Replies

Note that: 1. Mauer has not revised his numbers since 1995 (All figures I was able to find on the subject merely repeated Mauer, who in 1990 reported that one in four black men from the cited age group were convicts. If his 1995 figures are correct, the percentage of black, 20-29 year-old convicts rose 30% in five years, which is as hard to believe as some of the statistics produced by urban police departments since 1995, showing miraculous declines in violent crime); 2. His figures, if correct, mean that 32.2% of all black men 20-29 years of age are CONVICTS (advocates often misrepresent parolees and probationers as “ex-convicts.” Only when convicts have completed their parole or probation, do they become ex-cons. It is because one is still a convict, that a violation of parole or probation can result in one´s having to finish one´s sentence in prison.); 3. The rate of black convicts cannot be reduced to poverty, since it is 33% higher than the current black poverty rate of 24.1%. Middle class black men are increasingly imitating street toughs from the projects; and most importantly, 4. Mauer speaks of black convicts as victims, rather than as perpetrators, as if they had suddenly been “hit” by crimes, as if by falling bricks from a building. Hence, when he notes that the white and Hispanic rates of 20-29-year-old convicts were only 4% and 16%, respectively, he suggested the other groups – particularly white men — were tremendously lucky.

The guy kills himself explaining the vagaries of statistics that are frequently used, where such statistics even EXIST, so you go and isolate a paragraph where he discusses issues for which no such statistics exist, and beat him over the head with that? Is that the best you can do? You guys are pathetic hypocrites. You're as lazy as the day is long, yet you demand the impossible of the author. No matter what the writer did, you would come up with some lazy man line, in lieu of honest criticism.

"Hey, he didn't tell the history of black crime, starting with Creation!"

"You guys are pathetic hypocrites. You're as lazy as the day is long"

Is that the best you can do, debating-wise? "You're dumb, nana nana naaaa naaa?"

I didn't disagree w/ Black crime statistics and if these aren't accuracte then they are close. But he didn't back up his charge about Black cops harassing White people (except one anecdotal piece) or about PD's hiring Black cops who failed the test.

If I wrote an op-ed about Clinton and charged that he neglected the nation's security for 8 years and backed it up w/ facts and then charged that he worshipped Satan, would you believe my second charge was accurate because the first was supported?