they not want the "American Dream" Seems difficult to change someone if they do not want to change.

 

[Sweet J]

There's some great dialogue in here today. The FFA has come a long way.

This issue of whether or not the Liberal policies instituted in the 60's have helped or hurt African Americans is going tobe debated quite a bit in the coming years. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the welfare state (despite the best of intentions) has failed black people miserably. And what's interesting is that more and more black leaders are coming around to these ideas as well.

Two great books on the subject by black Conservatives - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/books/review/please-stop-helping-us-and-shame.html?referrer=&_r=0

I used to have a boss that said "only Liberals can reform liberal programs, and only Conservatives can reform conservative programs." (i.e., Nixon/China and Clinton/Welfare, I'm sure there are better examples). Frankly, I'm surprised that Obama opened up trade to Cuba instead of a Republican. And I'm convinced only a Republican could have closed down Guantanamo.

Anyway, black or no, I'm ready for a Liberal (or at least a moderate) to open this particular dialogue. Sigh.

 

[timschochet]

There's some great dialogue in here today. The FFA has come a long way.

This issue of whether or not the Liberal policies instituted in the 60's have helped or hurt African Americans is going tobe debated quite a bit in the coming years. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the welfare state (despite the best of intentions) has failed black people miserably. And what's interesting is that more and more black leaders are coming around to these ideas as well.

Two great books on the subject by black Conservatives - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/books/review/please-stop-helping-us-and-shame.html?referrer=&_r=0

these aren't new arguments either. Conservatives, including black conservatives, have been making them for at least 30 years or longer. My problem is that for all the talk about the welfare state, I've visited schools in the inner city and they suck. Old buildings that look ready to collapse. No money for special programs, or even proper textbooks. Security checks and metal detectors at the entrances. Statistics suggest we spend a lot of money on these schools but I have no idea where it all goes. It doesn't trickle down to the students that's for sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I'm not arguing that MANY persons of diverse nationalities found themselves in horrible situations and faced racism when they came to this country. Including the Jews, Irish, Italians, etc. I agree with you on that front. And I don't mean to diminish it.

However, please don't diminish the fact that, at the end of the day, a Jew, Irish, Italian, etc., can adopt the dress, speech, look, and appearance of white america. A person with brown skin can't. Two generations in (even one, really), an a son of Italian immigrants can "appear" just was white as descendants of the Mayflower. A grandson of a former slave can't.

Black people should all marry white people and this problem will be over in a generation.

Homer Plessy tried this 1892. The dissent in his case has still not been adopted by the USSC.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.

Seriously? Three of them aren't even my posts. And the one that was doesn't even mention birth rates in any way shape or form. And I certainly didn't try to connect it to slavery, That's absurd. And I didn't even try to "blame" anything on anything, I simply looked at other trends in parenthood over the relevant time period.

You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that.

 

[matttyl]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

 

[matttyl]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.

Seriously? Three of them aren't even my posts. And the one that was doesn't even mention birth rates in any way shape or form. And I certainly didn't try to connect it to slavery, That's absurd. And I didn't even try to "blame" anything on anything, I simply looked at other trends in parenthood over the relevant time period.

You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that.

Where did I say they were? You obviously missed a word (or two) when you posted "where did try to blame..." How was I suppose to know that the word you missed was "I" and not "anyone"?

 

[KCitons]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

 

[RCon]

Arby the numbers you posted are deeply disturbing. There are different ways to interpret them, IMO:

1. The War on Poverty has made things worse, and therefore we should reconsider and/or reject big government type solutions to these problems.

2. The War on Poverty, despite sounding big, was never properly funded since its inception, the monies were spent unwisely, and Republicans have consistently cut it down over the years rendering it ineffective. Therefore we need to renew our efforts.

3. This has nothing to do with the War on Poverty. Societal factors are at play here which are just too big to overcome no matter what we do.

Which is closest to the truth? I'm asking because honestly I'm not sure.

IMO, all of the above.

1. The "war on poverty" has, in some ways, worsened the situation. It's been said here before, but government assistance programs that are means-tested with significant cutoff points tend to create reverse incentives to work. That is, if a person becomes worse off economically by increasing his income by $500, then there is an incentive to avoid that increase.

