Judging Barack by the Content of His Character

Not quite:

The numbers in question from the Justice Policy Institute report come from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. The report indicates that there were an estimated 791,600 black men in jail and prison in 2000 and a count of 603,032 in college in 1999. Mr. [Jank] Morton agrees with the jail and prison number but asserts in his blog that the more reliable U.S. Census Bureau reports that there were 816,000 black men in college in 2000. In the film, he makes comparisons using the same data sources for 2005 and states this number to be 864,000. Furthermore, he argues that it is bad practice to use the entire age range of black males when making these comparisons, because the age range for college-going males is generally 18 to 24, not the 18 to 55 (and up) range of the jail and prison population. Viewed this way, the ratio of black men in college compared with jail and prison is 4-to-1.

Two main points:

1. Though the number of those in jail is correct (791,000), the number of college students is closer to 864,000 not 603,032 as usually reported. That puts it at about equal roughly.

2. But a much more important point is that it’s an unfair comparision. Men in jail stat comes from men 18-55, but most college men are 18-22. Looking at men in jail from 18-22, a much more accurate comparision, puts the number much lower.
That would make it 4 times as men black men in college than in jail.

That’s not a good number still, but it isn’t the stereotype either.

Jank Morton also writes this in response to an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun:

I reviewed your article, and I am at a point of concern as it relates to the symbiosis of the Justice Policy Institute and “Journalists” who continue to source this organization for this flawed comparison. I believe this point needs absolute clarification, and while you imply the truth lies between myself and the JPI, and you so diligently (and accurately) explain)the census data and its potential shortcomings, why did you not make one phone call to the NCES regarding the accuracy of the JPI data? If you would, please contact the NCES (202-502-7300) regarding the data for FY 2000 and you will find that NCES did not collect unduplicated 12 month headcount enrollment for African American males until FY 2001. The 603,032 number used by this organization, in its fraudulent inception was a mid-year forecast for fall enrollment ONLY (actual year end fall enrollment was 657,000) and their “study” did not include spring enrollment for 2000. And as we so readily refer constantly back to the JPI as “the source” for the cellblocks vs. classrooms data, and easily as my research and credibility is refuted by this source, why is that no one has “uncovered this story”. And your final assumption falls directly in line with fallacious postulate forwarded by this organization who massaged the data to justify an ends.

Finally your correct analysis of “the less representative the coverage of the survey, the less sure one can be of the accuracy of the estimated number. And – surprise – the Current Population Survey’s lowest coverage rate is among young black men” only helps support the argument that while the census coverage may be lacking as it relates to AA Males (a popular premise that I have not seen proved or disproved by any ones research) , the count still surpasses that which is incarcerated. So if they gather additional coverage is it not logical to assume the count would increase more? Please stop dumbing us down, do more fair and accurate research, before publishing and assuming the worst about us. – Janks Morton

Thanks for the clarification!

For anyone who has not heard of Jank Morton’s movie, I recommend everyone check out, “What Black Men Think”

The contents of Barack’s character showed last night in the debate.

It’s a good point to make Scott. Which is why, I wrote,

I don’t want Barack Obama to be my President. And it has nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his politics.

Rather than, “with his character”.

As someone who values the “R” beside a politician’s name (I’d like to do a post in the future on why that usually matters), I fear a Barack Obama nomination more than I fear a Hillary Clinton’s.

I think Hillary has so much baggage with her, she is more beatable in the general election than is Obama. Obama represents the fresh change of youth and exuberance…something different. He is charismatic and a great speaker. But, politically, he stands for nothing that I care about, policy-wise.

Interesting thing about Obama: in the latest NH poll I looked at, he’s the only Dem who is viewed positively by a majority of Republicans (not a huge majority, 50something percent). McCain mirrors this distinction on the Rep side, having even higher positives among Dems than Obama does among the Republicans. Most of the other candidates have fairly high negatives from the opposite party, which I would think is the normal state of affairs.

“Obama represents the fresh change of youth and exuberance…something different. He is charismatic and a great speaker. But, politically, he stands for nothing that I care about, policy-wise.”

policy-wise…I wonder (just brainstorming) how much a President can really do anymore? Whether Congress goes R, stays D, or gets mixed, I just don’t see it being more effective, and that’s really where things get done. A President has the power to suggest and market policies and strategies, and is tasked with implementing them IF APPROVED and SANCTIONED and FUNDED by Congress.

