And now for your regularly scheduled post.
Excuse the headline, but any day I can make reference to Kool G Rap, is a good day. Anyway, here's a new one: In the wake of the shooting of Amadou Diallo back in the late 90s, the NYPD implemented an ingenious defense against the charge that they were disproportionately shooting black people--they simply stopped keeping stats on the race of victims:
The New York Police Department recently released 11 years of statistics on every bullet fired by its officers, including the reason for each shooting, the number of shots fired and how many bullets hit their target. But the reports stopped mentioning the race of the people shot after 1997 without saying why.I know this is being pinned on Safir, but man it reeks of Giulianism. Let me be more specific. People think that black folks hated Giuliani out of some irrational antipathy for the police and a love affair with high crime. But as I believe my man Lester Spence once noted (hope I'm gettng this right Lester) black folks are especially sensitive to police shootings of innocents, in part, because they--more than anyone--need the police to do their jobs right. Most black folks want the criminals off their streets as much as--if not more than--the politicos of yore who once railed about law and order. Indeed in 1997, Giuliani got 20 percent of the black vote--pretty good for a Republican, who'd gotten only five percent in the previous election.Testimony by a former police chief now offers an explanation. The former chief, Louis R. Anemone, said that while the data on people killed by officers were being compiled in 1998, the police commissioner, Howard Safir, ordered the department not to include the race of those killed by officers.
But Giuliani had an almost preternatural talent for turning natural allies into arch-enemies. So when Patrick Dorismond was shot, Giuliani didn't simply defend the cops who shot Dorismond, he released the dude's sealed juvenile record, telling the assembled press that Dorismond was "no altar-boy." In fact, Dorismond had not only literally been an altar-boy, he'd gone to the very same Catholic school as Giuliani.
I think that most black folks can do the math--if most of the crimes happen in black neighborhoods, a disproportionate number of the innocents shot are going to be black. Personally, I've always thought that it was much more troubling that the cops can shoot you for basically a thought crime--like I thought he had a gun, or I thought my life was in danger--and get away with it. But what really gets the conspiracy gears going is when the powers that be look like they have something to hide.The lie is always worse than the truth. I think, in part, that's why Bloomberg--while continuing many of Giuliani's policing policies--has had a much better relationship with the black community. Again, call me naive, but I'm surprised this is still going on under his watch.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
" The lie is always worse than the truth."
The best sentence I have read this week.
Worth re-stating in a lot of forms. I am not sure how you define race, but leaving the category out of the statistics because it is inconvenient calls for: "Being economical with the truth is always worse than the truth."
"Personally, I've always thought that it was much more troubling that the cops can shoot you for basically a thought crime--like I thought he had a gun, or I thought my life was in danger--and get away with it."
This is a strange statement for a couple reasons.
First, it confuses what a thought crime is. In a thought crime, the victim of the crime is punished for his/her thoughts. Equating that situation to one in which the person who commits the crime thinks something bad/incorrect about the victim is silly. The person who commits the crime is always thinking. It's impossible to act without thinking. Therefore by your definition of a thought crime, all crimes are thought crimes and the term is therefore meaningless.
Second, if police were somehow prevented from acting based on their thoughts, and forced to wait for proof before reacting, they would lose every gun fight (at least assuming the other guy was a decent shot).
The origin of the black antipathy for Giuliani wasn't his brush off of Sharpton after that incident in the mosque at the beginning of G's first term?
African American political power has been on the wane in New York City for years. The black population may have remained about the same, but the African American population has declined as foreign blacks (who are far different culturally) have supplanted native born blacks.
By the way, as an aid to African American readers, I offer some tips on how to avoid getting shot by cops:
1) Don't commit crimes (an obvious one, I know)
2) Don't hang out with criminals
3) Try not to live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, if possible.
4) If 3) isn't possible, try to distinguish yourself from the local criminal element. Wear a suit, for example. How many black men wearing have been shot by the NYPD while wearing a jacket and tie?
5) Skip the sketchy strip clubs in the outer boroughs. Want to celebrate your bachelor party with some lap dances? Go to a strip club in Manhattan like Scores. You are less likely to get shot by a cop in Midtown.
6) Drop the surly, hostile pose. Cops find it threatening. Be polite and compliant when stopped by cops.
Juan,
Good god, I hope your last post was an attempt at humor. Wear a suit, and try not to live in your neigborhood? Be polite and compliant? Really? Those are tips for black people so they don't get shot?
You know what Juan? We've tried most of your tips, and they just haven't worked.
