Thursday, July 23, 2009
Gates nonsense
Obama commenting on the arrest of Henry Gates:
"What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
Nonsense. Blacks are UNDER-arrested. And you don't need any fancy statistics to know this. You just need common sense and logic.
Which part of town has more crime, the black part or the white part?
Always the black part.
Can the police catch all criminals? Of course not. But if the cops are catching "enough" criminals, the wannabes, the dudes with criminal orientation who haven't yet done anything serious, will understand that the odds are entirely against them. Crazy people will still do bad things, but the professionals will either be locked up or seeking other types of work.
If police were arresting too many blacks, including many completely innocent ones, that would mean the "enough" point had been reached and passed. In that case the black part of town would be significantly less violent than the white part.
Since we know that the black side of town is more violent, we immediately know that the cops are arresting a lower proportion of black criminals than white criminals, nowhere near the "enough" point and certainly not beyond it.
QED.
We'll never learn this obvious fact, because we're stuck on insane egalitarianism, stuck with the bizarre delusion that all humans are identical. Under this delusion, blacks and whites should be equally prone to violence, therefore the arrest rate should be about the same. The plain fact is drastically otherwise. In fact Africans are about 8 times more prone to violence than Caucasians. So an equal arrest rate would only catch about 12% of the black criminals. Current arrest rates are not equal, and we are catching considerably more than 12%, but the egalitarian delusion prevents police from reaching a true equality of effect.
Looking at it from a constitutional viewpoint (I know the Constitution has been null and void since 1803, but just for a literary exercise): When we require equal treatment and equal rights, what should this really mean? Should we give liberty and opportunity to the non-criminals or to the criminals? Our current approach gives liberty and opportunity to criminals, which predictably leaves the non-criminals in black neighborhoods imprisoned by poverty and gunfire.
If we returned to the original focus of "rights", we'd try to insure a safe environment for every ordinary citizen, especially the vulnerable ones such as the grandmas and young kids in ghettos. We'd remove the handcuffs from cops and put them on violent criminals. We'd disconnect criminality and violence from the drug culture by legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs, and we'd rebuild industry so black men could earn a good living honestly. ¶ 5:25 AM
"What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
Nonsense. Blacks are UNDER-arrested. And you don't need any fancy statistics to know this. You just need common sense and logic.
Which part of town has more crime, the black part or the white part?
Always the black part.
Can the police catch all criminals? Of course not. But if the cops are catching "enough" criminals, the wannabes, the dudes with criminal orientation who haven't yet done anything serious, will understand that the odds are entirely against them. Crazy people will still do bad things, but the professionals will either be locked up or seeking other types of work.
If police were arresting too many blacks, including many completely innocent ones, that would mean the "enough" point had been reached and passed. In that case the black part of town would be significantly less violent than the white part.
Since we know that the black side of town is more violent, we immediately know that the cops are arresting a lower proportion of black criminals than white criminals, nowhere near the "enough" point and certainly not beyond it.
QED.
We'll never learn this obvious fact, because we're stuck on insane egalitarianism, stuck with the bizarre delusion that all humans are identical. Under this delusion, blacks and whites should be equally prone to violence, therefore the arrest rate should be about the same. The plain fact is drastically otherwise. In fact Africans are about 8 times more prone to violence than Caucasians. So an equal arrest rate would only catch about 12% of the black criminals. Current arrest rates are not equal, and we are catching considerably more than 12%, but the egalitarian delusion prevents police from reaching a true equality of effect.
Looking at it from a constitutional viewpoint (I know the Constitution has been null and void since 1803, but just for a literary exercise): When we require equal treatment and equal rights, what should this really mean? Should we give liberty and opportunity to the non-criminals or to the criminals? Our current approach gives liberty and opportunity to criminals, which predictably leaves the non-criminals in black neighborhoods imprisoned by poverty and gunfire.
If we returned to the original focus of "rights", we'd try to insure a safe environment for every ordinary citizen, especially the vulnerable ones such as the grandmas and young kids in ghettos. We'd remove the handcuffs from cops and put them on violent criminals. We'd disconnect criminality and violence from the drug culture by legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs, and we'd rebuild industry so black men could earn a good living honestly. ¶ 5:25 AM
