Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Political Affilation and Crime Rates

Note: Not a report on 'bias'. Just a recording of an exchange had on Bookerrising for permanent archive

[quote]First, can we really say there is a connection between political affiliation and crime levels?[/quote]

Dougie:

You ask the wrong question. It is not PARTY AFFILIATION. It is the IDEOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS that are at play with certain people. One's IDEOLOGY captures the METHODOLOGY that he believes as the way things should be done to achieve certain ends. Thus POLITICAL PARTIES capture groupings of people per their ideology. You can't tell me that Jim Webb, the slimy new senator from VA has much in common with Nancy Pelosi per their similar party membership. Its just not the case. Parties are nothing more than an association meant to obtain POWER.

[quote]
I mean, crime waves have occurred under the watchful eye of both parties.[/quote]
This is a high level analysis that fails to note that America is made up of a bunch of counties and states - each with their own ethos regarding crime and punishment, culture and community bonding. The entire nation does not experience a brain swap upon the dawning of a new presidential administration. What comes from upon high from DC rarely succeeds in radically altering that which is the prevailing local character.
Law enforcement and policy is just but one element of the ingredients of a crime spree.

[quote]
Secondly, what causes crime in the black community? I mean I suppose growing up, the crime i saw in my grandmothers district was more a matter of necessity.[/quote]

You need to watch the recent episode of "Gangster" which focused on the Gangster Disciples out of Chicago and how they expanded their drug enterprise to Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and even took over some small, Podunk town in between Chicago and Milwaukee who's name that I don't remember. With the MILLIONS of dollars raked in by this syndicate it was more than NECESSITY in action.

This was nothing less than a CORPORATE ENTERPRISE ran with FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. The guys at the top pocketed most of the money. The middle level managers were the enforcers - beating the hell out of any member who failed to pay their DUES - which were 70% of their revenues.

This was no more done out of NECESSITY as you can claim that Ford, Pepsi and Sears were created as corporations out of NECESSITY. Instead there was a DEMAND expressed by the community and they serviced that demand and profited greatly.

When they saw that they had a functional system that worked for Chicago they decided to replicate it in these other cities - KILLING OFF the competition both figuratively and literally.

It appears that you are claiming that because society SPIT THEM OUT....they were forced to pursue this mode of commerce. I REJECT THIS 100%.

The bottom line is that there is some incumbent requirement upon them and their community to understand what is in demand in the LEGAL marketplace regarding SKILLS, knowledge, and competency and to insure that their young people are "finished" in a way that they are in line with this market and thus can sell their goods in exchange for a living.

INSTEAD REBELLION and REVOLUTION are the hallmarks in many communities. "Speaking truth to power" gets you a scouting badge to wear. As I listened to an NPR interview with the SCLC president he makes the claim that RACISM and hatred for Blacks remains the #1 force of oppression against us. Funny how on an increasing basis I am seeing more diversity in the way of melanin among people who have the pigmentation but NOT the fundamental cultural inculcation have great success in these same places that are said to be off limits to those professing the African-American branding. I would argue that even Barack Obama is one of these individuals, having had his world view shaped by his mother and then venturing out later in life to link up with the community.

At what point, dougie do we begin INTROSPECTION? I realize that the kneejerk which will be heard (particularly from the board's #1 Jerk from Bowie) will be "You are blaming the victim".

The way to get past this is to focus on the intended results - consider what you are willing to do to obtain them - even if you have to suspend your unique flavor as you melt it into the prevailing culture of the environment that you are seeking entry into and THEN upon obtaining a measure of control - you add your spicy seasoning.

Instead folks want that which has been successful to CHANGE and prove that they are more accommodating and accepting of diversity (in action). Rarely do they inspect if THEY are the ones who need to change because that which they are attempting to hold onto is FAILING them.

In holding on they are in fact SELLING OUT because their goals of ECONOMY BOUNTIFULNESS is being denied as they hold onto a CULTURAL METHODOLOGY that they picked up on the streets and attempt to enforce it on OTHERS.


(Hey Candace and SweetJones - will you ever see such articulation about what is really going on WITHIN the Black community from the guy YOU claimed - per your jaundiced perspective - "Kicked my butt" in a debate over the past few days?

In order to draw upon this well of insight - one must have some connection to it in the first place. He doesn't!!!! This is why he talks DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN all of the time and you all, being DEMOCRATS go along for the ride. You win but you lose.)

No comments: