And I wonder, wonder who...who wrote The Book of Virtues

My only comment to Bill Bennet and "The Fully Recovered Humanitarian" is: Where do you get your information? Please post your sources. What you will find in your sources is that most crimes?in fact, the overwhelming majority crimes-- committed by African Americans are committed against African Americans; just as most crimes committed against Whites are committed by Whites. Therefore, if you murdered every African American baby, as the honorable Bill Bennet suggested (a thought so horrendous and inhuman that I can hardly write it without feeling sick) you would, of course, lower the crime rate. However, it would only be lowered because you have eliminated 15% of the population. The crime rate of whites, however, would remain the same, and you would have the same amount of domestic violence, thievery, rape, child molestation, murder, and corporate corruption as you have today. The same white against white crime.

Bill Bennets comment was racist?and stupid, I might add?because he purposely ignored the obvious fact that most crimes are intra-racial, meaning that they happen among people of the same race. By omitting this principal point, it becomes obvious that his sole purpose was to spread racist sentiments in the disguise of a logical dilemma. "The Fully Recovered Thinking-Human Being" also succumbed to such a simple logical dilemma; No doubt because he too has similar sentiments.

So, again, Bil Bennet, where do you get your info from. Please let me know so I can tear it apart.

I apologize for implying you're a racist, it was a bit out of line. Nevertheless, my point is that Bill Bennet's comment implied that African Americans are the major source of crime in America, as if African American crime was somehow ruining white America. That is simply not true, because there are two Americas: A white America and a Black America. And though it is true that some African Americans live, work, and play in White America, and some Caucasians live, work, and play in Black America, they are still two separate and very distinct Americas. The disproportionate level of crime in Black America is not harming white America; Crimes of Black America seep out only rarely into white America, and visa versa.

When I made my comment yesterday, I only meant to state that if we killed every African American baby, as suggested (although in context) by the reasonable Bill Bennet, then it would have little effect on stopping crimes against white Americans. It would not bring us any more peace and tranquility than we have--or don't have--already. Why do I believe this? Because most crimes committed by whites are committed against whites, just as most crimes committed by blacks are committed against blacks. This is easy to understand given that are society is still very segregated. Moreover, since most violent crimes are committed by someone the victim knows personally, this should be even clearer.

Of course, if you want to search this issue further, if you want to "get at the source" of this issue, then what we are really discussing is an old question. Why do African Americans, especially males, commit more crimes than white males? The answer is very simple. Perhaps these comparisons about poverty will help. For instance, why is there more crime in the poorest parts of Brazil and Cuba than in the wealthiest parts? Why is there more crime in the poorest parts of France and Germany than in the wealthiest parts? You probably see where I am going with this. However, to understand why African Americans commit more crimes in this country you must first accept the fact that they have been historically oppressed more so than any other ethnic group in America. In fact, they have been made out to be little less than the Devil himself. Criminalized, despised, and rejected from birth. If you can accept that, if you can understand that, then you will understand why African Americans commit more crimes. It is a combination of elements. African Americans are poorer (and poverty often means a higher crime rate?conflict theory, after all). African Americans are oppressed, and oppression often leads to a higher crime rate (Don't believe me? Just look up some English history or even some 17th and 18th American history).

Of course, you also need to understand that, historically, African Americans--young males, especially--have been kept out of society, marginalized, and oppressed by the law as well. In effect, they had been kept poor and exploited, and hated for many years. Granted, things have changed since 1965( The Civil Rights Act), but it is difficult to change the institutions and mentalities of 350+ years of institutionalized racism, as well as the feelings and truisms of 100 years of African American suffering, in just 40 short years. However, to be fair, I think America is actually doing a fairly good job, given that we've had such a short time to make a change. Nevertheless, unjustified, perverted hatred gets old quick, so the sooner we change our understandings the better.
I would love to say more, but I'm sure you're tired of reading this already. As for your challenge of records, I accept.

"Fully Recovered Liberal" -- The entire "Left" didn't call you racist. Larry Summers didn't say that men and women have "profound genetic differences." And your "facts" on the 1920s are, sorry to say, wrong. Here are some actual statistics culled by James W. Clarke for "Society" magazine back in 1996 (not online, unfortunately):

"In nineteenth-century Philadelphia, for example, black homicides occurred at a rate of 7.5 per 100,000, compared to a white rate of 2.8. At the turn of the century, homicide rates among blacks were almost three times white rates. The same pattern could be observed in New York City, where from 1865 to 1900 black rates of homicide were more than twice the rates of whites. In Philadelphia during the 1920s, the black homicide rate was twelve times the rate for whites. By that decade, national estimates suggest that blacks were killing one another at nearly seven times the rate for whites. ..."

"The figures were even more troubling during this period in cities where blacks were concentrating. In 1925, for example, the black homicide rate in Chicago was 103 murdered per 100,000 persons, compared to 11 for whites. This despite Chicago's reputation for organized white crime and gangsterism. In Cincinnati, the black rate was 190 per 100,000; in East St. Louis it was 229; in Miami it was a staggering 276."

It goes on and on. This was long before "Leftism happened." Why was all this taking place? Well, roll back the clock even further: Long before the big migration north in the 1920s, blacks in the South were killing each other at astonishing rate?in large part because whites could care less whether they lived or died. Does that explain it all? No. Explain a lot? Yes. Southern courts did little to punish black-on-black violence, southern law enforcement less to break it up. Even well into the 20th century, black on black violence was condoned?often even encouraged?and as a result, black men did what all men, especially poorer and less-educated men, tend to do in the absence of restraint: they fought and killed each other, to settle disputes, or debts, or to fight over women, or whatever.

In the early 20th century many blacks from the south migrated to northern cities in vast numbers?and were suddenly living in crowded and usually inadequate conditions?which, predictably, gave rise to further violence and death. Plus, thanks to the joys of mass production, cheap firearms became available for the first time in bulk, and blacks who, as a rule, couldn't count on police protection, readily armed themselves. Guess what happened next? At any rate, that was all a long time ago, true, but patterns that formed centuries back can still affect the shape of things today, and whatever the true causes of and solutions to black-on-black violence, it seems important to realize that this wasn't just some new phenomenon that suddenly erupted out of the 1960s.

That's not to excuse it, but to blame it on "Leftism", and idealize the Jim Crow era, misses a lot of the historical picture.

These puppet mouths pump out such piles of crap it is a shame we can't harvest the methane gas their breath produces!!
Statistics show white women have a third more abortions then all other races combined in this country and to top it off I think I read they collect the most welfare too. So who is really committing the most crims?

My only comment to Bill Bennet and "The Fully Recovered Humanitarian" is: Where do you get your information? Please post your sources. What you will find in your sources is that most crimes—in fact, the overwhelming majority crimes-- committed by African Americans are committed against African Americans; just as most crimes committed against Whites are committed by Whites. Therefore, if you murdered every African American baby, as the honorable Bill Bennet suggested (a thought so horrendous and inhuman that I can hardly write it without feeling sick) you would, of course, lower the crime rate. However, it would only be lowered because you have eliminated 15% of the population. The crime rate of whites, however, would remain the same, and you would have the same amount of domestic violence, thievery, rape, child molestation, murder, and corporate corruption as you have today. The same white against white crime.

Bill Bennets comment was racist—and stupid, I might add—because he purposely ignored the obvious fact that most crimes are intra-racial, meaning that they happen among people of the same race. By omitting this principal point, it becomes obvious that his sole purpose was to spread racist sentiments in the disguise of a logical dilemma. "The Fully Recovered Thinking-Human Being" also succumbed to such a simple logical dilemma; No doubt because he too has similar sentiments.

So, again, Bil Bennet, where do you get your info from. Please let me know so I can tear it apart.

"Fully Recovered Liberal" -- The entire "Left" didn't call you racist. Larry Summers didn't say that men and women have "profound genetic differences." And your "facts" on the 1920s are, sorry to say, wrong. Here are some actual statistics culled by James W. Clarke for "Society" magazine back in 1996 (not online, unfortunately):

"In nineteenth-century Philadelphia, for example, black homicides occurred at a rate of 7.5 per 100,000, compared to a white rate of 2.8. At the turn of the century, homicide rates among blacks were almost three times white rates. The same pattern could be observed in New York City, where from 1865 to 1900 black rates of homicide were more than twice the rates of whites. In Philadelphia during the 1920s, the black homicide rate was twelve times the rate for whites. By that decade, national estimates suggest that blacks were killing one another at nearly seven times the rate for whites. ..."