The only thing I believe is effective, is making it past 35 years of age. The only thing I can liken it to is crossing the police brutality finish line. Once I realized I'd crossed it, I started hanging out with criminals, moved to a criminal neighborhood, and started cursing out police with regularity. Didn't get a single ticket.
Felt like Eddie Murphy in that classic SNL skit.
....
But on the real, the idea of not counting race goes back some decades but policy wonks have only recently begun applying it.
.....
And yep that was me. Thanks for the hat tip.
Lovely. It took less than 24 hours for the Sailer fanboys to start with the race-baiting. Thanks, Juan.
cvd - "First, it confuses what a thought crime is..."
You might want to consider switching on your sense of humor.
Second, if police were somehow prevented from acting based on their thoughts, and forced to wait for proof before reacting, they would lose every gun fight...
They only lose if the person actually has a gun. The NYPD "wins" 100% of their gun fights with unarmed men.
I think all reasonable people of all races understand that police are human, get scared, and make mistakes. And they can't always be expected to wait for proof that a suspect has a gun, because the proof sometimes comes in the form of a dead officer. But in a situation where 41 shots are fired at an unarmed man, something has gone horribly wrong. A city government that defends cops who are clearly in the wrong, and smears their innocent victims, has forfeited the trust of the community.
Fall back folks. You aren't helping. The guy is pro at derailing the convo.
"Be polite and compliant? Really?"
That's what I do when I get pulled over by a cop. I keep my hands on the steering wheel, palms up, and let them know ahead of time if I'm going to reach in the glove compartment for my registration (e.g., COP: License and Registration please? ME: It's in my glove compartment, I'm going to reach for it, OK?). It's just common sense and putting myself in the cop's position. Safety first.
Of course, I don't have a surly attitude that prevents me from doing these common sense things. A lot of the disparately harsh sentences black criminals get isn't due to racism but their worse attitudes.
Hey Ta-Nehisi, are you guys at The Atlantic seriously never allowed to ban people? I know that Matt had a kind of fundamental objection to it, but it turned his comment sections into shit once they got a high enough profile to attract dedicated trolls.
Also, I hadn't said it yet, so congrats on the new position! Great to see your profile rising.
I'm working on it. But for the time being, help a brother out. And thanks for the congrats.
T.
Ignoring him isn't going to work - he's part of the poison from Sailer being tolerated by MY, and fawned over and plagiarized off by RD.
Short of banning them (which i'd prefer not to happen), the only thing is to actually engage and humiliate them - otherwise they will be doing hit and run posts for the foreseeable future.
A large part of this problem lies at Ross's door. But since he doesn't even have the grace to welcome you, and he seems so keen on Sailer that he copied his ideas without crediting him, I doubt you will get much help.
And Andrew Sullivan seems to be keen on him, as with the Bell Curve, probably because if genetics can 'prove' IQ, then eventually it can absolve him of being gay, because it's in his genetics. Which sort of misses the point of equality, but hey ho.
And Juan, you are vermin - and I wouldn't be surprised if you've deliberately picked a Latino name, as it seems the new gambit, to get brown and black at each others throats.
What'd I say a couple threads ago, 5HD and fire resistance 10? ;)
I'm not so completely bothered about the "thought" crimes as long as it's reasonable. If the cops tell somebody to freeze and put your hands up, and the guy suddenly reaches into his pocket, it seems pretty reasonable to me that a cop might really think he's going for a gun. Even if it turns out he was actually trying to get out his cellphone. Lesson learned: if a cop tells you to do something, do it, and expect it to hurt if you don't.
The problems start if the cops actually aren't doing their jobs, and start using it as an excuse for being trigger-happy. That kind of cop shouldn't be on the streets, and the FOP shouldn't be treating them as though they should.
Short of banning them (which i'd prefer not to happen), the only thing is to actually engage and humiliate them
I've never seen this work. It's like thinking you can eradicate roaches in your kitchen by stepping on them every time you see them.
Ta-Nehisi: welcome!
Po-Mo Polymath:
McArdle bans trolls(supposedly). Ambinder and Douthat just totally disable comments(which is weak). If The Atlantic is up to date, they should be able to ban trolls by IP address, which is pretty effective.
guyx,
Sure, but all that happens is they repost endlessly, and it appears that they somehow have an unanswerable point, because they usually do a Sailer and wrap their filth in pseudo-statistics.
JKC,
Their software isn't remotely up to date. If it was, they could actually use logins, which would reduce people posting multiple etc etc.
