Black Rednecks and White Liberals (by Thomas Sowell)

I don't know much about the case, but I know that this statement is false. For instance, I know that both William Cook and William Singltary deny that Abu-Jamal was the trigger man, along with half a dozen other witnesses who saw another man fleeing the scene.Moreover, the map itself gives your statement to the lie: "For purposes of enlarging the actual crime scene we have placed Veronica Jones in this position. Like Desie Hightower and Robert Pigford, Veronica Jones has stated that she was not an eyewitness to the shooting because a building blocked her view."In other words, NJ, once again you're misrepresenting the facts of the case. But, hey, we've got a dead cop and a black man. Why ask too many questions? I know. But what's so absolutely hilarious is that your own behavior has turned this into proof that racism is endemic in our criminal justice system. In fact, that's exactly his contention. Actually it's the cops I'm making the indictment against - cops who had a dead cop and a black man in front of them and didn't ask too many questions. Fabricated evidence to ensure conviction because they "knew" he was guilty.It's an old story. The men and women of the jury can only decide the case based on what was put before them, and it's the police who are largely responsible for what evidence and testimony is brought forward. Abu-Jamal's representation was apparently so incompetent he had to represent himself.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

See, this is just blame the victim nonsense. "Ghetto culture" is hot. Do you know who loves ghetto culture? White people. We can't get enough hip-hop and pimp cups and crap. We eat it up.Yet, somehow, white people are magically unaffected by the "self-destruction" that must assuredly be visited on anybody who wears his pants low and says "shizzle." Why is that, I wonder? I'm sure Sowell doesn't have an explanation. No, it's actually well-known scientific research: No webpage found at provided URL: http://faireconomy.org/press/2004/StateoftheDream2004.pdfPage not found | The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab

quote:

---

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is randomly assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews...

​

Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names.

---

Who said anything about reparations? Not me. Who said anything about being indebted for slavery? Not me. Nobody who owned slaves or was a slave is still alive today.But I'm part of a society that discriminates against black people right now. That's what we're indebted to. White privilege is still going on. Sit back and enjoy the privilege, I guess, if you want. It's not like you had to do anything to receive it except be white. But blaming the victims of institutionalized racism? That can only be emerging from your deep sense of shame and guilt. Well, that's great. And while we're dreaming, I'd like a pony.But while you're sitting around with your thumb up your asshole waiting for your magic egalitarian fantasy-land to come true, you'll pardon the rest of us if we take steps to address real racial economic disparities here in the real world, ok?

this is a horrible way to approach a debate.

Okay, we can't indict all liberals. Good. Where is the evidence of this "prevailing culture"? Let's count the liberals you cite as evidence: One. On the basis of this evidence, you assert: One cited liberal = entire counter-culture? All the other guys were doing it, so it was okay? Ever try that argument on your parents?You're simply repeating the vague assertion from the book jacket: how was "Roots" far from the norm? What was the norm of American slavery? How does Sowell describe the reality of American slavery? I gather he doesn't think it was as bad as "liberals" believe it was--what is his corrected view? I assume you resort to the L-word because you have not--and apparently cannot--offer any actual evidence. You offer no evidence for your liberal conspiracy paranoia, and you cite a single anecdote as an example of liberal pathology and use it to indict an amorphous set of people you seem unable to identify.I'm not a liberal--I'm far to the left of contemporary American liberals (who would have been mainstream Republicans 30 years ago).I was prepared to be underwhelmed by someone touted by a Fox News commentator because I've watched Fox News, and I've listened to black conservatives who pander to their white counterparts (often for profit, a la Armstrong Williams), and I've listened to white people say "I'm not a racist but..." for decades.I don't know the details of the Mumia case, and you don't seem to think you need to know the details before drawing your own conclusions. I do know that black defendants accused of crimes against whites are sentenced to death more often that blacks accused of victimizing other blacks or whites accused of the same crime: those are facts. So I'm prepared to tentatively conclude that critiques of a particular conviction in this context are attempts to correct that historical bias until I see evidence to the contrary.In the south, especially since Reconstruction (since the south rarely bothered with trials for slaves, yes?), trials of black defendants were thin veneers over lynch parties: often the defendants were denied even the pretense of a trial, being pulled from their cells by mobs and tortured.I also know that an ever-growing list of black death row inmates have been freed in the face of exculpatory DNA tests and evidential misconduct by police, prosecutors, and crime lab scientists. Typically, the reversals are based on evidence revealed by teams of college students; one concludes the police/prosecutor/judical system didn't look too hard at the evidence at the time of trial. Why bother? They already knew--like you--what must be the truth of the matter. Who needs evidence?Given that historical context, and the current statistics showing the racially biased imposition of the death penalty and lengthy sentences, I conclude it is still extremely difficult for a black man to receive a fair trial--indeed, the notion that an all-white jury does not constitute a jury of a black defendant's peers is a recent one, in terms of appeals court reviews.Given all that, on what grounds do you assume that Mumia's conviction was fair and unbiased merely because it was an American trial?So, yeah, I'm underwhelmed by Sowell, as expected, and, further, I believe you launched this racially charged thread now because it is the Martin Luther King holiday weekend, traditionally a target of American racists.Because you're a...what?Edited by Omnivorous, : typoEdited by Omnivorous, : clarity

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

The book has actually only thus far dedicated one chapter to either progressives or blacks. I just finished reading a chapter, entitled, "Are the Jews Generic?" The whole chapter is dedicated to the historicity of middlemen in various countries that have been persecuted in a similar way as Jews.Now, I'm on the third chapter which is talking about slavery. I imagine I'll be delving back in to negro and progressive culture.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

I wouldn't hesitate to assert that there were and are corrupt judges, but as you should know, judges don't decide cases, the People do.

---

This is what you've chosen to stop and comment on? The thread isn't about Mumia and it isn't about how courts work. They are merely examples. But I'll play along for a little bit. I'm aware that activist judges, particularly, liberal activist judges exist. They're in a bad habit of letting ritual offenders off so that they can rape and murder little girls all over again. However, this is certainly not the norm. If it is, why haven't you contacted your congressman? I have a friend who is an appellate attorney and he never seems to be out of business. Also, anyone can motion for a retrial. Once the case is out of the hands of the initial court, that's it. The case gets reviewed by another court.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Lets just review the actual case instead of spinning rhetoric. (Click on "Case Files") How does me telling you about William Cook prove that racism is endemic in the criminal justice system?

quote:

---

Was he not afforded an adequate defense? Was his trial unfair?

---

Of course that's his defense. That was his defense before he ever shot and killed Faulkner. He was already entrenched in the overtly racist organization, the Black Panthers, and the radical leftists movement, MOVE, long before he killed Faulkner. Interesting how you make no mention of his own racist demons but immediately move to his defense simply because, he's a black man, and you haven't even reviewed the case. You seem to be the exact kind of person that Sowell is referring to in his book. Read the case and the court transcripts. There is a reason why he is in prison-- and it isn't because he's black, its because his guilt is transparent.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Yes, let's.

quote:

---

William Cook, who might have been expected to testify on his brother's behalf, and who was present at the scene at the beginning, did not testify, but has stated in a signed affidavit that he is willing to testify and that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not kill Officer Faulkner.

---

Page not found – Free Mumia

quote:

---

William Singletary's testimony (11 August 1995) describes how police tore up his written statement, and forced him to sign a different statement which they dictated.

