Atheist Goat

http://atheistgoat.ytmnd.com/

fucking cops

As the well known conundrum goes “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” It’s a question of the root causes of things—it’s the difference between the causes and the conclusion. And it’s the same conundrum that too often people ignore when examining racial improprieties in America. So the question is “Which came first:  high crime rates among minorities, or the suspicion of higher crime rates amongst minorities?” Let’s look at an example:

Say, in a hypothetical community there are a certain percentage of white people who are criminals. In the same community, there’s the same percentage of black people who are criminals. This community is policed by the same prejudiced cop.

If that police officer suspects that a higher rate of black people are criminals, he’ll looks harder to find criminals in people of that racial group, and therefore he’ll catches more criminals that are black than white.

The amount of crime that each racial group was doing is the same, but because of the prejudice of the criminal justice system, a statistic can be created that implied that black people have a greater chance of being criminals. People can now rationalize the tactic of racial profiling for law enforcement, and the pattern continues and worsens.

This is a very real pattern in American history. And, if you don’t believe that, just take a closer look at some statistics:

According to the federal Household Survey, “most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998.” Meanwhile, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations, and comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies.

These show an obvious difference in the percentage of whites who are prosecuted for their crimes and the percentage of blacks who are prosecuted for their crimes, and this difference clearly indicates a bias in the criminal justice system.

That’s bullshit isn’t it? This isn’t what a fair democracy stands by. This isn’t showing America’s respect for equality. Allowing this problem to continue is fixating on the conclusions but ignoring the causes. It’s concentrating on the chicken and ignoring the egg.

Sources:

1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

2. Drug War Facts. 20 Oct. 2006. 4 Nov. 2006 .

Happy Creation Day

Today is the 6010th anniversary of the day God created the universe. You see on the 23rd of October 4004 BC god created the world where dinosaurs and people coexisted.  To celebrate this day I invite you all to kick a jew in the shins  and harass your local science teacher.

Minimal Presidency

Written Assignment # 2

In January 2003, President Bush met with a group of people including three Iraqi Americans to discuss the likely political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein (Avard). In the course of this meeting it became apparent that Bush had no understanding of the differences between the three major demographic divisions within Iraq: the Sunni, the Shiite, and the Kurds (Galbraith). Two months later America was in a war with Iraq. The shoddy conduct in which Bush led the country into, and waged the war with Iraq (post-invasion Iraqi unemployment of 60% (Wright, Knickmeyer), disbanding of the Iraqi National Army (Slocombe), etc.) is just one illustration of why it is preferable to have a president who is analytical and deliberative but less politically accomplished than one like Bush, who acts, however effectively, on gut reactions.

Ron Suskind, in his October 17, 2004 article Without a Doubt, presents a very compelling image of Bush’s leadership style. Suskind lays out numerous instances where Bush has demonstrated a pronounced lack of intellectual curiosity, and ignorance of issues pertinent to the office of the presidency. But Suskind argues that, despite Bush’s intellectual shortcomings, he is a leader the American people find very easy to follow and that it is because he does not present himself as equivocal on issues that the American people have found him to be so palatable.

How is it that the leader of the free world can flirt so frequently with the idiocy line, but still have major political achievements under his belt? It has a lot to do with the minimal competence presidential structure. In this structure, the president delegates authority to a trusted bunch of advisors who share his political vision. This requires the president to have only a minimal understanding of the specifics of issues (Nelson). So, the president in this political structure functions largely as a figurehead to a management team.

There are a couple important problems with Bush’s embodiment of the minimal competence type of president. The first and most obvious problem is that, when it is crunch time and the president does have to act swiftly, a minimal competence president’s instincts will be based on a less than thorough understanding of the facts and responsibilities. So, in late August 2005, when water was flooding into New Orleans it was crunch time for the president and his reaction was, to say the least, sub-par (Leader).

Secondly, there are very real concerns when the executive power that the country has assigned to the elected president gets delegated to unelected and perhaps less savory, often sycophantic political characters. In President Bush’s case you have your Karl Rove types. These are people who might leak the name of a classified CIA agent to reporters for political gain (Isikoff), or conduct push polls in South Carolina that falsely indicate that your opponent has an illegitimate interracial child (Franken). Of course, there is something to be said for the fact that this aspect goes a long way in keeping the President from suffering the ills of “It’s lonely at the top” syndrome, just because he has so many friends working at pretty much the same level.

The third problem I see is that the minimal competence presidency opens the door for soft demagoguery. Because this presidential structure has the president as more of an executive figurehead than executive officer, the potential for that president to tout an identity that appeases the masses rather than be a principled leader is very great. In Without a Doubt, Suskind points out just how much Bush does this especially in regards to religion—how Bush’s strongly religious rhetoric, in addition to other factors the masses relate to, has a lot to do with why people have been inclined to support him.

Bush’s political accomplishments are largely based on his demagogic tendencies with the citizens of America. No doubt the fact that his political party is the majority in both houses of Congress has a good deal to do with his accomplishments. But the Republican Party’s unity, which has allowed for him to achieve his goals, could not have been sustained without Bush’s good relationship with the American people.

Indeed, as Bush’s popularity among the American people deteriorates, so does the unity of the Republican Party. Now, with Bush polling in the mid 30’s, the frictions in the Republican Party are palpable. Republicans on the Hill and across the country are reluctant to vote with him and even more reluctant to campaign with him (Hammer).

This seems to indicate that putting things in absolute terms has a shelf life that depends on how soon the people realize something is wrong. The longer the consensus is kept in a president’s favor, the longer decisiveness is effective. But haste makes waste and when a president’s political leadership is based on instinctual reactions the American people will eventually awake to the waste.

There is a Winston Churchill quote that goes, “…democracy is the worst form of government except all the others…” I think the choice in presidential style follows similar lines. A thoroughly analytical president who gets little done is the worst style of president except all the others. It may take longer and be as imperfect as humanity dictates, but better worlds will be shaped by presidents who have actually analyzed issues than by those who act rashly or inconsiderately.

Why John McCain totally blows.

It’s always nice when politicians have military experience. And John McCain should be applauded for his–though there is some controversy over whether or not he was a little too cooperative with the guards in the Vietnamese prison camp. But, more to the point, politicians should not be judged solely on whether or not they’ve had military experience. What their positions are on issues and who influences them matter a great deal more and despite media portrayal, John McCain totally blows on the issues.

John McCain wants to outlaw abortions, he doesn’t want the minimum wage increase, he’s a staunch supporter of the death penalty, John McCain wants the Ten Commandments on display at public schools, He’ll only fund the abstinence only sex education that study after study has shown doesn’t work, He wants to privatize social security, He’s supports redirecting public education funds to voucher programs, His support for sound fiscal policy has taken a back seat to securing tax cuts for the rich, He supports the Patriot Act provisions that abridge constitutional civil liberties, he voted no on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025, and he supports allowing religious facilities run state welfare programs.

So while McCain has been painted by the media as a moderate and while he’s certainly not the most conservative paleo-republican ever–He’s still a Republican. He’s still irresponsible. And he would still make a bad President.