Nevada primaries

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by sperry

I think in the 60's it wasn't that crime and poverty weren't related as they are today, it's just that there were so many people that got out of poverty when segregation ended and the civil rights movement took effect that the poverty rate plummeted.

Poverty created by inequality didn't correlate to crime... we just had a ton of people living in a "lower cast" that skews the chart. I'll bet that within the lower cast, the poorest of the poor were more apt to commit crime than the richest of the poor.

I'm not understanding this cause/effect here.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

I'm not understanding this cause/effect here.

There is no cause/effect, or if there is, it's obscured by a different event.

Basically, the huge drop in poverty in the 1960's didn't correlate to the crime rate of the same decade because the drop was due to the civil rights movement. The inequality of segregation not only pushed people into poverty, it also suppressed violent crime... after all who would commit even a non-violent crime if you knew you'd be hung for it (or some trumped up charges) because you were black? So even though poverty was high, crime was not.

I guess I'm just saying that my theory probably doesn't apply pre-1970 unless you factor in relative poverty within the white and black casts during the years of segregation.

Then again, I could be totally way off base. I haven't studied the civil rights movement since high school.

[knucklesplitter]

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." or so sang Janis Joplin in 1969.

Johnson did declare "War on Poverty" in 1964 (I think that's when).

Exercising my inner knee-jerk right-wingnut - he (it?) would say that all the rock-n-roll,drugs and free love in the 60's is what did it. That and... <gasp>...dancing. Sheesh... kids those days!

[sperry]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." or so sang Janis Joplin in 1969.

Johnson did declare "War on Poverty" in 1964 (I think that's when).

Exercising my inner knee-jerk right-wingnut - he (it?) would say that all the rock-n-roll,drugs and free love in the 60's is what did it. That and... <gasp>...dancing. Sheesh... kids those days!

There will be no dancing!

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

There will be no dancing!

Hosting owned.


I think Scott's on the right track. The blip where crime was higher than poverty was a symptom of growing pains as both sides of the Civil Rights movement adjusted to the new era. Also, statistics during the civil rights movement may be skewed, because crimes were often trumped against activists and sympathizers by Jim Crow advocates in law enforcement.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Hosting owned.


I think Scott's on the right track. The blip where crime was higher than poverty was a symptom of growing pains as both sides of the Civil Rights movement adjusted to the new era. Also, statistics during the civil rights movement may be skewed, because crimes were often trumped against activists and sympathizers by Jim Crow advocates in law enforcement.

I think you got that backwards. Crime was much lower than poverty pre-civil rights movement.

[Kevin M]

Carp. Well, it was a good theory if I had read the data right.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

it also suppressed violent crime... after all who would commit even a non-violent crime if you knew you'd be hung for it (or some trumped up charges) because you were black?

So your saying that the majority of crime was committed by blacks. Then because they were scared of being hung, less crime was committed?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

So your saying that the majority of crime was committed by blacks. Then because they were scared of being hung, less crime was committed?

No, I'm saying that the majority of people living below the poverty line were doing so because of segregation, which in turn was also suppressing the ratio of crime to number of people living under the poverty line.

i.e. Normally, lots of people living in poverty means lots of crime, but because many of the people living in poverty were doing so because they were living under segregation, crime was not as high as you would expect.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I was just joking.

[tysonK]

This is no joking matter.

Can't you see how long these posts are?

[Dean]

I was just thinking about this and think Obama should announce a strong independent or even left wing republican with a strong finance and/or international background as a VP running mate NOW!

Steve Forbes comes to mind. Colin Powell would be good as well, but doubt either is interested unfortunately.

I think this might impress the skeptics and not alienate too many of the faithful... Talk about a CHANGE!!! Oprah would probably love Powell too.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

I was just thinking about this and think Obama should announce a strong independent or even left wing republican with a strong finance and/or international background as a VP running mate NOW!

Steve Forbes comes to mind. Colin Powell would be good as well, but doubt either is interested unfortunately.

I think this might impress the skeptics and not alienate too many of the faithful... Talk about a CHANGE!!! Oprah would probably love Powell too.

I think they're waiting on picking running mates because we might end up seeing an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama card depending on how things shake out.

That is assuming they can bury the hatchet after what's turned into a fierce primary campaign.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

I think they're waiting on picking running mates because we might end up seeing an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama card depending on how things shake out.

That is assuming they can bury the hatchet after what's turned into a fierce primary campaign.

I can't see either one accepting a VP slot. They'd rather challenge for the next nomination, assuming that the Dem loses (and I would bet that each would assume the other would lose).

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

I can't see either one accepting a VP slot. They'd rather challenge for the next nomination, assuming that the Dem loses (and I would bet that each would assume the other would lose).

I think they need each other just for safety reasons... who would kill a black man, if they knew a woman would take over as president?

...same reason Bush took Cheney on as VP, insurance.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

I think they need each other just for safety reasons... who would kill a black man, if they knew a woman would take over as president?

...same reason Bush took Cheney on as VP, insurance.

I thought it was Cheney who picked Bush because he figured W would fall down some stairs or something.

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

I thought it was Cheney who picked Bush because he figured W would fall down some stairs or something.

Why do you think Cheney kept feeding Bush pretzels?

[Dean]

Bush just wasn't quite dumb enough to go "hunting" with him... DAMN...