I just don’t know if anyone can really “fix” social security, medicare, rebuild the military, do anything towards healthcare, etc., but MOST IMPORTANTLY, I don’t think a President has this mass of unchecked, unbalanced, unapproved policy implementation power especially in regards to foreign policy.

Look, every President gets three things:
1) a natural disaster
2) an economic crisis
3) military action

There’s nothing a Pres can really do to prevent a natural disaster, and when a Mississippi flood comes around, or 4 hurricanes hit Fla in one yr, or a Katrina…it’s barely 1/3 of the President’s responsibility to provide aid because local and state officials are the primary and secondary sources of emergency response. W blew it with Katrina, but he was 3rd in line and there really wasn’t much more he could do anyway (as the post-Katrina investigation determined).

When an economic crisis occurs, the Pres can do a few tweaks here and there, but mostly I think it falls to Congress’ taxing.

Military action;
America’s Achilles heel is asymmetric warfare, and in that kind of war the enemy seeks to impose its political will (wage war) by convincing the opposing population (Americans) to surrender their will to the enemy rather than forcing the opposing military (US Marines for example) to surrender. In other words America’s enemies target our anti-war sentiments and those sentiments rest on the left (a portion of the political spectrum that feels grossly alienated-even oppressed), and I don’t think the anti-war left (there is no anti-war right) will support any conflict unless a Dem markets it. History bears this out: President Clinton waged almost a dozen very serious military actions, and the very same people who are in CODE PINK, ANSWER, Moveon, etc supported him. They even supported him in his 8yrs of attacks and war on Iraq. To succeed in a war, America MUST NOT embrace the anti-war-at-any-cost elements, and they are the Democrats’ base.

View it in reverse. We’ve all harped for years that the success in the war on terror and war in Iraq has been threatened by the left (ie, the Democrats’ base/their politically driven opposition to the war), and that if said opposition were removed, then the enemy would have no reason to fight and surely no chance of either military OR political success. So, if a Dem is President, and the Dem base supports military action (as it did for President Clinton’s wars) then when the President reacts to a threat and takes military action that action cannot be thwarted by asymmetric war. Since the US can’t be beaten conventionally, this makes the US even more capable of imposing political will via deterrence/peaceful means.

Then the question comes…CAN a Dem President still pull a Carter and avoid military action in the world, or pull a Clinton and take only half ass actions that procrastinate the problems (ht Curt)? I think the world is now in a situation where involvement cannot be avoided (another Carter), and can’t be procrastinated by half ass action (another Clinton). Today’s hotspots are at critical mass-not mere fertilized eggs or even fetus’, but ready to popout fightin.

If that’s the case, and if America’s weakness is the willingness and eagerness of the left to support or acquiesce to enemy demands, AND if the current and next President is merely a rider of history’s wave, then the only chance at guarding the Achilles heal is either (per bbart) a McCain who polls well with Dems OR a Democrat-particularly an Obama-who polls even better with Dems.

McCain did very well last night. So did Fred. Obama did better imo.

I don’t know who I’ll vote for. There’s a long way to go. I like Fred, McCain, Huck, and yes, Obama. There’s so many social-liberal Republicans running that to vote D vs R doesn’t seem very distinctive anymore in a lot of cases.

Think about this. At last night’s debate, Charlie Gibson told the Dems that he personally worries about one nat sec issue more than any other: nuclear terrorism. He then asked the candidates, ‘experts tell us there’s a 30-50% chance of a nuclear terrorist strike on an American city in the next 5-10yrs. The day after it might happen what would you wish we’d have done, and what would you do?’ This is it.

What do you do AFTER a nuke explodes?
The answers were remarkable, and if you listen closely, Barack, Edwards, and Hillary all described their positions…as the same policy the Bush Admin has re pre-emption, terrorist sponsors, and military action. They surely didn’t describe positions nearly identical to the evil Darth Bush’s for political gain. I think they did it because we are riding history’s wave now, and making the ship change directions is like trying to turn the Titanic on a dime.

(end rant-sorry)

Great points all Word. Let’s look ahead at the very good chance Dems WILL take both Congresses by storm AND that Obama can outspin any Republican to the general population…let’s just say that happens for discussion’s sake.

You hit the nail on the head with this:
“When Obama speaks of fighting terrorism, it’s just glossy rhetoric to me. Dems have a stigma attached to them, that they are weak on national security and defense. So they talk tough. They have to try to convince Americans that they are capable of keeping us safe. But nothing in their legislative actions really convinces me that the Democratic Party has the vision- as a Party- to do just that.”

