Tuesday, August 31, 2010

There are people in the economics world who "get it".... (Karl Denninger)

Steve Keen Nails It

There are people in the economics world who "get it"....

Debt reduction is now the real story of the American economy, just as real story behind the apparent free lunch of the last two decades was rising debt. The secret that has completely eluded Bernanke is that aggregate demand is the sum of GDP plus the change in debt. So when debt is rising demand exceeds what it could be on the basis of earned incomes alone, and when debt is falling the opposite happens.

Ding ding ding ding.

The entire mantra of "private debt doesn't matter" is of course idiotic, but it forms the premise upon which Krugman, Bernanke and many others try to labor.  Worse, some of them go a step further and say that government debt doesn't matter.  This is how you get charts that look like this:


But of course as anyone who has ever been up to their eyeballs in debt knows, it most certainly does matter, because the amount of debt you can carry is finite - no matter who (or what) you are.

So as debt level rises your ability to keep taking more goes down.  That debt adds to aggregate demand just as would more income.  But when that debt accumulation ceases, so does the demand that it sponsored, and when it reverses you wind up subtracting from demand that which goes to pay off the debt!

Of course there are those who argue "but one man's debt is another man's asset", and I'd agree with this - if all debt was paid.  But defaulted debt is another matter, isn't it?  Now what's that "asset" worth?  Oops.

The other issue, which none of these people (except Keen!) seems to appreciate is that when you're up to your eyeballs in debt your production is inevitably shifted away from productive and saving pursuits.  The first is a problem.  The second is corrosive to industry, as it is savings that form the predicate for Capital Formation and it is Capital Formation that is the seed from which new businesses, and thus employment, grows.

That sucking sound will continue for many years, because the level of debt that was racked up under Bernanke’s watch, and that of his predecessor Alan Greenspan, was truly enormous. In the years from 1987, when Greenspan first rescued the financial system from its own follies, till 2009 when the US hit Peak Debt, the US private sector added $34 trillion in debt. Over the same period, the USA’s nominal GDP grew by a mere $9 trillion.

Yep.  And guess what - now a good part of that $34 trillion has to come out.  My "best guess" is about $25 trillion of it.

This will of course whack on GDP - probably by 40% and perhaps more.  That takes us back to $10 trillion.

I've been arguing this for three years now in these pages.  The exact amount of damage to GDP and debt that must be excised in order to bring the system back into balance is a point of contention, but that this has to happen, as the Ponzi has hit the wall, is not.   That is a mathematical certainty.

The sooner we take our medicine the better.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Why Young Black Males Are Not Graduating High School (USA)

Why Young Black Males Are Not Graduating High School
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2010 | Janice Shaw Crouse

Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:12:39 PM by Kaslin

A new report from the Schott Foundation reveals that only 47 percent of black male students earn a high school diploma on time. Ironically, this report came out shortly after Judge Vaughn Walker ruled regarding Proposition 8 in California. If the statements on which Judge Walker based his ruling are “facts,” how do we explain what is happening educationally to boys in the black community where a large majority are growing up without fathers?

Nancy Pearcey, in an article on American Thinker, identified certain “facts that Judge Walker claims are now established by the ‘evidence’ presented in his courtroom.” Those “facts” presumably will be deemed as “truth” far beyond the courtroom. Among those “facts,” the following three are especially relevant for young black boys’ futures:

• “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
• “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
• “Having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

Those three general false principles that Judge Walker supposedly established in his arguments in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage” are equally faulty when applied to the more than 40 percent of today’s children who are born to single mothers. They are doubly relevant when the majority of those children are black.

Here are some irrefutable facts that Judge Walker and his ilk need to ponder.

Poverty: When it comes to poverty, a contributing factor for dropping out of school, the majority are single parents — 37 percent of single moms and 17.5 percent of single dads are in poverty, whereas only 6.7 percent of married couples are in poverty. Put in the simplest possible terms, the poverty rate of single mothers with children is five times higher than the rate for married couples with children, and the rate for single fathers is more than two-and-a-half times the married-couple rate. Even worse, now the poor children in single parent households constitute almost two-thirds of all poor children.

