Posted on 09/03/2014 10:53:00 PM PDT by Rummyfan
In an article about police shootings in last Sunday's New York Times (8/31), Michael Wines disputes the conventional wisdom about a disproportionate number of African-Americans being shot by police, saying there are no data one way or another. But Wines revives the canard about blacks being disproportionately targeted in traffic stops.
There actually is a study for that.
Throughout the 1990s, the nation was fixated on tales of jack-booted New Jersey state troopers who were stopping speeders on the turnpike just because they were black! In a 2000 primary debate, Vice President Al Gore sneered at then-New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, saying, "Racial profiling practically began in New Jersey, Senator Bradley."
Attorney General Eric Holder recently paid tribute to the myth, claiming that when he was in college, he had been stopped "driving from New York to Washington." He didn't mention how fast he was going.
The story never made sense. How could the troopers tell the race of drivers in speeding cars? Did they wait until the driver rolled down his window and, if he was white, say, "Oh, sorry -- have a nice day!"
But the Clinton administration was slapping consent decrees for racial profiling on police departments across the country, and the N.J. highway patrol was its prime evidence, based on a study that a child wouldn't believe.
As is usually the case with bogus race studies, the pivotal 1993 survey compared speed stops on the New Jersey turnpike to the population of all drivers on the turnpike -- not with the population of all speeders on the turnpike.
Such meaningless studies are popular on the left, where it is assumed that people of different races, genders and ethnicities will always behave identically in all respects.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
Some may find your attitude and actions irrational and inappropriate, but I applaud you. We must have zero tolerance for anyone who adheres to such a murderous ideology.
South Side of Chicago. Dan Ryan Expressway. Every night. Cars with blacked-out windows (illegal in IL), no license plates (illegal in IL), weaving lane to lane, 70mph to 100mph, getting stopped by cops.
Guess who’s inside? Usually four or more South-Siders. The driver has no insurance (Illegal in IL) and complains of being stopped for DWB.
Typically, the cops don’t even ticket the lack of insurance. They’d spend all their time with that alone.
coulter is a fake consertavive tying to sell books/online stuff.
Sorry about misspellings. Not sorry about HER greed.
I literally told a black dude once that the reason he was “profiled” and pulled over was because he was going 80+ MPH in a 65 zone, per what he told me. Very cool guy...doing great in the “White Man’s World”, needless to say, took it well.
The only difference in him getting profiled for speeding and myself getting profiled is that I wind up with tickets, whereas he didn’t, twice in a row.
I was in court one morning for an expired tag. There was a young black man on trial for speeding, he plead not guilty. He admitted he was speeding, but said he was only stopped cause he was black.
The judge said an equivalent of WELL DUH!! Tell me again why you plead not guilty!
Ditto
And we are called "extremists", by P.C. liberals.
Don't worry pal, Jesus will return on a white horse....to make war and kill them.
Been out of town, so I’m a little late to this thread, but I think you’re exactly right that it’s foolish to discount every article she writes simply because in the past she’s taken positions at odds with many here, including myself at times. I took a break from reading anything political for a long time to try to keep my sanity, but when I finally started to dabble a little again, I started reading Ann’s columns again and listening to some talk radio again.
I was immediately reminded that Ann is by far one of the best researchers we have on the conservative side. I always find out facts in her columns that I never would have expected, and I know do not appear anywhere else. She digs really deep and is an absolute goldmine of information for our side. This article here is a .50 caliber bullet to an argument that most people never even question.
Reading her columns, it’s clear to me that her mode of thinking is that the clear and most dangerous enemy is the unabashed, unflinching Left. The counterargument might be that snakes in the grass on our side are potentially much more deadly, but Ann sees the nukes out in the open pointed straight at us by the other side and says, “that’s the imminent threat; we must destroy that now or be destroyed.” I think, politically, she’s open to compromise on certain people on our side if it will defeat the unquestionable threat on the other side. Her columns along these lines tend to rile up our side, but they are not just “vote Republican because they’re not a Democrat” simplicities. They seem more like war strategy to me, where sacrifice and best-case-scenario decisions have to made. I’m quite sure Ann understands that this is a war more than anyone.
Even if some or even most of our side disagrees with her idea of political troop movements, it’s foolish to ignore her columns. They’re a fully-stocked armory of intellectual weapons to take on the Left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.