---

Mumia Abu-Jamal - WikipediaYou being consistently wrong on the facts of the case, and clearly not interested in educating yourself, is the proof of the racism. I haven't reviewed the case? You're the one who was completely unaware that Falkner didn't pull over Abu-Jamal, he pulled over William Cook. You've been consistently wrong on the facts of the case, because you're not interested in challenging the popular narrative of black male violence against cops. In your mind it doesn't matter who was in the car, who shot first, whether or not there was any kind of ballistic evidence from the scene - in your mind, it's sufficient that a cop is dead and a black man was nearby. Case closed.That's what racism is, NJ. The simple facts of this case is that you listed a dozen people as corroborating witnesses, when in fact, almost every single one of those witnesses either denies the police account or wasn't a witness of any kind. Why would you do that if not a profound lack of curiosity into the facts of the case? And why would you be so profoundly incurious unless, to your mind, when you have a dead cop and a black man, the "truth" is obvious?That's what racism is. You're living proof, right here, that Sowell is wrong.

That's exactly the point! And it isn't "white people" per say, anymore than it is "black people" per say. And this is what Sowell is distinguishing. There is a specific kind of people who are perpetuating the thug mentality. And that is this MTV generation liberals who spun the wool over the eyes of the lemmings, who fall all over themselves for such superficial nonsense. By cheering it on and calling it one thing when its something totally different is the problem. The point is that it really isn't a white/black issue. Its an issue of mentality spewing out of an ideology-- a liberal ideology that exacerbates it. Unaffected? We're all affected by it, but in particular, those in either the urban environment. And by the way, it isn't about wearing pants low or saying, "fo shizzle." Its about a mentality that is largely self-destructive. Neither of your links opened. Can you post them again?

quote:

---

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is randomly assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews.

---

Well, I would agree with this. I think it was ABC's Primetime who conducted a study on how important names can be when it comes to initial perception. Somebody named Kevin might get a call back more readily than somebody named Shaquanda. You know, if a black man came to interview with me and he was thoughtful enough to dress appopriately, speak eloquently, and showed that he had an aptitude for the work he's applying for, there is no reason not to hire him. However, if I have some jackass white guy who's under dressed for the interview, can hardly compose a cogent sentence, and is incapable of demonstrating that he has any grasp on the task at hand, there is no way he's going to get the job. So what does that mean? Its not about race. Its about performance. Its about who is going to add to the team instead of detract.But liberal mentality wants everything to be about race, sex, religion, nationality, etc. They're absolutely infatuated with it-- so much so that they inherently do the one thing they claim so abominable-- which is treat people specifically by their race, gender, nationality, etc. And you prove my point quite nicely as you're standing on your soapbox. Its not about race, its about attitude. And the longer you try to make some sort of connection that thug-mentality is inherently black, you're perpetuating it. Its utter nonsense. And the proof was seen back in the division of this country from North and South. Northern negro's were far more advanced culturally than their Southern counterparts. There was no biological difference whatsoever, which means, the difference stems from a sociological stand point. The point being, maybe it is many blacks who are segregating themselves, rather than they are being segregated against. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I'm gonna act the fool so that I can justify this perceived racism against me." Well, it doesn't have to be that way.And there is this belief that this is just their cultural roots extending back to Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know how Africans-- actual Africans-- who are embarrassed by the African American. They're embarrassed because they get lumped in because of their race.The reality is that this mentality is borrowed from the white rednecks of the antebellum South, which is borrowed from the Highland's of Scotland.

quote:

---

A novel idea would be to not base our beliefs about people over the color of their skin, but of the content of their character.

---

You can be apart of the solution, or you can remain the problem by not addressing the real problem and conveniently labeling it one thing when its something entirely different.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Yeah. The music industry and Hollywood. So what? If it's not your contention that it makes black people poor, who cares that people are wearing Timberland boots and gluing diamonds to their teeth? There have been much weirder trends, to be sure. Yet, plenty of people with the "mentality" do just fine. So clearly it can't be all that destructive.And it's pretty obvious that "mentality" has approximately zip to do with any real issue in your life. If you're saying that thug culture represents a genuine mental illness, that's something to take up with the APA, but I see Sowell is not a psychologist. They work just fine. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader (free download) to open PDF files. 50% more likely, in fact, because institutional racism is endemic throughout the American economy. There's zero evidence this is the case, since we're talking about nothing but resumes. Black people haven't even walked in the door before they're being discriminated against, sight unseen. Because it often is. If you won't call "Shaquanda" back even though she has the exact same qualifications as "Kevin", because you're pretty sure she's black and therefore won't work as hard as a white person - you're a racist. That's how simple this is, NJ. There's no evidence that attitude has anything to do with it. Why don't you look up some basic sociology? I don't know what that means, "more advanced culturally." Can you clarify? Are you referring to specific metrics of "cultural advancement" (whatever that might be) or is that just racist shop-talk for "more white?"Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The point is, there is this entire counter-culture who fight for people like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Tookie Williams simply because they are black.

