My fact is what I see. Stats are for those who can't see.=20
That's mighty convenient how you use stats when it suits you, and ignore th=
em when it doesn't.
Show me where I have used stats. I almost always use "generally
speaking" or "many, if not most". I almost always use qualifiers.
I don't know about the average. I know African American is a
meaningless term since according to science we all are.
You know you don't like the term because it takes power from you.
Calling oneself half-American is half intelligent. I regard the term
as an ignorant attempt to promote one's self esteem.
Most African-Americans aren't on welfare. The vast majority (by FAR) of Af=
rican-Americans don't commit violent crimes, either. Prohibition, OTOH, ca=
used an awful lot of white people to make the police reports back in the da=
There must be a point there somewhere. I'm sort of like a rioter. I'll
break any law I wish.
The fact that you think this has any relevance as a predictor on my or a=
ny other black person's behavior is telling.
The fact that you don't is even more telling - unfortunately.
And there we have it: Hugh believes there's an actual difference between b=
lack people and white people.
The facts appear to be on my side.
I have all kinds of solutions.
I said workable solutions and you have expressed none so far. Throwing
money at the problem doesn't work.
I already know you don't like them. Ergo, =
Have you never heard of the term "confirmation bias"?
Shame on you.
If it was important I would know the term.
I KNOW the problems and the causes - I'm looking for solutions.=20
You THINK you know the problems and the causes.
We basically agree on the problems and causes. Thus you also only
think you know.
Your solutions would make =
I have precedent on my side. There was no starvation and no rioting in
the 40s - it worked. Back then people must have been intelligent
enough to know there is no such thing as equality. What was unfair is
that blacks didn't have the same opportunities as whites but they were
a helluva lot happier than they are today.
Sure. *I'm* casting blame, but *you're* just altruistically blaming Africa=
n Americans for the problems facing them even though you admit--almost in p=
assing--that racism is still a problem in this country.
Are you a liar or just an imbecile. I have never placed the blame on
blacks for they problem. I say they are the worst problem but the most
blame lies elsewhere. Get with the program, boy.
"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may b=
e deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a =
special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not s=
eeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are ma=
inly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of so=
cial protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many func=
tions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consu=
mer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Ne=
gro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. Bu=
t most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherish=
es property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. The=
re are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may ex=
plain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetitio=
n, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that =
the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infin=
itesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.
A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century=
ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. =
The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darknes=
My solution to violence and looting is simple - keep shooting until
they stop breaking the law. Personally I never needed a gang to
accomplish anything - only the weak need one.
The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create=
discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, i=
gnorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have =
committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the grea=
ter crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, l=
et us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos.
I was aware of that before you were born.
d day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allo=
Not true in my youth - people survived without government welfare. The
current situation results from the failures your solutions have
he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police m=
ake a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and educatio=
n and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a v=
icious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make th=
em any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the v=
iolations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculat=
ed and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened =
criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say bu=
t I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth =
in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society."
Consider yourself enlightened.
Again you whine about causes and only suggest more failing solutions.
So you feel the need to bring up an (entirely irrelevant, I might add) c=
haracter flaw because...why? You don't want to have to argue against the w=
I don't argue very much. I tell it like it is and those that hear can
like it or lump it. I'm not into personality contests.
Arguing implies that I think the other person is my equal. I don't
For continuing to argue with a bigot and a racist? Guess so.
We are equal there. The only difference is that I am honest about it.
I have discussed living wage. Less than $5,000 per year was such in
the 50s. But socialists kept boosting the minimum while I got more and
the gap only widened. In 65 years the imbeciles have not been
"There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an =
adequate wage to every American whether he [or she] is a hospital worker, l=
aundry worker, maid, or day laborer."
Maybe you should reconsider quoting MLK if you disagree so violently with h=
That might be an intelligent statement if paying a living wage to
everyone, whether entitled or not, didn't result in increasing the
wages for those higher in the pecking order and maintaining or
increasing the gap. Otherwise it is stupidity.
Obama generates legislation to import more people to work for low
wages who put more of your "living wage" people on welfare. And his
supporters are too ignorant to see that.
The reality is that if our immigration system hadn't been broken and such a=
political hot potato for so long, we could do something about that. But t=
hose "imported people" aren't the problem. It's corporations shipping jobs=
offshore that's the problem.
Can you spell NAFTA, unions and minimum wage? Shipping offshore is
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Quit giving something for nothing if the person is
able even if you overpay him by the welfare dollars.
Only if the work provided does not benefit private employers.
I agree completely - I would even insist. Help underfunded communities
and charities. You might say welfare work for welfare pay.
I'd take the term "welfare" out of the equation entirely, and call it simpl=
Words only hurt weak people. If you don't earn it, it's welfare.
How about sex education? How about getting those people, you know, *jobs* =
so they can be productive and spend less time in shitty situations with few=
outlets for their frustrations?
Good start. But lots of people already doing the sex ed lab work. And
swabbing the deck is not worth $50,000 per year.
That must be why thousands of people show up for tens of jobs so frequently=
and in so many places.
...and why probably hundreds of thousands don't.
Why do you have a
job when so many do not? Could it be because you qualified yourself
and are willing to work? I can't believe you would accept the
paternalism of Affirmative Action.
I have a job because somebody took a chance on me. I worked my ass off to =
get where I am, but I'm highly aware of the number of doors that were close=
d in my face--often because of the color of my skin. You can see the surpr=
ise in the interviewers' eyes when I show up.
There is the solution. Why weren't you a failure when so many others
blacks are? Sounds like too many have more ass than they can work off.
Affirmative Action is paternalism? Not when it's combating racism. But of=
course, your definition of AA likely is a gross distortion of what AA actu=
ally *is*, so we'll take your statements with a boulder of salt.
AA is non-competitive. It is a gift from working people to some worthy
people and a slew of unworthy ones.
So I suppose you blame the Catholics for that since they have large
families??? But, I don't see many of them on welfare. Wonder why that
Considering that 97% of Catholics are white, gee, I wonder.
When do you start talking about workable solutions?
When you prove you know how to listen.
I listen to anything that is intelligent enough to work. I have the
resume to prove that. Whether it is to your satisfaction is moot.
I had a definite advantage at being employed at an entry level
position because I was white and you are black. When color didn't
matter you would have reported to me in the military and in a civilian
job if we worked in the same area. You carry WAY too much baggage.