2. I'm not really sure what "properly funded" means. "Spent unwisely" is a given.

3. There are definitely societal factors at play, especially if we're defining "societal factors" as "anything other than the war on poverty". That would then include the "war on drugs", which is almost certainly the single biggest factor.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Pretty sure the Public Enemy song "can't trust it" is about the plight of Irish immigrants.

House of Pain, Jump Around

IMO

 

[timschochet]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again. Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

No we can't because they are not excuses cut historical factors which are inportant to understanding the overall problem. They are not the only factors. Your statistics about out of wedlock birth suggest that there are other important more recent factors as well. I think everything has to be considered before we can decide what the best ideas are for moving forward.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.

Seriously? Three of them aren't even my posts. And the one that was doesn't even mention birth rates in any way shape or form. And I certainly didn't try to connect it to slavery, That's absurd. And I didn't even try to "blame" anything on anything, I simply looked at other trends in parenthood over the relevant time period.

You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that.

Where did I say they were? You obviously missed a word (or two) when you posted "where did try to blame..." How was I suppose to know that the word you missed was "I" and not "anyone"?

Setting aside your clever evasive maneuver here, your previous post clearly referred to "the history you'd like to blame this on." Your words. It was a reply to my post (go back and look if you don't believe me). So the "you" to whom you referred was definitely me. You very clearly said I was trying to blame something on history, which was wrong for multiple reasons. Stop trying to squirm out of it and own your mistake. It's really not that hard. I just did it.

 

[matttyl]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

 

[Cjw_55106]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

I dont know why they would get paid. The Orioles certainly are losing a ton of money.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Slave families were literally broken up by the slave trade. The entire concept of a traditional 2-parent family was either discouraged or outright prohibited. You don't think that might have had any impact?

There has been no slavery for well over 100 years. I bet if I looked it up, I'd see that black kids born to unwed mothers is way higher now than it was 50 years ago. Stop blaming slavery.

Swing and a miss! The birthrate for unmarried black women is actually the lowest its been in fifty years. See the second chart here.

Maybe since you were so hilariously wrong here you should consider the possibility that there's some information and perspective that you're lacking?

Either:

- I'm reading the chart wrong.

- You're reading the chart wrong.

- I don't understand what statistic you're trying to convey.

What does the chart show, exactly?

We've (or rather I) have already shown he was way off and quite honestly down right rude in his assertions of being right.

C'mon, man, I thought we were a tag team? I softened him up with some shots at the beginning of the match, made the tag, and then you flew in with the killer elbow off the top rope to finish him off.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty sure the Public Enemy song "can't trust it" is about the plight of Irish immigrants.

There are some damn sad Irish immigrant songs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

 

[General Tso]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again. Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

Serious question - how does a continued focus on 50-250 years ago solve today's problems? And be specific.

 

[matttyl]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.

Seriously? Three of them aren't even my posts. And the one that was doesn't even mention birth rates in any way shape or form. And I certainly didn't try to connect it to slavery, That's absurd. And I didn't even try to "blame" anything on anything, I simply looked at other trends in parenthood over the relevant time period.

You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that.

Where did I say they were? You obviously missed a word (or two) when you posted "where did try to blame..." How was I suppose to know that the word you missed was "I" and not "anyone"?

Setting aside your clever evasive maneuver here, your previous post clearly referred to "the history you'd like to blame this on." Your words. It was a reply to my post (go back and look if you don't believe me). So the "you" to whom you referred was definitely me. You very clearly said I was trying to blame something on history, which was wrong for multiple reasons. Stop trying to squirm out of it and own your mistake. It's really not that hard. I just did it.

"You'd" can be second person plural still, right? I was responding to all the posters in this thread, not just you. It isn't always about you, Tobias.

It wasn't clever at all, I was attempting to answer your incomplete question. I gave you other posters who did just what you were asking about, but instead of correcting them about (in your own words) "making no sense" when they made those comments, you jump all over James Daulton for being "hilariously wrong and lacking perspective" when it effect it was you all along. Sorry if I'm dragging that out, but it rubbed me the wrong way when he brought up a very serious issue happening TODAY which you totally dismissed and joked at. Why can't we have an honest discussion about it?