---

There are two names mentioned there, not one. I also offered Ward Churchill and Michael Moore too. Either way, I just used them as a reference. They are just four of many names. I suspect, however, that even if I advanced fifty names, you might say, "What, only fifty?"

quote:

---

The truth is that slavery has been around as long as humans have been.

---

No, I'm just saying that slavery was a way of life since the beginning. It was never viewed by anyone as an immoral act in itself until the 19^the century. It was kind of like sexual immorality in that, sex alone isn't immoral. There is specific behavior attached to it that makes it so bad. Likewise, slavery for many slaves was closely akin to what we began to call indentured servants. But even though many masters and their slave families had a respectful and reciprocal relationship, it doesn't detract from the fact that many people over many centuries have been plucked from their homes against their will and sold into slave labor. That's immorality of slavery. And most unfortunately, in the last 300 years of slavery, this became the norm until the UK, US, Dutch, Germans, and French finally put an end to it. Well, what I mean to say is that the assumption is that slavery was the result of racism. That's not true. Racism grew out of slavery. (Not that it makes it any better). And then there came to be this sociological standard that the white man was entitled to owning the negro. But in many homes, the master treated his slaves well because its the intelligent thing to do. In fact, the term "cracker" came to be known by terrible masters who, as the name implies, "cracked" the whips. They were tyrannical in their application. So, what I mean is that the assertion is that this was the norm and all people that owned slaves were just awful people who got their jollies off by whipping people. I'm just saying that this wasn't the norm, as it is so often portrayed. Obviously, that doesn't excuse those crackers who acted like that. It just wasn't the norm. No, no, don't get me wrong. He condemns it. He just believes that those of a liberal persuasion have used it inappropriately and distorted the reality in order to advance a political agenda. He also makes the distinction that slavery didn't begin with the United States. In fact, British and US naval forces used to patrol various places in an anti-slavery effort in places like Brazil, the Med, Asia, etc in search of slave traders.

quote:

---

Because you're a liberal?