"The figures were even more troubling during this period in cities where blacks were concentrating. In 1925, for example, the black homicide rate in Chicago was 103 murdered per 100,000 persons, compared to 11 for whites. This despite Chicago's reputation for organized white crime and gangsterism. In Cincinnati, the black rate was 190 per 100,000; in East St. Louis it was 229; in Miami it was a staggering 276."

It goes on and on. This was long before "Leftism happened." Why was all this taking place? Well, roll back the clock even further: Long before the big migration north in the 1920s, blacks in the South were killing each other at astonishing rate—in large part because whites could care less whether they lived or died. Does that explain it all? No. Explain a lot? Yes. Southern courts did little to punish black-on-black violence, southern law enforcement less to break it up. Even well into the 20th century, black on black violence was condoned—often even encouraged—and as a result, black men did what all men, especially poorer and less-educated men, tend to do in the absence of restraint: they fought and killed each other, to settle disputes, or debts, or to fight over women, or whatever.

In the early 20th century many blacks from the south migrated to northern cities in vast numbers—and were suddenly living in crowded and usually inadequate conditions—which, predictably, gave rise to further violence and death. Plus, thanks to the joys of mass production, cheap firearms became available for the first time in bulk, and blacks who, as a rule, couldn't count on police protection, readily armed themselves. Guess what happened next? At any rate, that was all a long time ago, true, but patterns that formed centuries back can still affect the shape of things today, and whatever the true causes of and solutions to black-on-black violence, it seems important to realize that this wasn't just some new phenomenon that suddenly erupted out of the 1960s.

That's not to excuse it, but to blame it on "Leftism", and idealize the Jim Crow era, misses a lot of the historical picture.

As I prepare for a civil service exam scheduled for October 18, 2005, I struggle with a desire to travel to Washington, D.C. for the Millions More Movement activities, rather than voyaging half way across Pennsylvania to take another test.

Do I really want to take this exam and attempt to get on another civil service list?

Since 2003, I have participated and completed the State Civil Service process more than a dozen times. In fact, I have tested within the "Rule of Three" mandate (State must hire from within the top three), but they have yet to call me for an interview.

The Civil Service Commission has tactically explained their hiring practice, i.e., Pennsylvania agencies often "opt out" and instead use a little known exception to the process (management directive that grants an unfettered discretion) that allows them to ignore the employment list and promote almost any available lower classification (a current employee).

The Commonwealth's excuse for not hiring me is no different that the excuse a local temporary employment agency (Robert Half International) recently provided. That is, despite the fact that I scored a perfect 100 percent on their required testing (the average score for everyone else is only 85 percent), and was given an almost perfect score for my interview, the employment agency has insisted since August 2004 that it can't place me. And, the Pittsburgh EEOC district office, a federal regulatory agency with authority to enforce Title VII has suggested that there appears to be nothing wrong with the company's reason for not placing me: Robert Half claims its clients continue to select (whites) other candidates who have tested well below my scores and have inferior work experience and there is nothing they can do about it.

Nonetheless, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) has challenged all of us to rise above the things that have kept us divided in the past. The agenda of his Millions More Movement is to see how all of us, with all our varied differences, can come together and direct our energy, not at each other, but at the condition of the reality of the suffering of our people. He has directed us to use all of our skills, gifts and talents to create a better world for ourselves, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the like. True That (word is bond)!

I really want to participate and get my swerve on (enter the conflict of eliminating poverty and injustice in American society). But, this year, I have to tend to my family's needs. That is, they have cut off all of my utilities, placed tax liens on my property, and have us struggling on food stamps. But, I am a proud "functionally unemployed" black man, flexed, and bout it (real, not fake and true to the game).

No! I'm not going to make it to Washington, D.C. for the Millions More Movement Activities. I have to take the civil service exam. . . . I have to score within the top three to force the white man to get creative again.

The Honorable Minister hopes to help poor people learn how to help themselves, beginning with the knowledge that there is strength in numbers. I may not be there on October 16, 2005, in person, but as a black man tight (straight, legitimate and feeling really good at the moment) and on his hustle (taking care of my family), I'm already there in sprit.