This is obviously a pretty nasty problem, since those sort of broad statistics are really the only way to tease out provable bias in the police force. Sure, there can always be suspicious circumstances, and too many tragedies make a conclusive pattern, but you really need the actual data that lets you say "police are shooting blacks at three (or whatever) times the rate of whites, even controlling for higher crime rates and more police patrols."
What I wonder is if anyone's ever looked through the police reports to identify how likely a suspect is to actually pull a weapon when confronted by multiple officers. In all these circumstances where one person gets shot 40 times by 5-8 officers, I just wonder who the hell these cops are that think one guy's going to start a shooting war on the street against those kinds of odds. If people dug through the data, I'd be surprised if a black suspect cornered by multiple officers even had a 1% chance of pulling a weapon. People aren't that stupid, they don't want to be dead. And everyone knows how unlikely that suspect is to actually be reaching for a gun, the excuse of "fear" causing all these shootings would become an even bigger joke.
James,
The problem with responding to them is that responses are what they are after, and give them food for escalation, quickly derailing the thread. Not responding to them is kind of like quarantining a virus so it can't spread.
it appears that they somehow have an unanswerable point
I think we just have to trust that intelligent people will see that they don't.
All that said, I've been as guilty as anyone of getting sucked into the game. It's remarkably tempting, even when you know exactly what is happening.
I think we just have to trust that intelligent people will see that they don't.
That's the problem - look at who is in government, look at the type of ads McCain is running. There are a lot of people who fall for this garbage, and when they are left to their own devices, they just shout louder and louder.
But I do get where you're coming from.
"And Juan, you are vermin - and I wouldn't be surprised if you've deliberately picked a Latino name, as it seems the new gambit, to get brown and black at each others throats."
James, not a new gambit, I've seen it done for 40 years (call ins on radio talk shows with heavy accents and properly "exotic" names as the Rove people might now say) and it still works to divide us.
At least, when I'm an idiot, you know it's because I'm me - an idiot - and not just because I'm following some Latino agenda.
"I wouldn't be surprised if you've deliberately picked a Latino name, as it seems the new gambit, to get brown and black at each others throats."
I didn't pick my name; my parents did. And I am not brown. Perhaps you ought not be so quick to generalize about those with Spanish names. We aren't all mestizos or mulattoes. There happens to be this country in Europe where everyone has Spanish names -- it's called Spain. That's where my parents came from.
James:
As obnoxious as Juan's comments are, that's the same way you came across on Ross' site. Worse actually - Juan didn't start with an ad hominem right off the bat.
I'd like an objective definition of "troll". From what I've seen, it's mostly taken to mean "someone with whom you disagree, but for whose comments you have no good response."
Juan, American citizens don't have to subscribe to some particular dress code or standard of etiquette, select a particular peer group, or patronize particular clubs or reside in particular neighborhoods, in order to avoid being gunned down by the police. You're kidding, right?
Joe Klein's conscience:
Of course they could ban IP addresses, which would be effective. I've found a quite effective method myself: ignoring them. Mature adults are generally able to do so.
Robert,
I didn't say anyone had to do those things, just that those would be my recommendations. Americans have the right to do a lot of stupid, risky, and self-destructive things.
"Mature adults are generally able to do so."
Yes, but this is the Internet. What are the people here supposed to do?
"Fall back folks. You aren't helping. The guy is pro at derailing the convo."
Not responding to them - and letting their swill sit there unanswered - isn't much of an option, because they really won't stop. James is right, the Sailerites have been infesting the Atlantic blog comments for a long time now. They have a base here via Ross Douthat's enduring love for their leader - Ross both links to Sailer and cites him constantly.
Juan's one of the worst but he's not the only one. And Sailer himself will make an occasional appearance. It's as though Sauron comes out to play.
Ta-Nahisi:
If you want some citeable statistics to back up your basic argument, you might want to check out this Pew Center survey on race in the US from a couple years ago:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/700/black-public-opinion
Among other things, blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to rate crime a big problem in their community (49% vs 21%). But blacks were also about four times as likely to express little or no confidence in the police (40% vs 10% indicating confidence in the police on all three questions), and less than half as likely to indicate some or a lot of confidence in the police (21% vs 47%). And blacks' reported confidence in the police goes up with both income and age, which tracks with a lot of what posters here have said.
Just as an aside, sometime, it's worth ignoring the newspaper for a day, and instead downloading and reading one of these survey reports. It's striking how different the survey data is from the image of reality you get reading the newspaper.
Mr. Coates has blogged here for a grand total of two days. He has written ten posts, most of which deal with Presidential politics, none of which deal with Steve Sailer. Can't the trolls from Matt and Ross's blogs find somewhere else to vent their vitriol?
Sailerite Staash writes: "He has written ten posts, most of which deal with Presidential politics, none of which deal with Steve Sailer. Can't the trolls from Matt and Ross's blogs find somewhere else to vent their vitriol?"
Can't you and Juan just stick to your white-sheet parties over at VDARE?
best.Kool G Rap.line.ever...
"What I wonder is if anyone's ever looked through the police reports to identify how likely a suspect is to actually pull a weapon when confronted by multiple officers. In all these circumstances where one person gets shot 40 times by 5-8 officers, I just wonder who the hell these cops are that think one guy's going to start a shooting war on the street against those kinds of odds. If people dug through the data, I'd be surprised if a black suspect cornered by multiple officers even had a 1% chance of pulling a weapon. People aren't that stupid, they don't want to be dead. And everyone knows how unlikely that suspect is to actually be reaching for a gun, the excuse of "fear" causing all these shootings would become an even bigger joke.
Posted by Po-Mo Polymath | August 5, 2008 11:20 AM"
Good point. You would think someone who would pull out a gun at this point would either 1) be the dumbest criminal ever (like the guy who tried to rob a gun store that had cop cars out front and got shot to death) or 2) committing suicide by cop, probably as a way of avoiding having to put up with stuff like anal rape once in jail. For a society to work well, there has to be a degree of trust that the state, which has a monopoly on legitimate violence, is going to use that violence sparingly, professionally and only when necessary. The fact that Diallo got shot over nothing was bad enough, but the fact that four cops shot at an unarmed man 41 times, including at least one bullet shot through his spine while he was face-down on the ground just showed how unprofessional and untrustworthy vis-a-vis the general populace the NYPD had become during Giuliani's second term.
Yeah, it's probably best just to block the VDare crew's IP addresses. Racists, in the end, don't really want a conversation because all they care about is hate. They like seeing people fight. They like it when Crips and Bloods make life hard for black people in LA. They like it when cops shoot unarmed black men. Even if minorities followed every word of advice racists gave, racists would still find some new reason to hate on minorities. In the end, they really don't want an intelligent conversation on law and order, police brutality, etc. free of racism because that wouldn't further their agenda or their attention-whore proclivities.
Want a proper definition of a troll? Its a person who posts on a board liek this, making totally asinine comments, often having no substance and/or nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The only reason that one might not have a reasonable argument for a troll is that their comments are so glaringly stupid, or that they ignore any intelligent rebuttal and go right back after the flamers.
Man I was just pumping "The Realest." A true black out moment. But i digress.
But more intervention programs, job training, or something is completely ignored. And I hate to say it but the Rangel's of NYC don't put any pressure on Bloomberg so its a stalemate.
But bloomberg is a victim of the "Guliani cleaned up NYC" myth.
Please ban Staash, Juan and the other Sailerites. Definitely ban Sailer -- he argues with facts and logic and it makes us look silly when we respond with emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks.
The comments threads here should be free of those who disagree with us, so we can all sniff our own farts and compliment each other on how egalitarian we are.
A Typical Sailerite says: "Please ban Staash, Juan and the other Sailerites. Definitely ban Sailer -- he argues with facts and logic and it makes us look silly when we respond with emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks.
The comments threads here should be free of those who disagree with us, so we can all sniff our own farts and compliment each other on how egalitarian we are. "
Who wants to ban these morons, exactly? I want them to keep on coming so rational people can expose SS & the Nazitones for what they are - which is unabashed, dimwitted white supremacists who hide their hatred behind a guise of "science."
That Ross Goebbels Douthat has emboldened these people and made them feel at home on the Atlantic blogs really doesn't make me think I should welcome them. I'll call them out for what they are as long as I am able.
"Definitely ban Sailer -- he argues with facts and logic and it makes us look silly when we respond with emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks."
If you think Sailer uses facts and logic, you need to go back to the third grade. He has no idea what the statistics he cites actually say and his arguments are all based on assumptions. Do we really need more threads of him and his minions arguing that black people are genetically mentally inferior to white people?
Whenever a writer such as Coates rightly cites statistics that black folk are disproportionately victims of crime, he or she is also compelled to leave out the statistics showing that black folk are also disproportionately perpetrators of crime.
"Pseudo-statistics" from the U.S. department of justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Prediction: the day that black homicide-committing rates drop to the level of white homicide-committing rates, the disparity in police treatment of blacks vs. whites will also level off.