---

You asked why you weren't surprised. I answered an open-ended question with, "because you're a liberal?" If you think the word "liberal" is a dirty epithet, I can't help you there. I realize that most liberals prefer to be called "progressive" now or days, but its the same thing.As to why I offer those of a leftist persuasion is obvious to me. The Democrats have referred to themselves as the "colored people's Party". To put it bluntly, I'll just allow you to read a short essay offered by a black man. I offer a black man's opinion to curtail any allegations of bias. Since he put it so eloquently, its just easier to direct to his testimony.I'm not a liberal--I'm far to the left of contemporary American liberals (who would have been mainstream Republicans 30 years ago). Mumia is transparently guilty. There aren't looming questions surrounding the case. It was pretty much and open and shut case. The case makes the O.J. Simpson case look like an enigma. The problem is, Leftists have looked upon Mumia as if he was a vulnerable baby seal being clubbed to death when he's anything but. They aren't really interested in the justice system, they just love him because of his activism. And progressive iconoclasts like Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, etc, etc, have squandered their moral energy on an unrepentant murderer for the sake of advancing their own political interests. Of course such things happened and its bullshit that it did. But Sowell posits that the poison is in telling people that because of such things, there is this mentality that their descendants must somehow be entitled to reparations for something that never happened to them. And moreover, that we all must capitulate for something that a caucasian was never involved in. I know people of various races who have been freed by the advent of DNA testing. First of all, I don't doubt that such a thing has happened before. You, however, are making it seem commonplace. Since we're discussing Mumia, and you have not offered one actual instance for the allegation, we'll just look at what was stacked against him. Mumia was seen by numerous witnesses, most of them were black. He had smoking gun, literally, in his hand as he was slumped on a curb as police responded with that gun in hand. The bullets from the gun were the same as those found in Faulkner. The chamber of missing bullets matched the number of bullets in Faulkner. The motive was clear. He was a leftwing radical who happened to see his own brother being pulled over. Right there the motive is established. The murder weapon was in his hand and witnesses say that Mumia was the shooter. It doesn't get much better than that for a lawyer. A mixed jury convicted him. There was no reasonable doubt. It was obvious who the trigger man was. LOL! Ah, yes, it was planned on Martin Luther King Jr's memorial. First and foremost, I'm no racist. And to prove it, I don't pander to people or patronize them simply over the color of their skin. If you're a dirtbag, no matter what your race is, I won't hesitate to share that. If you are honorable and upstanding person, I don't hesitate to share that either. I happen to love and respect Martin Luther King immensely. Why? Because he was honorable man fighting for an honorable cause in a productive manner. King was not counterproductive like the much coveted Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a died-in-the-wool racist, though he thankfully recanted some of his ways, which is why the NOI had him killed.Secondly, if I was a racist then why do I have immense respect for Sowell and King? This is exactly what Sowell means. By capitulating simply over race, whether it works in the favor of a specific race or not, is racism. Treating people differently just because of their race is what racism is all about. I don't do that. I judge the character, not the skin.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Actually, there are considerable questions. Hundreds of organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the NAACP, the National Lawyers Guild, the parliments of both the EU and Japan, the AFL-CIO, the governments of San Francisco, Detroit, and the state of California all maintain that Mumia did not recieve a fair and unbiased trial, and have called for retrial.Mumia's death sentence was set aside in Federal court, NJ. Does that sound like an "open and shut case"? Only if you ignore the facts, I guess, which is pretty easy to do when it's a dead cop and a black guy on the hook for it. This is unsupportable hyperbole on your part. DNA evidence found at the scene linked OJ to the murders, but no fornesic evidence ever linked Mumia to the crime, and one of the few witnesses against him was a police informant facing her own charges on prostitution (in other words, a prime candidate for the police to lean on to provide false testimony.)In fact let's look at a few more of your mistatements and falsehoods: In fact, a majority of the witnesses exonerated him. Four witnesses claimed that they saw him shoot Falkner, but many more claimed that he did not. One of the witnesses couldn't correctly identify what Mumia was wearing at the time. Another of your witnesses had been drinking. And at least one of the accusatory witnesses has since claimed that the police forced them to make a false statement, and one of the others was the police informant I mentioned above. In fact, the gun was in a holster with no evidence that it had been fired. No GSW was recovered from Mumia's hands or clothing consistent with him having fired a gun. The police, however, did ram Mumia against a flagpole repeatedly as they tortured him on the way to the hospital. In fact, the weapon in Mumia's possession was never ballistically matched to the rounds recovered from Falkner, and the inital coroner's report was that the rounds in Falkner were of a different caliber than Mumia's gun. (On the other hand, the round taken out of Mumia was a ballistics match for Falkner's service weapon.) Once again you can't even be bothered to get even the basic facts correct. How does that make any sense at all? Don't you think that's a bit of an unreasonable overreaction, particularly for a man with no prior criminal record? You're probably correct that it's a motive - a motive for the police to frame a troublesome black man. In fact, there's clearly an enormous amount of doubt, since his death sentence was set aside in Federal court.Do you know that the presiding judge was overheard by two officers of the court (a steonographer and another judge) to say that he was going to "help them fry the nigger" shortly before the trial began?Oh, no racism there, I'm sure. And did you know that five of the officers orignally on the scene of the crime are now serving time for planting evidence and making false reports? That they were convicted of falsely incriminating a number of people who were later released?No? Oh, sure. Dead cop and a black man at the scene. Guilty as hell. Makes perfect sense in the world of the racist. Yeah. I'm sure some of your best friends are black, too. But, of course, when there's a dead cop and a black man on the scene, you don't ask too many questions, do you?

quote:

---

William Cook, who might have been expected to testify on his brother's behalf, and who was present at the scene at the beginning, did not testify, but has stated in a signed affidavit that he is willing to testify and that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not kill Officer Faulkner.