If I could go to the Millions More Movement activities, I would hope to hear about the marked change of October 2005, from the last two political cycles when President George Bush (Karl Rove) used the power of the White house to coax first-tier candidates into important congressional races. In these crucial few months when candidates are entering races, raising money and recruiting staffs, republican hopefuls are quietly stepping off. There's one obvious reason why republican hopefuls aren't listening to the White House: Bush is an unpopular president.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush won the admiration of most Americans (even some blacks) for resolute leadership in the face of a foreign threat. But, after the recent simpleton response to hurricane Katrina and his tone-deaf reaction to the needs of America's poor, the GOP and the world now well understand that Bush has slipped into a hole and unfortunately it appears the HNIC won't be climbing back out. That is, his message remains essentially hopeless worries and hopeful faith. He's back again portraying the world as too treacherous, too dangerous, and too risky for anyone but the GOP. Karl Rove wants to keep America focused on terror and national security. And, then they went public with wacked (crazy stupid) information suggesting possible subway attacks in New York (a city on orange alert the second-highest-level-indicating a high risk of terror attack since the color-coded warning system was established after the September 11, 2002 attacks). Bush backed the decision to announce the threat publicly despite questions by most federal officials about its credibility. They even claimed the source of the threat had passed a polygraph test. In short, like always, the GOP knew America can't second-guess the motive behind a terror alert.

If I could go to the Millions More Movement activities, I would hope to hear about black GOP conservatives who have gone out their way in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina to play the race and irresponsibility card hoping to cultivate the most reactionary forms of Christian fundamentalism alongside the extreme right for whom racism is an essential ideological component. Just yesterday black GOP conservatives gathered to discuss race and irresponsibility. BOND (The Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny) and the Heritage Foundation cosponsored the event: The New Black Vanguard Conference II. It was moderated by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Founder and President of BOND. Dr. Shelby Steele (Hoover Institution Senior Fellow), Joseph Phillips (Actor & Columnist), Linda Porter (Founder Jochbed Education Project), and La Shawn Barber (lashawnbarber.com) attempted to reflect upon policy questions they claimed of major significance to black communities.

In the course of a denunciation of current black leadership they enumerated some of the standard racist conceptions often voiced by the right wing: The view that welfare programs had created among blacks a culture of irresponsibility; there is an enormous cost for risky behavior within the black family (promiscuous women and fatherless households); and, one generation of blacks has followed another into poverty.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has suggested in the past that America shouldn't blame racism or President Bush and the GOP for what happened to thousands of poor blacks during and after hurricane Katrina. He said "The truth is black people died, not because of President Bush or racism, they died because of their unhealthy dependence on the government and the incompetence of Mayor Ray Nagin (a black man) and Governor Kathleen Blanco." The black GOP conservative singled out Rev. Jesse Jackson, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Rapper Kanye West, all of whom he says blamed President Bush for not doing enough to help black people.

Yes! Rev. Jesse Jackson is on the record calling the president's response "incompetent."

Yes! During NBC's celebrity telethon for hurricane Katrine victims on September 2, 2005, the scripted program took an unexpected turn, when Rapper Kanye West went off the script during the live broadcast, declaring "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

But, black GOP conservatives are nothing but house slaves. They blindly follow simple-minded people. In slavery days we had house slaves and field slaves. The house slaves were "well behaved" and "rewarded" by being allowed to work in the "big house" close to the master. The field slaves were "rough" and "functionally unemployed." Thus the people were divided and pitted against themselves, instead the common enemy (extreme right forces and Christian fundamentalists).

If I could go to the Millions More Movement activities, I would hope to hear about how da fam in the Burgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) can get rid of some punk ass black politicians that are indifferent to the plight of "functionally unemployed" individuals and their families. The last time da fam in the Burgh had oportunity to "break bread" with a bout it black leader was August 19, 1997. On that particular day the Honorable Minister accepted my question (from the audience) related to how black males can be a better father to their children. Among other things, he eloquently advised the group of black politicians on how we can come together and direct our energy, not at each other, but at the condition of the reality of the suffering or our people. But it's October 2005, conditions for blacks in the Burgh have become more precarious. The city is now controled by (in the closet) black GOP conservative house slaves.

No Diggety!
kstreetfriend.blogspot.com