The thing is, Dems have NOT ended the war. They’ve only taken action that’s rhetorical, and when it comes time to be serious about:
Patriot Act
FISA
Staying in Iraq
Funding GWOT

In each case they’ve talked out of both sides of their mouth: whining and complaining and OPPOSING anything the Republicans want to do, then they turn right around and
RE-AUTHORIZE the Patriot Act
RE-Write/Authorize FISA
RE-Authorize (by authorizing the war to continue and NOT revoking authorization) the war in Iraq
CONTINUE Funding war on terror etc

This is what’s got the left freaked and has Congress’ approval in the toilet. They’ve never stopped being the party of opposition in terms of rhetoric, BUT they’ve never embraced the responsibility given to them as the party in control of Congress. So, they look weak to Republicans, and still take action that is exactly what they’ve said was too tough. If they have a sweeping majority in Congress and the WH, there’s real danger they could ramrod their agenda, but…then they’d have to live with the consequences, and they’ve demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they either don’t have the balls to live with those consequences (see also forcing withdrawal from Iraq), OR they know the consequences and aren’t stupid (they’re just spinning for their base to get more power).

“In ’08, these are the stakes:
-The possibility of 4-5 Supreme Court vacancies
-Expiring tax cuts
-Democrats who are guaranteed to spend.
-Weakness on border security
-Refusal to even name the “enemy”, let alone, keep us on the offense.”

PERFECT! I’d even add economy, and disaster readiness, but let’s go with those you listed:
-The possibility of 4-5 Supreme Court vacancies
…in terms of abortion rights, there’s not much more they can do to make it worse, is there?
…in terms of second amendment, as long as criminals can get guns (and they’ll always be able to) then I’ll be able to get guns=anything they do is rhetorical.

-Expiring tax cuts
…They’re gonna expire, but…our family doesn’t make anywhere close to $250g a year so I really don’t care. I’d like to see an end to income taxes, a reduction in corporate taxes, a reduction or removal of capital gains tax, and offset that by a massive tax increase on CEO golden parachutes (something that would compel them to get stock options rather than cash and thus compel them to invest rather than take the money and run).

-Democrats who are guaranteed to spend.
…sadly, this is one of those areas where there’s little difference between the D/R anymore. I’d call it an entirely moot point

-Refusal to even name the “enemy”, let alone, keep us on the offense.
…ahhh, my favorite. Dems had no trouble calling the enemy the enemy when Clinton was Pres, and they followed him like lemmings to the brink of Armageddon three times in the Balkans. I’m VERY confident (as you can see from my earlier post) that since the fall of the Soviet Union the US has been riding the waves of history rather than steering and controlling our destiny. I think a very good case can be made that the collapse in the Balkans, the war in Iraq, the blowback from the 91-03 war ON Iraq (ie the war with AQ), and more were pretty much inevitable. In that light, I think we can see that threats in Africa, the Gulf, and South Asia are inevitable. Like Charlie Gibson said last night, there’s a 30-50% chance of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city. That’s not prophetic. That’s a matter of odds. Whether it’s Romney, Huck, or O…I think the next President as this one is…will be reactionary, and he’ll have to start calling the enemy by name on day one. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that Dems will talk tough on natsec when they need to. When they have the responsibility, and they can’t shirk it as they do now…then they’ll have to talk tough on natsec.

For example, does anyone really believe that Pres H Clinton will remove forces from Iraq, then-when it collapses or a regional war starts-she would rather let the US fall into depression then send in US forces for a 3rd invasion? No way. She’d authorize the war just like she did this one, and like her hubby did a half dozen times between 91-01.

That said, I do think that the people who have the best chance at INFLUENCING (not controlling, but influencing) the flow or chain of international events over the next 4 yrs are (in no order) McCain, Fred, Huck, Obama, and maybe even Edwards (REAL maybe on him!).

Hillary’s a passive aggressive reactionary.
Romney’s a domestic reed that bends in the wind
RP has as much of a chance at being Pres as Richardson or I do

My question is this…
can any candidate really change the Iran’s course, Russia’s course, Saudi Arabia’s course, or Pakistan’s course?
NFW imo

I just don’t see any candidate being able to stop a loose nuke from getting into the hands of terrorists? It’s gonna happen eventually, when it does, they’re gonna go for Israel or us..well, not me, but the US. Somehow, I feel like a strike on Canton, Ohio doesn’t accomplish anything for a jihadi. Ya’ll who live in NYC, DC, LA…roll the dice.