I believe you've previously attributed it to being in jail. Is that a fair assessment of one of your thoughts on the topic?

 

[KCitons]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

I dont know why they would get paid. The Orioles certainly are losing a ton of money.

We should set up a fund to help the Orioles.

 

[Cjw_55106]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

I dont know why they would get paid. The Orioles certainly are losing a ton of money.

We should set up a fund to help the Orioles.

Yeah, because thats what this is about.

 

[Swing 51]

David Simon, author of several books about life — and crime — on the streets of Baltimore and the writer/producer of the HBO series, “The Wire,” spoke out on Freddie Gray and the drug war — and threw out criticism of former Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley, now a potential presidential candidate.

He said in a blog post on the Marshall Project page — The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O’Malley3. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=post-top

 

[General Tso]

Pretty sure the Public Enemy song "can't trust it" is about the plight of Irish immigrants.

There are some damn sad Irish immigrant songs.

"And the sign said, long haired pretty people,Need not apply."

Rooted in Irish discrimination - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

 

[Cjw_55106]

Clearly the issue is complex and won’t be fixed for decades (maybe ever). I personally believe the number one issue is having kids that can’t be afforded. Whether you are white, black, Asian, etc., you are putting yourself way behind the curve when you have kids you can’t pay for. Obviously the earlier you have kids, the worse position you put yourself in. The second biggest issue is lack of two parent homes. Money isn’t always the answer (see Adrian Peterson for example). If you aren’t around, you suck at being a parent. It’s impossible to be a good parent when you have 5-10 kids with multiple women. I don’t care how much money you have, you simply don’t have the time. Education; the left can pretend that blacks care about education just as much as other races, but the stats don’t show that. Even when compared specifically to other families that are poor, they have a higher dropout rate then Asian and whites. It’s kind of interesting that Hispanics have the highest rate of dropouts, but we never hear from them in regards to life being unfair. Maybe because they aren’t told that from generation to generation?

I think this sums it up best; “Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!”

 

[njherdfan]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

This argument never makes sense to me. Any time I'm in the South I see a ton of Confederate flags and people who unironically say the "War of Northern Aggression." I went to the 150th anniversary of the battle of Chancellorsville and I saw at least 10 "Re-Elect Jefferson Davis stickers." What do you think those people's attitudes towards the federal government and any programs designed to help African Americans were, if you had to guess?

Hell, white people love license plates with the Gadsden Flag, as if what they face today in America is in any way comparable to what the colonists faced. They even named their political movement as if they were ideological heirs to a bunch of looters protesters who destroyed a ton of British property to get their point across. The idea of moving away from the past is fine, but let's not pretend that Conservatives don't want to hold on to some mythologized past more than anyone.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty sure the Public Enemy song "can't trust it" is about the plight of Irish immigrants.

There are some damn sad Irish immigrant songs.

"And the sign said, long haired pretty people,Need not apply."

Rooted in Irish discrimination - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

The Irish Laborers and the New Basin Canal

By the time the canal was finished six years later, betwen 8,000 - 20,000 Irish immigrants had died in the effort. (The exact figure will never be known because no records were kept, but some have estimated the toll may have been as high as 30,000.)

This is now I-10 where it's estimated thousands of Irish are still buried underneath. The story is that the slaves were considered too "valuable" to use on the project.

 

[KCitons]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

I dont know why they would get paid. The Orioles certainly are losing a ton of money.

We should set up a fund to help the Orioles.

Yeah, because thats what this is about.

I wasn't the one that mentioned the Orioles were losing a ton of money? Something I'm sure they will be able to overcome. By contrast, someone that works concessions at the park, only has a limited number of home games to make an living. The team will raise ticket prices, or parking, or the price of hot dogs next season in order to improve the bottom line. What options do the workers have?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moreover, if you go back another 25 years prior (75 years ago, 1940) you have a population of 12.9m. While your chart doesn't go back that far, lets just assume 65 births per 1k (seems reasonable from your chart, but I'll do two other calculations as well - one higher and one lower). 838,500 births that year - 16% out of wedlock or ~134,160 black children born out of wedlock in 1940. Roughly a 12 fold increase in 75 years. I picked 75 years ago as that's right at the half way point going backwards to the end of the Civil War.