Our Beverly LaHaye Institute analysis of census data shows that if the family structure of the population had been the same in 2007 as it was in 1972, the poverty rate for all families would be lower today. Instead of increasing from 11.8 percent in 1972 to 15 percent in 2007, it would have been 10.7 in 2007. Thus, poverty and fatherless families are inextricably linked. So are certain other negative consequences for children — we have forty years of social science data detailing the higher frequency of adverse child development outcomes for children raised in single-mother households.

Bad Schools: While plenty of poor children excel in school, other factors contribute to the poor educational outcomes for black boys, including bad schools in minority areas. The District of Columbia spends more per pupil than almost any other school district in the nation — close to $25,000 per child — on par with tuition at the exclusive Sidwell Friends private school the Obama girls attend. Yet, the D.C. schools consistently rank among the poorest in the nation, with run-down facilities and bloated central management. Both New York and New Jersey also spend huge sums on education — $13,780 annually per pupil. A Fordham Foundation report found that only eight states had achieved “moderate” success in the past fifteen years in improving poor and minority students’ scores on reading, mathematics, and science. Only seven to eight percent of black 9th graders are at or above the proficient level in science and math.

Family Breakdown: Yes, poverty and poor schools are partly to blame, but black children suffer disproportionately because of family breakdown. White and Asian parents are more likely than black or Hispanic parents to read to their children (white, 68 percent; Asian, 66 percent; black, 50 percent; and Hispanic, 45 percent). Again, it comes as no surprise that children are read to more often in two-parent families than in single-parent homes (62 percent in two-parent homes compared to 53 percent in single-parent homes).

At some point, we will have to come to grips with the fact that a very large percentage of our students fail because they lack a father and mother who value, encourage, support, and reinforced their efforts to learn. Common sense tells us that there is no surer recipe for the child to lag behind in learning than having to contend with the strain and disruption of a broken, dysfunctional family, where the parent or parents are so focused on themselves and their needs that they have little emotional energy to spare for the child’s needs. Before we can address the problems of public education, we have to address the problems of marriage and family. Only then can we begin the massive overhaul of cultural values that will be necessary to close the educational gaps in America.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Fact-checking The Elites


Posted By James F. Davis On August 20, 2010 | No Comments

Liberals have a lot of misconceptions about why and what conservatives think. For example, last week my wife, Luisa, attended a Tea Party (Freedom Works) conference in Washington, DC. On the last day of the conference, reporters from all the major news outlets were invited to ask participants questions.

Being a Hispanic immigrant, she was asked by a reporter what she thought of the new Arizona immigration law. Luisa said she was in favor of it. Shocked by her answer, the reporter asked in a very hostile tone, how she could be against “her people?” Luisa replied, “These people are criminals, they are not my people. My people are law abiding Americans.”

David Stockman, President Reagan’s first budget director and closet Liberal, wrote an op-ed recently saying that reducing taxes, i.e., supply side economics, will not increase revenues and spur the economy. Any knowledgeable person would check to see if Reagan’s tax rate reductions of over 50% in the early 1980’s were followed by increased government revenues. They were. Tax revenues almost doubled over the next 10 years along with the creation of over 20 million net new jobs. And he did this despite the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives during his entire 8 years in office and the Senate for 5 of those years.

One of the reasons that Liberals have so many misconceptions about conservatives is that their knowledge of history seems to begin when they get up in the morning. Tax rate cuts during the Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan administrations all resulted in increased revenues. Look it up.

Deficits are entirely caused by governments spending more than they bring in. They borrow from people who could otherwise use the money to expand their businesses and hire more people.

At the end of World War II, Liberal economists were demanding a huge stimulus package to absorb the 45% of our civilian labor supply that had been employed by government war spending. Government spending on war contracts went from $84 billion to $30 billion from 1945 to 1946 while most economic controls (rationing, price controls, etc) were revoked.

These same liberal economists forecast 35% unemployment if the government did not have a massive government stimulus spending program. Did the sky fall without government stimulus spending? No. Civilian employment grew by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947 as military industries converted back to civilian production with virtually no help from the government. Actually congress dismantled the majority of the “New Deal.”

If Hoover and FDR’s stimulus spending during the 1930’s and early 1940’s war effort had ended the Great Depression, how come winding it down did not cause another Depression? Liberals misunderstand Conservatives because they do not take the time to research to see if their opinions are backed by historical fact.

P.S. When you research with Google, Wikipedia, Snopes, etc. keep in mind these sites are run by leftist ideologues who are short on coherent hard data and facts and long on liberal spin opinions. Check for hard facts at places like www.askheritage.org [1] or http://www.academia.org/ [2].

James F. Davis is the president of Accuracy in Academia.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Just as true in Canada if not moreso Note the date

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes
APFN.org ^ | 1985 | Charley Reese

Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:57:24 AM by listenhillary



Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.


Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.


It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

What is Islam based on?

What is Islam based on?

Mohammed went into “trances” and fits (like epileptic fits) when he was given the “word of God” and would shout out what he was told. These would be written down by his followers. This is the makeup of the Koran.

When Mohammed was just walking and talking and acting like “normal”, his words and deeds were written down by his followers and this went into the Hadith. Now, acting “normal” for Mohammed was taking 12+ wives (including a 6 year old when he was 51), taking slaves (including sex slaves), executing infidels, conducting raids for treasure, etc.

Now, this is where it gets complicated.

A large part of the words he spoke in trances were “taken back” by Mohammed. He determined them to be the work of the devil (thus they are called the “Satanic Verses” and these are the same verses that Mr. Salman Rushdie got in trouble for writing about).

Now, how Mohammed determined which verses were from God and which were from Satan I do not know.

Also, there were literally dozens of widely different versions of the Hadith floating around right after Mohammends death and there are large amounts of Hadith that are disputed. Now, even Mohammed could not remember what he was told by God and forgot it (those are his words as written in the Hadith) so I do not know how the powers in charge decided which was the correct version.

Also according to the Hadith, Mohammed turned people into monkeys, you can determine a child’s sex depending on whether the male or female has an orgasm first (that advice came directly from the Angel Gabriel), dogs are evil and should be killed, that the devil lives in your nose at night (and how to get rid of him in the morning), chess is forbidden, muslims have one intestine while infidels have seven, don’t pray looking up or your eyes will be snatched away, that one wing of a fly is poison but the other is the cure, that drinking camel urine is good for you and I could go on.

And that Mohammed himself didn’t even know if he was going to heaven. If even Mohammed doesn’t know, what chance does the average muslim have?

And for some non-PC info, Mohammed was described as a white man.

Now, if you can bear it, to compare to the Gospels of New Testament.

Jesus was born into a poor Jewish family in an area of the world under the occupation of the Roman Empire. He would grow up to be a carpenter for the majority of his life, living quietly and humbly in Nazareth. However, for the last three years of his life he would travel throughout Palestine teaching, healing, and challenging the conventional Jewish order. Jesus was killed for basically saying he was a King and Son of God (blasphemy) by the powers in charge (Roman and Jewish). The government wanted Jesus destroyed and wanted his growing movement destroyed (as it threatened their power). If, after 3 days, the followers of Jesus proclaimed he has risen from the dead, (just as he predicted), and is truly our Savior, the High Officials would have wanted to destroy such a “myth.” They could have easily done this by producing the dead body of Jesus and saying “Your Messiah is still dead and so is your movement” or producing many eye witnesses of the dead Jesus. But they couldn’t.

So fundamentally, without education, without an army, and without money, this Jesus of Nazareth would forever change the course of human history.

The letters that make up the core of the New Testament were written by the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus or by their associates. They were written in just one generation when many other eye witnesses were still alive. They were written without collusion from other Apostles. Even if any of the Apostles wanted to “add” to the “myth” of Jesus, they would have done so in a very disjointed and easily detectable fashion. Yet, the main Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that describe the life of Jesus are amazingly in harmony with one another and the small differences are consistent with what we would see today if four people witnessed a major event and wrote about the event apart from each other. The Gospels can be traced back to their sources and are basically unchanged from their originals.

The Bible (especially the NewTestament) is the most investigated historical document in the history of the world. It has been investigated by scientists, philosophers and archeologists using technology undreamed of when the Bible was written. It is been desperately tried to be “disproved” for over 2000 years, yet, the Bible still stands as the truth.

The stories of Jesus still make sense to us today. It may be because they are true, it may be because they are based in love or it may be because they were written to tell the people of the Word of God.



PS - There are many topics that could be compared - The stories of a adulterous woman is found in both the Bible and Koran. They seem to sum up each religion.


But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:1-11)


There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Gamid and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me.’ He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: ‘Allah’s messenger, why do you turn me away? ... By Allah I have become pregnant.’ He said ‘Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth.’ When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag, and said ‘Here is the child whom I have given birth to.’ He said ‘Go away and suckle him until you wean him.’ When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said ‘Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food.’ He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. (Sahih Muslim 4206)


One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34)


Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj Mubrur.”

Dismantling America (8/17/10) by Thomas Sowell

Towhall ^ | 8/17/10 | Thomas Sowell

Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:44:36 AM by Elkiejg

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times." Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters-- with their Constitutional rights-- who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Those Racist Cops Are At It Again (From American Thinker)


By Bob Weir

The most important job of a police officer is the prevention of crime. In order to do so, the officer must cast a large shadow over his patrol area by projecting an image of omnipresence. The bad guys are unlikely to pursue their nefarious goals while the beat cop or the marked patrol unit is nearby.

But there are many other ways in which a savvy cop keeps his area safe. One is to keep an eye on people and activities which he deems suspicious. Making a mental and paper note of such activity can, and often does, lead to crime-solving later. Many good arrests resulted from information recorded prior to the criminal acts. When the notorious "Son of Sam" was finally captured, after committing several homicides, it was due to the data on a parking ticket issued to the killer's car while he was a few blocks away stalking his next victim.

In New York City, the police use a form known as "Stop and Frisk," when they encounter someone who, based on their experience, appears to be in need of some scrutiny. The info on those forms is fed into a statistics-based managerial computer system known as CompStat. The data is used to follow up on incidents that occurred around the same time and place in which they were recorded. 

Now, most people would view that as an excellent way to help the police bring greater safety and security to their neighborhood. Yet, there was a loud roar of criticism from civil rights groups recently when the NYPD released its data on Stop and Frisk interactions for 2009. It seems that cops made 575,000 pedestrian stops last year, 55 percent involving blacks. Critics quickly pointed out that blacks are only 23 percent of the population, while whites, who comprise 35 percent of the city's residents, were only involved in 10 percent of the stops. So, as is typical with all these race-baiting groups, the implication is that the police are racists who enjoy harassing black people by asking them a few questions during circumstances that aroused the officers' suspicion. This would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous to the security of potential victims. One need only view the patterns of crime in that city to conclude that the "stop" rates are consistent with the ethnic and racial percentages in the respective groups.

Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. Moreover, it's important to point out that the vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups.

NYPD analyzes victim reports daily, and deploys additional manpower to the places where crime is increasing. When police arrive at one of those high crime spots, their job is to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior. While doing so, they will probably be making more frequent stops than they would make in areas with low crime rates. Given these facts, the department cannot direct its resources where they are most needed without generating racially disproportionate stop data, even though the data is colorblind.

The following is an example of other colorblind methods used to combat crime. In one mostly black police precinct in Brooklyn, the per capita rate of shootings is 81 times higher than in another, mostly white, precinct in the same borough. As a result, the per capita stop rate in the former precinct is 15 times higher than that in the latter (some may wonder why it isn't even higher). Hence, should we conclude that cops in the former precinct are racists for the way they do their job?

Furthermore, crime rates are not the only activity that involves police strategy. Very often, residents of high crime neighborhoods request more police presence to handle a specific problem. If residents of an apartment building ask their precinct commander to eliminate the drug dealing on their street, officers will likely question people hanging out around the building and step up their enforcement of quality-of-life laws, resulting in more stops. Such requests for crackdowns on street sales come far more frequently from minority areas, because that's where most of the street drug-dealing occurs.

This isn't rocket science; it's basic math and common sense. Nevertheless, some critics are urging the city to eliminate these crime-control measures. The attack on stop-and-frisk data is based on the false premise that police activity should reflect census data, not crime. If the critics get their way, it would remove a substantial amount of police protection from the city's minority population, those who need it most.

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. E-mail Bob.

1 Comments on "Those Racist Cops Are At It Again"