Recently, the New York Times Sunday newspaper had an opinion piece about the preponderance of police shootings of blacks vs. whites. I had a comment and question, and sent a letter to the editor, but they chose not to publish it or have the author respond. I understand – they get thousands of letters every day. In any case, here is my question. Maybe someone can answer it.
The Black population nationally is 13.2%. The number of blacks killed by police nationally is 31.8%. Those are stark numbers regardless of why. And the authors theory that perhaps it is not racial bias but poverty and the fact that more police are in poor neighborhoods seems somewhat plausible.
But I cannot see how it holds up when geographical parameters are applied. You cannot apply national statistics to a very local phenomenon. For example, are blacks in Anchorage still killed at this 31.8% rate even though they are only 6% of the population? Or Seattle, where blacks make up 8%?
Conversely, are there still 31.8% police killings in Detroit (83% black) or New Orleans (60% black)?
Clearly, more blacks nationally are killed than their population. But police forces are not national, they are very specifically local.
Find some city where the black population is exactly the national rate, 13.2%. Is the rate of killing still 31.8%? I don’t want to pummel a deceased equine, but this seem to be a major shortcoming in the conclusion reached by the author. Can you expand on this?
Maybe it is only here, but the local grocery store has already got an artificial Salvation Army beggar outside. It is way before Thanksgiving, but this guy is there every day with his pot and bell and line of chatter and he will be irritating shoppers for nearly two months.
Much like the Little Drummer Boy, I will be plenty tired of this guy before Xmas and with every day, less likely to give them money. It seems like their PR people would tell them ths is bad marketing.
Is this a photo of Joseph right after he got through building the pyramids?
I don’t understand this Ben Carson’s deal about Joseph building the pyramids. Like most children in the deep South, I was forced to go to Sunday School and church until I was old enough to refuse. I don’t remember this being told by those Baptists, and they never passed up a chance to tell stories to children.
I assume this is the same Joseph that was Jesus’s stepfather, that’s the only one I have heard of. So he got enslaved by the evil Egyptians and was made to build puramids to store grain. That doesn’t make sense. A pyramid is not a good shape for grain storage. A silo is. There is damn little empty space inside those massive rock structures.
And the timing. Even loonies (I thought) agreed that the pyramids are more than 2000 years old. But Joseph only lived about 2000 years ago. (By the way, this whole BC and AD stuff was created in about 500. Some religious outfit didn’t like the old calendar and decided to arbitrarily guess the year of Jesus birth and start the calendar there, Bah.)
It isn’t unusual for Republicans to ignore science but this goes past even that. Why haven’t any of the other clowns called Ben out on this, which is clearly a violation of their religion. Lucky for me I have a logical brain and don’t mind using it.