Had the birthrate at that time been 100 (very high) you'd have 1.29m births that year, and ~200k of them would have been out of wedlock. Had the birthrate at that time been 50 (very low) you'd have 645k births, and just over 100k of them would have been out of wedlock. Either way were looking at a 7-15 fold increase in 75 years. Lots of things can be blamed on it, but I don't think that slavery/history if one of them - as both the sheer number and % was far lower during the history you'd like to blame this on.

Where did try to blame out of wedlock birth rates on history? That makes no sense.

Here, here, here, and here (that was was yours, and not to put words in your mouth - you were likely defending far more than just the out of wedlock births brought up by The Big Guy's questions - but the heading of the article is "Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.").

Those posts are literally what started the whole "I bet there were more ....50 years ago" conversation that we're still having here.

Seriously? Three of them aren't even my posts. And the one that was doesn't even mention birth rates in any way shape or form. And I certainly didn't try to connect it to slavery, That's absurd. And I didn't even try to "blame" anything on anything, I simply looked at other trends in parenthood over the relevant time period.

You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that.

Where did I say they were? You obviously missed a word (or two) when you posted "where did try to blame..." How was I suppose to know that the word you missed was "I" and not "anyone"?

Setting aside your clever evasive maneuver here, your previous post clearly referred to "the history you'd like to blame this on." Your words. It was a reply to my post (go back and look if you don't believe me). So the "you" to whom you referred was definitely me. You very clearly said I was trying to blame something on history, which was wrong for multiple reasons. Stop trying to squirm out of it and own your mistake. It's really not that hard. I just did it.

"You'd" can be second person plural still, right? I was responding to all the posters in this thread, not just you. It isn't always about you, Tobias.

It wasn't clever at all, I was attempting to answer your incomplete question. I gave you other posters who did just what you were asking about, but instead of correcting them about (in your own words) "making no sense" when they made those comments, you jump all over James Daulton for being "hilariously wrong and lacking perspective" when it effect it was you all along. Sorry if I'm dragging that out, but it rubbed me the wrong way when he brought up a very serious issue happening TODAY which you totally dismissed and joked at. Why can't we have an honest discussion about it?

I believe you've previously attributed it to being in jail

I apologized for this as soon as I realized my mistake in understanding what he was trying to say. You should consider doing the same regarding wrongly attributing statements and arguments to me instead of this silly transparent attempt to squirm out of it.

And even know you've done it again. I didn't attribute anything related to any statistic, relative rates of out-of-wedlock births or otherwise to any one factor. Please stop. Unless you meant "you've" as the second person plural again?

 

[matttyl]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

High school diploma =/= graduation (I think the "graduation rate" assumes doing so within 4 years of entering high school). And this is what I mean...

The report estimates the national public high school graduation rates are 59 percent for Black male students, 65 percent for Latino males, and 80 percent for White, non-Latino males. The gap between Black and White male students increased from 19 percentage points in the 2009-2010 school year to an estimated 21 percentage points in the 2012-2013 school year.

 

[Two Deep]

Clearly the issue is complex and won’t be fixed for decades (maybe ever). I personally believe the number one issue is having kids that can’t be afforded. Whether you are white, black, Asian, etc., you are putting yourself way behind the curve when you have kids you can’t pay for. Obviously the earlier you have kids, the worse position you put yourself in. The second biggest issue is lack of two parent homes. Money isn’t always the answer (see Adrian Peterson for example). If you aren’t around, you suck at being a parent. It’s impossible to be a good parent when you have 5-10 kids with multiple women. I don’t care how much money you have, you simply don’t have the time. Education; the left can pretend that blacks care about education just as much as other races, but the stats don’t show that. Even when compared specifically to other families that are poor, they have a higher dropout rate then Asian and whites. It’s kind of interesting that Hispanics have the highest rate of dropouts, but we never hear from them in regards to life being unfair. Maybe because they aren’t told that from generation to generation?

I think this sums it up best; “Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows. It’s a very mean and nasty place and I don’t care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain’t about how hard ya hit. It’s about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done! Now if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain’t you! You’re better than that!”

