I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
Reagan's record on the economy speaks for itself. You can't rewrite it. Black people benefit from a booming economy. They don't require government hand outs to live. That's pretty fuckng racist in its own right bro
He was racist at the time. Like most of his opponents in the democrats were
The current racist has done more for minorities in the economic realm than alleged Black president Obama did in 8 years
Results matter.
Racist tax cuts that only whites got
JFC indeed
Black people did great under Reagan. When did crack hit again?
Are you even trying anymore?
Black people are doing historically good under Trump
How do tax cuts know the color of the recipient?
Black people are doing so well under Trump that he’ll get less than 10% of the vote again.
A tax cut doesn’t know the color of the recipient but the person that designed the cut does.
Last I saw his approval rating among blacks it was around 35% IIRC.
You're very far off.
Most recent Quinnipiac, Wapo, and Fox polls have him at 8%, 18%, and 22% respectively among blacks.
And now on to pretending that things that overwhelmingly benefit one race and hurt another have nothing to do with race.
What did Reagan do to hurt one race? Besides his racist words behind closed doors that no one has heard of or seen of until 50 years later.
What do you think about the war on drugs? With policies such as much stiffer penalties for crack than cocaine?
You mean the policies that many members of the CBC were calling for? I recall the CBC saying it was "racist" the way the Reagan/Bush Admins ignored the scourge of crack cocaine in the inner cities because the people being most adversely impacted were black people.
And now on to pretending that things that overwhelmingly benefit one race and hurt another have nothing to do with race.
What did Reagan do to hurt one race? Besides his racist words behind closed doors that no one has heard of or seen of until 50 years later.
What do you think about the war on drugs? With policies such as much stiffer penalties for crack than cocaine?
Crack was today’s oxy on steroids. If You took a hit of it, you flew like a kite. But the real bitch of it was that you Jonez for another hit 5 minutes later.
I know it’s hard for you to imagine in your little myopic sphere, but blacks weren’t the only ones doing crack in the 80’s. It was the most dangerous drug next to heroine that we’d seen at that time. Coke is no picnic. But free base coke was a different devil altogether.
I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
The programs Reagan cut were not helping black people. They were trapping them in shitty buildings, neighborhoods and schools for eternity.
I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
Reagan's record on the economy speaks for itself. You can't rewrite it. Black people benefit from a booming economy. They don't require government hand outs to live. That's pretty fuckng racist in its own right bro
He was racist at the time. Like most of his opponents in the democrats were
The current racist has done more for minorities in the economic realm than alleged Black president Obama did in 8 years
Results matter.
Racist tax cuts that only whites got
JFC indeed
Fun fact: Reagan was a Democrat until he was 51 years old and switched parties in 1962.
I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
Reagan's record on the economy speaks for itself. You can't rewrite it. Black people benefit from a booming economy. They don't require government hand outs to live. That's pretty fuckng racist in its own right bro
He was racist at the time. Like most of his opponents in the democrats were
The current racist has done more for minorities in the economic realm than alleged Black president Obama did in 8 years
Results matter.
Racist tax cuts that only whites got
JFC indeed
Black people did great under Reagan. When did crack hit again?
I’m glad we can finally stop pretending he wasn’t racist and now start pretending that the racist, who set the entire GOP agenda for the last 40 years, didn’t do anything racist.
What’s the theory the racist president used again? Cutting welfare would help black people? The guy calling black people monkeys gave white people a bunch of tax cuts while cutting programs that helped black people because he wanted to help the monkeys, oh I’m sorry I mean black people.
Reagan's record on the economy speaks for itself. You can't rewrite it. Black people benefit from a booming economy. They don't require government hand outs to live. That's pretty fuckng racist in its own right bro
He was racist at the time. Like most of his opponents in the democrats were
The current racist has done more for minorities in the economic realm than alleged Black president Obama did in 8 years
Results matter.
Racist tax cuts that only whites got
JFC indeed
Black people did great under Reagan. When did crack hit again?
Reagan made black people use crack? This is so racist I can't believe you even posted this. Only black people did crack?
FFC you are pathetic.
Only black people did crack and only white people pay taxes. But's Reagan is the real racist.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
HUD’s Lynne Patton Calls Out AOC: Maggot-Infested Rats Falling Out of Ceiling in Children’s Day Camp in New York City Avatar
“In a scathing interview Monday, HUD Region II Administrator Lynne Patton called out Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) about conditions in her hometown New York City, saying she was forced to close a children’s day camp last week because maggot-infested rats were falling from the ceiling onto children’s desks.”
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue. That makes the cause and the solution nebulous and keeps beating the victimhood drum. That’s been happening for 55 years and it’s just gets worse. Lack of opportunities don’t breed crime. As Williams said, it’s the opposite.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Which facts? I'm all ears.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
What's Most Important? By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
I can't say I disagree with anything he says, and law and order is a necessary prescription, but it still just focuses on the symptom of the problem. A lack of access to quality education, including pre-K, is and continues to be the biggest obstacle facing black communities and it's the one thing needed to break the cycle of crime and lack of opportunity. If you're not talking about the education disparity we have, you're not interested in solving the problem.