---

Wow, his brother said he didn't do it? He must be innocent if his own brother says so. As well, you do understand how courts work, right? Lawyers often don't allow their defendants or family members take the stand because they may drop the ball. The defense doesn't allow their defendants to even speak one word in court because under pressure they'll give away too much to the prosecution and the jurors. I don't believe for one minute that presiding judge wouldn't allow for William Cook to testify.

quote:

---

:William Singletary's testimony (11 August 1995) describes how police tore up his written statement, and forced him to sign a different statement which they dictated.

---

Why so late to the party? 1995? And the case was in the early 80's...? You also left out some critical information.

quote:

---

"Another witness not called by either party was William Singletary."

---

So because I think that Mumia, a black man, is guilty of his charge, I must then default to being a racist? You knew nothing of the case, and in true liberal fashion, you came rushing to his aide. I even thought of posting a reply of how resident EvC liberals would react just to show how spot on I was in my initial assessment. Too bad I didn't. I did know that. The last time I reviewed this case was years ago. Quote me where I said something incorrect. And since you allege that I have "consistently" gotten the facts wrong, I assume you'll post numerous instances that were incorrect. Answer me this: If a white man actually killed Faulkner, but there was a black man to pin the crime on near by, do you honestly believe that I would want the murderer to go free just so I screw up one black man's life? That's beyond stupid. Back that up. Even Wiki, (not that its the be-all, end-all, doesn't affirm your conjecture. Crash, this is an old case-- really old. I'm actually surprised that no one here has ever heard of him before. He's quite popular. If I seem like I'm not curious, its because I no longer am. I've already looked at the case. Its one of those cases as bad Scott Peterson or O.J. Simpson. Its so obvious that he did it, that's its laughable that people still talk about it. The reason I used this specific case was for a number of reasons.

Any other correlation you derive is simply a fanciful construct of your mind. First of all, Sowell makes no mention of Mumia in his book. Mumia is just something that popped in my head while I was explaining Sowell's views. Again, I just used Mumia as an example. I'm a little perturbed that the thread has turned into a discussion about Mumia, rather than Sowell and his book on how ghetto culture spawned from redneck culture, and how liberal's, who admittedly try and do the right thing, end up doinf more damage in the long run. I don't know what Sowell's views are on Mumia. I'd go out on a limb that, you know, since he's rational, that he probably believes that Mumia guilty.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