Nice work Rocky

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Arby the numbers you posted are deeply disturbing. There are different ways to interpret them, IMO:

1. The War on Poverty has made things worse, and therefore we should reconsider and/or reject big government type solutions to these problems.

2. The War on Poverty, despite sounding big, was never properly funded since its inception, the monies were spent unwisely, and Republicans have consistently cut it down over the years rendering it ineffective. Therefore we need to renew our efforts.

3. This has nothing to do with the War on Poverty. Societal factors are at play here which are just too big to overcome no matter what we do.

Which is closest to the truth? I'm asking because honestly I'm not sure.

How can you have a war on poverty without an increase in minimum wage and a crackdown on usurious lending practices? Utter horse####. You can't begin to touch poverty without those. And why does everything have to be a war.

The war on poverty has been executed with the same imagination as the war on drugs has. With the same result, lots of money wasted for little lasting results. Also see the education system. There is a slow change coming with marijuana legalization for the war on drugs that might somewhere better. Hope I live to see it happen in the poverty side.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

High school diploma =/= graduation (I think the "graduation rate" assumes doing so within 4 years of entering high school). And this is what I mean...

The report estimates the national public high school graduation rates are 59 percent for Black male students, 65 percent for Latino males, and 80 percent for White, non-Latino males. The gap between Black and White male students increased from 19 percentage points in the 2009-2010 school year to an estimated 21 percentage points in the 2012-2013 school year.

You said in the past 50 years certain things have broken down, including graduation rates. Your words. They're bolded right up there.

Have graduation rates decreased in the last 50 years? If not, why would you say they've broken down?

Perhaps you mean they haven't increased over the last 50 years as much as they have for other racial/ethnic groups or for the population as a whole? I don't know that I'd call that a "breakdown," but whatever. If that's what you meant, could you provide that data?

 

[Two Deep]

The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile, endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back

 

[Parrothead]

The octopus wants to know if the workers at Camden Yards will still receive lost pay for today's game? Seems like they made this decision a little too early in the process. And again, the law abiding, tax paying citizen gets screwed.

I dont know why they would get paid. The Orioles certainly are losing a ton of money.

think of the octopus.. losing money hand over hand over hand over hand over hand over hand over hand over fist

 

[dickey moe]

Good discussion in here today, fellas (no shtick).

 

[General Tso]

David Simon, author of several books about life and crime on the streets of Baltimore and the writer/producer of the HBO series, The Wire, spoke out on Freddie Gray and the drug war and threw out criticism of former Baltimore mayor Martin OMalley, now a potential presidential candidate.

He said in a blog post on the Marshall Project page The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin OMalley3. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=post-top

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting. I agree partly with his conclusion that softening up drug policies will help curb some of the policing problems. But only marijuana. Legalizing anything harder than that is insanity. I've lived in the drug culture (mostly on the recovery side) since the early 80's and I've buried countless friends.But legalize pot. It's relatively harmless. Give the people their pot but draw a hard line on coke, heroin, and the rest of the hard stuff.

 

[matttyl]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

High school diploma =/= graduation (I think the "graduation rate" assumes doing so within 4 years of entering high school). And this is what I mean...

The report estimates the national public high school graduation rates are 59 percent for Black male students, 65 percent for Latino males, and 80 percent for White, non-Latino males. The gap between Black and White male students increased from 19 percentage points in the 2009-2010 school year to an estimated 21 percentage points in the 2012-2013 school year.

You said in the past 50 years certain things have broken down, including graduation rates. Your words. They're bolded right up there.

Have graduation rates decreased in the last 50 years? If not, why would you say they've broken down?

Perhaps you mean they haven't increased over the last 50 years as much as they have for other racial/ethnic groups or for the population as a whole? I don't know that I'd call that a "breakdown," but whatever. If that's what you meant, could you provide that data?

They've broken down recently (from 2009-2013) when compared to other races. That time period is within, among, inclusive of (whatever) the last 50 years. I said "in" the last 50 years", not "over the last 50 years". As you said, "my words."

Just like with born out of wedlock rates getting better for a period of time (very low during WW2), and then increasing rapidly - more recently we see that with graduation rates. If both of those were "better" at some point over the last 50 years, how can you now attribute history from before that to those things being "worse" today?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

High school diploma =/= graduation (I think the "graduation rate" assumes doing so within 4 years of entering high school). And this is what I mean...

The report estimates the national public high school graduation rates are 59 percent for Black male students, 65 percent for Latino males, and 80 percent for White, non-Latino males. The gap between Black and White male students increased from 19 percentage points in the 2009-2010 school year to an estimated 21 percentage points in the 2012-2013 school year.

You said in the past 50 years certain things have broken down, including graduation rates. Your words. They're bolded right up there.

Have graduation rates decreased in the last 50 years? If not, why would you say they've broken down?

Perhaps you mean they haven't increased over the last 50 years as much as they have for other racial/ethnic groups or for the population as a whole? I don't know that I'd call that a "breakdown," but whatever. If that's what you meant, could you provide that data?

They've broken down recently (from 2009-2013) when compared to other races. That time period is within, among, inclusive of (whatever) the last 50 years. I said "in" the last 50 years", not "over the last 50 years". As you said, "my words."

Just like with born out of wedlock rates getting better for a period of time (very low during WW2), and then increasing rapidly - more recently we see that with graduation rates. If both of those were "better" at some point over the last 50 years, how can you now attribute history from before that to those things being "worse" today?

I think we're done here.

 

[Weeber]

Isnt this how planet of the apes started?

 

[matttyl]

They've broken down recently (from 2009-2013) when compared to other races. That time period is within, among, inclusive of (whatever) the last 50 years. I said "in" the last 50 years", not "over the last 50 years". As you said, "my words."

Just like with born out of wedlock rates getting better for a period of time (very low during WW2), and then increasing rapidly - more recently we see that with graduation rates. If both of those were "better" at some point over the last 50 years, how can you now attribute history from before that to those things being "worse" today?

I think we're done here.

I thought we were talking about the issues facing black society today. You don't think the growing gap of graduation rates between black and white students is an issue? The gap is larger today than it was just a few years ago. So again, how could anything historical be the reason? Wouldn't the reason have to be something more recent?

 

[BassNBrew]

Another historical event that may contribute was the migration of black males from rural areas to big cities which took place during the World War II years. Basically they came North to work in the factories because all the whites were gone fighting the war. Then when the white soldiers came back the blacks were kicked out of the factories, yet they stayed in their new homes in the inner cities and faced massive unemployment.

That's an old story but it hasn't seem to have gotten much better.

Forgive me, but may contribute to what? Certainly not do the out of wedlock birthrate. The out of wedlock birthrate for blacks (again, from post 1580 here) during WWII was between 15-17%. In 25 years it over doubled. In the 45 years since then, it's roughly over doubled again.

Is it contributing to the dropout of high school rate? If so, how?

It may be, and likely is a contribution to some of the continued poverty (and as a corollary, crime)- but you're also talking about a 15 year period when the nation's gross national product doubled, so it's not like there wasn't any opportunity to be had.

Again, can we stop making excuses of history of 50-250 years ago and take an honest look at the issues facing this population today?

If you think the factors affecting the relative struggle of the black population in the United States stopped happening and impacting them 50-250 years ago, then no, you can't take an honest look.

I never said they stopped, but I'm sure you can agree they aren't at all what they once were. Agreed? So, in the past 50 years (when things weren't as bad) why did certain things break down - like the family dynamic, graduation rates, violent crime rates among this population?

In your own words from above "You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make or even come close to making. Please don't do that."

You're starting from premise that you assume is fact without backing it up. In fact, graduation rates among African Americans have increased over the last 50 years, and at a greater rate than they have for the white population. link

High school diploma =/= graduation (I think the "graduation rate" assumes doing so within 4 years of entering high school). And this is what I mean...

The report estimates the national public high school graduation rates are 59 percent for Black male students, 65 percent for Latino males, and 80 percent for White, non-Latino males. The gap between Black and White male students increased from 19 percentage points in the 2009-2010 school year to an estimated 21 percentage points in the 2012-2013 school year.

You said in the past 50 years certain things have broken down, including graduation rates. Your words. They're bolded right up there.

Have graduation rates decreased in the last 50 years? If not, why would you say they've broken down?

Perhaps you mean they haven't increased over the last 50 years as much as they have for other racial/ethnic groups or for the population as a whole? I don't know that I'd call that a "breakdown," but whatever. If that's what you meant, could you provide that data?

They've broken down recently (from 2009-2013) when compared to other races. That time period is within, among, inclusive of (whatever) the last 50 years. I said "in" the last 50 years", not "over the last 50 years". As you said, "my words."

Just like with born out of wedlock rates getting better for a period of time (very low during WW2), and then increasing rapidly - more recently we see that with graduation rates. If both of those were "better" at some point over the last 50 years, how can you now attribute history from before that to those things being "worse" today?

I think we're done here.

He got you at your own game. You should take that as a compliment.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

David Simon, author of several books about life and crime on the streets of Baltimore and the writer/producer of the HBO series, The Wire, spoke out on Freddie Gray and the drug war and threw out criticism of former Baltimore mayor Martin OMalley, now a potential presidential candidate.

He said in a blog post on the Marshall Project page The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin OMalley3. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=post-top

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting. I agree partly with his conclusion that softening up drug policies will help curb some of the policing problems. But only marijuana. Legalizing anything harder than that is insanity. I've lived in the drug culture (mostly on the recovery side) since the early 80's and I've buried countless friends.But legalize pot. It's relatively harmless. Give the people their pot but draw a hard line on coke, heroin, and the rest of the hard stuff.

Here...

April 29, 2015

Hillary Clinton To Call For 'End To The Era Of Mass Incarceration' In Major Speech

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will deliver a major speech on criminal justice reform Wednesday, calling for fundamental changes to how the United States punishes its citizens and an end to a system that disproportionately targets black men.

Clinton is scheduled to keynote the 18th Annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University Wednesday morning. It will be her most significant policy address since she launched her 2016 presidential bid this month.

Clinton will lay out her vision for criminal justice reform, centering around an "end to the era of mass incarceration," according to an aide who provided a preview of her remarks. Those changes include addressing probation and drug diversion programs, increasing support for mental health and drug treatment and pursuing alternative punishments for low-level offenders.

She also will call for body cameras for every police department in order to increase transparency and accountability in a way that benefits both officers and members of the public.

In a December speech to the Massachusetts Conference for Women, Clinton said the country needed to look at "hard truths" about racial injustice in the current system.

Clinton will revive that theme on Wednesday, saying black men are far more likely than whites to be targeted by policeand slapped with longer prison sentences.

During a fundraising event in New York City Tuesday, Clinton addressed the tensions in Baltimore, which is still reeling from the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died after sustaining injuries while in police custody.

“It is heartbreaking,” Clinton said. “The tragic death of another young African-American man. The injuries to police officers. The burning of peoples’ homes and small businesses. We have to restore order and security. But then we have to take a hard look as to what we need to do to reform our system.”

Clinton will also make additional comments about Baltimore on Wednesday.

Clinton's rhetoric on criminal justice has changed significantly since the 1990s, when she was first lady and when President Bill Clinton signed a massive 1994 crime bill into law. At the time, many politicians in both parties -- including Clinton herself -- were pushing for more prisons and stricter sentencing laws.

While running for president in 2007, Clinton was asked at the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum whether her husband's crime bill was "one of the primary factors behind the rising incarceration rate for blacks and Latinos." Clinton acknowledged that it had contributed.

"I think that the results -- not only at the federal level, but at the state level -- have been an unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board and now we have to address that," she said. "At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities."

"It’s hard to remember now, but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high," she added. "But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly start having more diversion and having more second chance programs."

 

[TobiasFunke]

They've broken down recently (from 2009-2013) when compared to other races. That time period is within, among, inclusive of (whatever) the last 50 years. I said "in" the last 50 years", not "over the last 50 years". As you said, "my words."

Just like with born out of wedlock rates getting better for a period of time (very low during WW2), and then increasing rapidly - more recently we see that with graduation rates. If both of those were "better" at some point over the last 50 years, how can you now attribute history from before that to those things being "worse" today?

I think we're done here.

I thought we were talking about the issues facing black society today. You don't think the growing gap of graduation rates between black and white students is an issue? The gap is larger today than it was just a few years ago. So again, how could anything historical be the reason? Wouldn't the reason have to be something more recent?

It's a two percentage point change relative to other races, over 2 years, and it's only among men. I have no earthly idea what it means, if anything (It doesn't seem statistically significant) and it does absolutely nothing to substantiate your previous statement regarding a "breakdown" in graduation rates "in the last 50 years."

All due respect, most of the time I enjoy discussions with you and respect you, as you know. But today you seem focused entirely on horse#### statements you can't back up, evasiveness, and attributing things to me that I didn't say. Your response every time I point this out is to conversation away from your previous horse#### statements you can't back up, evasiveness and misattributions, and towards whatever new point you want to fish with. In contrast, the one time you pointed out a mistake in my post I immediately owned it completely and apologized.

I've got better things to do with my time that keep playing this stupid game with you. Maybe on a Friday ...

 

[BassNBrew]

David Simon, author of several books about life and crime on the streets of Baltimore and the writer/producer of the HBO series, The Wire, spoke out on Freddie Gray and the drug war and threw out criticism of former Baltimore mayor Martin OMalley, now a potential presidential candidate.

He said in a blog post on the Marshall Project page The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin OMalley3. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=post-top

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting. I agree partly with his conclusion that softening up drug policies will help curb some of the policing problems. But only marijuana. Legalizing anything harder than that is insanity. I've lived in the drug culture (mostly on the recovery side) since the early 80's and I've buried countless friends.But legalize pot. It's relatively harmless. Give the people their pot but draw a hard line on coke, heroin, and the rest of the hard stuff.

Here...

April 29, 2015

Hillary Clinton To Call For 'End To The Era Of Mass Incarceration' In Major Speech

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will deliver a major speech on criminal justice reform Wednesday, calling for fundamental changes to how the United States punishes its citizens and an end to a system that disproportionately targets black men.

Clinton is scheduled to keynote the 18th Annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University Wednesday morning. It will be her most significant policy address since she launched her 2016 presidential bid this month.

Clinton will lay out her vision for criminal justice reform, centering around an "end to the era of mass incarceration," according to an aide who provided a preview of her remarks. Those changes include addressing probation and drug diversion programs, increasing support for mental health and drug treatment and pursuing alternative punishments for low-level offenders.

She also will call for body cameras for every police department in order to increase transparency and accountability in a way that benefits both officers and members of the public.

In a December speech to the Massachusetts Conference for Women, Clinton said the country needed to look at "hard truths" about racial injustice in the current system.

Clinton will revive that theme on Wednesday, saying black men are far more likely than whites to be targeted by policeand slapped with longer prison sentences.

During a fundraising event in New York City Tuesday, Clinton addressed the tensions in Baltimore, which is still reeling from the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died after sustaining injuries while in police custody.

“It is heartbreaking,” Clinton said. “The tragic death of another young African-American man. The injuries to police officers. The burning of peoples’ homes and small businesses. We have to restore order and security. But then we have to take a hard look as to what we need to do to reform our system.”

Clinton will also make additional comments about Baltimore on Wednesday.

Clinton's rhetoric on criminal justice has changed significantly since the 1990s, when she was first lady and when President Bill Clinton signed a massive 1994 crime bill into law. At the time, many politicians in both parties -- including Clinton herself -- were pushing for more prisons and stricter sentencing laws.

While running for president in 2007, Clinton was asked at the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum whether her husband's crime bill was "one of the primary factors behind the rising incarceration rate for blacks and Latinos." Clinton acknowledged that it had contributed.

"I think that the results -- not only at the federal level, but at the state level -- have been an unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board and now we have to address that," she said. "At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities."

"It’s hard to remember now, but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high," she added. "But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly start having more diversion and having more second chance programs."

Ummm Hillary, you should be thanking the cops and DAs for doing their jobs. If you want to reduce incarceration, then change the laws. Once upon a time you were a Senator and could have done that.

 

[General Tso]

For those who are interested, this is probably the best article I've read on the Moynihan Report and the breakdown of the black family. Well worth 20 minutes of your time.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html