Disagree. “Lack of access to quality education” is a symptom of the problem W. E. Williams is describing.
When you have poorly funded schools that offer little in the way of extra curriculars and are generally staffed by underperforming faculty you're going to get a lack of opportunity as a result. A lack of opportunity makes crime a viable alternative. How does law and order address those systemic problems? Crime doesn't prevent us from properly funding schools.
It’s not a funding issue. At all. Check the facts.
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue.
Which facts? I'm all ears.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.
You still have it backwards. Funding is a symptom. Read Williams article again.
Comments
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
The 80s
Trump just signed off on undoing some of the Clinton's 90s crime bills
Super predators
Like hondo Hillary thought of Black kids
You know what that means, right APAG?
By Walter E.Williams July 23, 2019
Think about priorities. Say that you live in one of the dangerous high crime and poor schooling neighborhoods of cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis. Which is most important to you: doing something about public safety and raising the quality of education or, as most black politicians do, focusing energies upon President Donald Trump and who among the 20 presidential contenders will lead the Democratic Party? The average American has no inkling about the horrible conditions in which many blacks live. Moreover, they wouldn't begin to tolerate living under those conditions themselves.
In Chicago, one person is shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. Similar crime statistics can be found in many predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and many other large cities. It's not just an issue of public safety, for high crime has other devastating consequences.
Crime lowers the value of property. We can see some of this when housing prices skyrocket in formerly high crime areas when large numbers of middle- and upper-income people purchase formerly run-down properties and fix them up. This is called gentrification — wealthier, predominantly white, people move in to renovate and restore slum housing in inner cities, causing higher rental prices and forcing low-income residents out. Also, as a result of gentrification, crime falls and neighborhood amenities increase.
The high crime rates in many black neighborhoods have the full effect of outlawing economic growth and opportunities. Here's a tiny example of the impact of crime on businesses. In low crime communities, supermarket managers may leave plants, fertilizer and other home and garden items outdoors, unattended and often overnight. If one even finds a supermarket in a high crime neighborhood, then that store must hire guards, and the manager cannot place items outside unguarded or near exits. They cannot use all the space that they lease, and hence they are less profitable. Who bears the ultimate cost of crime? If you said black people, you're right. Black people must bear the expense to go to suburban shopping malls if they are to avoid the higher prices charged by mom and pop shops.
In low crime neighborhoods, FedEx, UPS and other delivery companies routinely leave packages that contain valuable merchandise on a doorstep if no one is at home. That saves the expense of redelivery and saves recipients the expense of having to go pick up the packages. In high crime neighborhoods, delivery companies leaving packages at the door and supermarkets leaving goods outside unattended would be equivalent to economic suicide.
Today's level of lawlessness and insecurity in many black communities is a relatively new phenomenon. In the 1950s, '40s, '30s and earlier times, people didn't bar their windows. Doors were often left unlocked. People didn't go to bed to the sounds of gunshots. And black people didn't experience anything like what's experienced in Chicago and other cities such as one person being shot every four hours and murdered every 18 hours. The uninformed blame today's chaos on discrimination and poverty. That doesn't even pass the smell test, unless one wants to argue that historically there was less racial discrimination and poverty than today.
Politicians who call for law and order are often viewed negatively, but poor people are more dependent on law and order than anyone else. In the face of high crime or social disorder, wealthier people can afford to purchase alarm systems, buy guard dogs, hire guards and, if things get completely out of hand, move to a gated community. These options are not available to poor people. The only protection poor people have is an orderly society.
Ultimately, the solution to high crime rests with black people. Given the current political environment, it doesn't benefit a black or white politician to take those steps necessary to crack down on lawlessness in black communities. That means black people must become intolerant of criminals making their lives living hell, even if it requires taking the law into their own hands.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Avatar
“In a scathing interview Monday, HUD Region II Administrator Lynne Patton called out Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) about conditions in her hometown New York City, saying she was forced to close a children’s day camp last week because maggot-infested rats were falling from the ceiling onto children’s desks.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/aoc-called-out-by-huds-lynne-patton-maggot-infested-rats-falling-out-of-ceiling-in-childrens-day-camp-in-new-york-city/
All we need to do is dump for money into the schools? Bullshit. You’re premise is false.
When you start using the word “systemic” that’s how I know you have no grasp of the real issue. That makes the cause and the solution nebulous and keeps beating the victimhood drum. That’s been happening for 55 years and it’s just gets worse. Lack of opportunities don’t breed crime. As Williams said, it’s the opposite.
Meanwhile it was just a year ago when the state of Washington was getting fined $100k per week by the state Supreme Court for under funding education. Wealthy districts were fine, they had ample PTA funding to fall back on. Schools like Rainier Beach on the other hand had crumpling infrastructure and were losing students by the bus load.
But that's just a microcosm, so go ahead and explain to me why funding isn't an issue on a national scale.