No, I actually did some research before I posted.That's why, after all, my posts were factually correct and yours were filled with falsehoods (like "Falkner pulled over Mumia Abu-Jamal".) The only one who rushed to judgement knowing nothing about the case was obviously you, which proves my whole point about racism. No. I think that, if the choice was between facing a gross miscarriage of the American justice system, as well as the open wound of an closed, unsolved murder; or not asking too many questions about a 20-year-old case, you'd choose the latter. Especially if the dead man was a cop and the putative "murderer" was black, because that would fit into your worldview where black people get special treatment from liberals. C'mon, NJ, your own link backs that up. Your legend lists at least three people who you called "witnesses" who actually didn't see the shooting. At the trial, only three witnesses were called by the prosecution. One of them was drunk at the time. (There's a star witness.) One of them couldn't identify Mumia. And the third was a police informant facing her own charges, whose story changed significantly throughout the trial.That's not what I would call an open and shut case. I'd heard the name. Let me tell you about that.Until a couple of weeks ago I lived in Columbia, Missouri. It's a pretty liberal town with a lot of activism going on. It wasn't uncommon to see anti-war activists standing at the corner of Providence and Broadway with "Honk if you hate war" signs, and a lot of honking was going on.So I'd see "Free Mumia" stencil-painted on lampposts on 9th street, and on the sidewalks, and that kind of stuff. I'd see stickers about how "Mumia Abu-Jamal was facing the death penalty after an unfair trial", and I assumed it was jackass, wingnut activists. "Free Mumia, huh? Probably another one of those high-profile 'framed but guilty" jackasses. Couldn't care less!" I said to myself.So, you see, I came to the issue with almost exactly the same attitude you have now. I was pretty sure that Mumia was guilty. And, in fact, I'm still pretty sure that the people who spraypainted Mumia's picture all over town were jackasses. You know, people who use progressive politics as an excuse to be cool and get laid.But when I read about the case? I was astounded, shocked, and angry. not to mention amused that your own racist incuriosity had given me everything I needed to prove Sowell absolutely wrong.Seriously, NJ - how hard was it to actually check your facts? "Open and shut?" I mean you're being ridiculous. The off-topic diversion ends just as soon as you admit you've been wrong about nearly every facet of the case you've presented.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is a specific kind of people who are perpetuating the thug mentality.

---

Albums don't sell in a vacuum. You have to have people buying into the nonsense in order for Hollywood and the music industry to peddle it successfully in the first place. Its not the clothing, its the mentality. Its destructive. And somebody like yourself, being such an advocate for speaking out against misogyny, I would have expected that you might have had the moral gusto to speak out against this very thing that pervades the thug mentality. But I guess because they're black that trumps misogyny. That's usually the way it works for the Left. They're all too willing to compromise the integrity of one belief if another is on an even bigger soapbox. What do you consider, "just fine?" Making lots of money? Its a crap shoot. One man from the ghetto might strike it rich off of his talents and prostitute himself before the camera in a display of pride. And the little guys love it. They want to emulate them so that when they grow up, they're gonna spend their money on a piece of crap hooptie with really nice rims. When a set of rims is twice the value of the car itself, something tells me that their priorities have gone all out of whack. A mental illness? No. Its not psychological, its sociological. Ah... That would be the problem. I use Firefox's version. I don't do Adobe Acrobat anymore. It turns my computer into sludge.

quote:

---

Somebody named Kevin might get a call back more readily than somebody named Shaquanda.

---

It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with crappy names. Lets see, I have a friend who was named by his hippy mother, "Sunbow." That's not exactly of African-American origin. And he has a hell of a time for the same reason. He is as white as it gets. To add insult to injury, he's rough around the edges which just compounds the problem. So not only is his name odd, but he dresses inappropriately, his demeanor is uninviting, etc. It has nothing to do with his race. And I would agree that its crappy that people base their initial impressions just off of a name, but that doesn't mean that racism is inherently at the root. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean its racism, though I would say it does constitute discrimination. What is Sunbow's defense going to be? Yes, that would be discrimination. I'm just telling you that odd names, for whatever reason, does weird things to people. I know some women who are in love with a guy for all the right reasons, but seriously debated whether or not they wanted to marry him because the last names were so odd. Shallow, yeah-- racist? No. What? Its ALL about attitude. How the hell do you think stereotypes formulate in the first place? This is how racism works, Crash: From the attitudes, mannerisms, and behaviors of one race, another race starts to notice some sociological patterns that they are averse to. From that point on, the person averse towards it "assumes," based on the initial assessments, that all or damn near most in a certain race is going to behave in the way that racist doesn't like. So, what he does is prejudge them on their race before they ever have a chance to exhibit their behavior. Therefore, attitude is how it all starts. More advanced culturally is more exposure to other cultures which helps them understand what is sociology acceptable in those cultures. See, southern negros only had one kind of person from which to model after-- the Redneck. That's hardly somthing to aspire to. But the Northern negro's were exposed to a lot more education, a less crass of a culture, etc, etc.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis