Judging by your spelling, punctuation and grammar it's not only me who's mind is rotted. You're making errant assumptions not only about me but about psychology and sociology. You operate under the logic that poverty causes behavior. Many others believe the opposite- instead behavior causes poverty. In other words why are communities poor? We both know in the case of Chicagoans the cycle of poverty isn't due to lack of educational opportunity. Chicago spends a ton per student. Too much in fact for the limited tax base to handle. Hence 8 bucks for a pack of smokes and a 10.5% sales tax. 29 CPS students have been murdered this year. Not exactly the kind of stats that incite the white middle class to collectively say "Wow, I want my kids in those schools.â What's left? A school system that's now only 11% non-Hispanic white. So much for those fabled white role models that busing advocates sought out in the 1970's. We also can't argue lack of jobs. In 1950 18,000 Chicagoans were of Mexican heritage. Today the Chicagoland metro is 1.1 million Hispanic. One is hard pressed to find a non-Mexican hospitality, restaurant or construction worker. So the causation for continued poverty in the Black community is something transcending education and employment. The cause is clear. It's culture. Period. It's unwed mothers. It's lack of interest in menial employment, it's teenage girls who're âturned onâ by tough take charge young men. Those are all nuances that can change over time and as soon as society can discuss these relevant, crucial issues without people playing the ârace cardâ the better. In the mean time we can just keep doing the things the old way. Whites can continue to move their jobs and tax base to the suburbs or Vegas while the Great Northern cities become 90% slum and 10% playgrounds for the rich.
Lots of people! Well, surely you would argue that middle-upper income black families whose kids aren't acculturated within what we can mutually agree is the typical street-style ghetto-talk low income low education inner city black household will be more likely to produce kids who commit crimes than a similarly positioned white family? Surely you're not dismissing the acculturating effects of black parents who have nothing to do with and in fact have a disdain for the 'Yo yo yo' BET images of black youth that their kids are exposed to? The point is that the 'culture' you seem to be talking about is the cultural influence brought to bear on kids by other blacks within the social circle of the individual as opposed to what has become the predominant black cultural touchstone in the West, namely the urban hip-hop culture. Or am I misreading you? When does acculturation occur? In my view (more genetic determinist than nurturist), a hell of a lot is set early on. You argue for an inbuilt (read inherited/genetic) predisposition to criminal behaviour at higher rates than whites, isn't that correct (and I'm sure you see the significance of the highlighted word here)?
Wow, lot's to chew on. How does a mixed race guy from Hawaii married to a Chicago raised attorney who makes over 300k a year wind up contributing 10's of thousands to Rev. Wright? Without saying something insipid like the apple doesn't fall far from the tree it seems once again that upward mobility in itself doesn't build a disconnect from perceived slights. By the same token the type of household the Obama's create will probably determine their children's values to a greater degree than their exposure to Wright. Or will it? My Dad was a former Federal drug agent who preached against drugs and my core of friends growing up were very anti-drug. I had zero exposure to kids getting high. Yet in college I smoked quite a bit of pot. Arguably to my academic detriment. Where did the urge come from? Clearly I wasn't pre-disposed. (and I don't have father issues causing me to rebel-I just liked getting baked ) I think I felt entitled to pleasure. And I think it's the same softness that causes many societal problems. The worlds filled with middle class whites who're just as culturally selfish. Even New Trier High School-the richest best academic public school in Chicago's suburbs,a who's who of American actors graduated from there- produces a murderer every few years.
The answer: He needed acceptance from the black community. Why he stayed for twenty years is unbeknownst to me, but he was bred to be a politician. He had the machine backing him, but also needed the support of blacks to help his ascent. Dude, Pabst, you should know that. Why DID he stay so long? Was it like the Godfather, once you're in, you can never get out?
No doubt on his end it was politics. It's not like Chicago machine blacks were waiting around for a half breed from Hawaii named Obama to be their go too guy. Of course he never was. He was lucky. He knocked the popular state Sen. Alice Palmer off the ballot in '96 for petition problems, he got smoked by ex Panther, Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 Congressional primary and then benefited by race in the '04 primary when Hull imploded. In a sense Wright didn't make it happen one iota. Me thinks the Wright thing is the Michelle thing. As the Brit's will tell us about Blair-a "leader" who let's his wife run the show will be a pandering populist puppet.
Michelle will not help his campaign. She may well hurt it. I dislike her in the same way that I disliked Hillary - just obnoxious and self-involved. No poise.
I don't have the time to respond in detail right now but I will say that it's impossible for me, at this moment, to get from this to your main thesis which is that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites. The comment about upward mobility not creating a disconnect from perceived slights goes to the argument that black criminality is associated with blacks' residual feelings of anger towards whites arising from the fact of past (or even present) racial discrimination in the United States. However, if you are positing a correlation between black feelings of disenfranchisement and subsequent criminal behaviour due to these feelings, that's a far cry from saying that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites. A far cry. That's a matter of social psychology, and doesn't have any necessary statistical relation to culture. Another problem for me is that in the past, you have stated quite clearly that your feelings about inherent black criminality extend beyond black behaviour in the U.S. In fact your theories encompass 'black' behaviour all over the world. Once again, I cannot connect the contents of your last post with those theories in any meaningful way.
Nik: Read this essay. It's really friggin' good. Enjoy! http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/649288.html
Pabst,you and every other racist can sit back and throw gas on the fire,just don't be proud of it because it's socially permeating the problems that exist,,rather than point out what's wrong,how original is that ,why don't you pitch in and try to solve the problem. You could spend the same energy looking up articles that showed improvement and the few programs that are in place to eradicate a crime producing,tax burdening social problem,but instead you take the subhuman,me first attitude that destroys mankind,it causes wars, poverty,orphaned children, homelessness,80% of the orphan community ends up on the street at 17,18 years old,homeless, it's worldwide,the haves sit back and berate the have nots,you seem marginally intelligent,you would probably seem a lot smarter if you you didn't wear your 1970's predjudice on your sleeve like a badge of courage, you're moronic,you complain about societal inequities,by the grace of god you are not in the less fortunate camp,yet you spout how rotten they are,it's a thin mask to divert attention away from the fact that you feel inadequate and need to put others down to feel larger,as i told you earlier this will rot away at you,as you point out the faults of the nonpabst races,you are screaming,i'm a loser,if they can pull themselves up from the gutter,so can you.
Pabst,you and every other racist can sit back and throw gas on the fire -------------- I don't think anyone is throwing gas on the fire. Every suggestion or possible solution, someone has a problem with it. That's the problem. Everyone wants it all worked out nice and neatly on paper before anyone may possibly consider an attempt. This is not a landing on the moon where every contingency must be addressed. Ammo, Common tactic, attack the author.