Murder in Black Communities – the Statistics

News in the past few months has been dominated by stories from Ferguson and Baltimore highlighting the killing of young blacks by police.  

As a result of such attention, the impression has been created – aided and abetted by many on the Left – that such deaths are a major cause of black mortality.

Statistics tell a different story. 

According to FBI records for 2012, for instance, there were twenty six hundred black homicide victims that year.  Twenty-four hundred (over ninety percent) were killed by fellow blacks.  Approximately one hundred were shot by police officers (of whatever color).

Between 1999 and 2011 – twelve years – twice as many whites as blacks were killed by law enforcement personnel.

That last statistic, of course, can be deceiving since the white population is five times larger.  Critics of the police can cite that fact as proof of racism by cops.

  

Consider additional numbers, however.  Fifty-two percent of murders in the United States between the years of 1980 and 2008, were committed by blacks.  The black population was ten percent (it’s now about thirteen percent).

Crime is committed more broadly by blacks, in general, than whites.  As an example, arrest rates for robbery are eight hundred percent higher for blacks than whites, and incarceration levels are six times greater.

Think about that.  If blacks are more likely to commit crimes, from a statistical perspective, they are more likely to come into contact with police trying to stop illegal conduct… and more likely to be shot and killed. 

Yet, the far greater risk to blacks – the statistics make clear – comes from those of the same race. 

Alas, dealing with that much more serious threat lacks the political appeal on the left of stigmatizing law enforcement personnel with the racist label.

The Bad Deal With Iran – Should Congress Go Along Anyway?

Let’s start with the obvious.  U.S. negotiators failed to achieve the primary objective that President Obama set several years ago:  prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb.  Such a “non-negotiable” goal had been pledged repeatedly by the Obama Administration.  But, by the very terms of the deal, Teheran, which has never waivered from its commitment to destroy Israel, will be allowed to produce weapons in ten years or so.

 That is a failure to achieve America’s primary objective in joining the negotiations.  So should the deals rejection be a “no-brainer”?

No.  The Administration, on behalf of America, has made the deal.  Of course, Congress can over-ride it with a two-thirds vote in both chambers but then what? 

Sanctions will not be re-imposed by the other signatories to the agreement.  (The U.S. has been the stalwart proponent of them; others have been more reluctant.)  Simply put, sanctions would be enforced by the U.S. alone with, perhaps, cooperation from Britain.  With so few participants, the effectiveness of the newly imposed sanctions would be problematic at best.  Yet, is it even likely that would occur over the next one and a half years while Obama is still president?  Far more likely is that nothing will happen to discourage Iran.   Its nuclear production activities will continue.

[It’s moot at this juncture to contend that the administration’s evident eagerness to reach “any” deal doomed the chances of a better agreement.  So what?  Barack Obama is the President we’ve got.]

Sure, in the wake of Congress’ rejection, the U.S. could focus on destabilizing the regime with covert activities, etc., if we had an administration inclined to pursue such aggressive activities.  We don’t.

Approving the pact does allow the continuation of some leverage.  Approximately six months after its implementation, if Iran has complied with certain terms, billions in funds are scheduled to be released to it.

After the money is received, however, Teheran will be sorely tempted to cheat (as it has done with previous agreements) since it, too, recognizes that the re-imposition of sanction (“snapback”) is a hollow threat. 

As a result, the likely consequence will be a delay in months, not a decade, in the regime’s progress toward the possession of nuclear weapons.

But thanks to Obama, a brief delay is all the world is likely to see. 

I recognize that’s scant satisfaction, but it’s also better than nothing. 

When the agreement’s violations occur, the U.S. will be free to respond – but it will not be able to do so until a new president takes office.  Even Hillary would not be the sap that Obama is.

Then, America can pursue firm policies against Iran underpinned by credible threats of military force.  The fact that precious time will have been lost in the effort is to be sorely lamented.  But there is, in my opinion, little choice but to make the best of a bad deal.

Who Are Trump’s Supporters?

Contrary to the hopes of many conservatives, myself included, Donald Trump has yet to fade away.   On a superficial level, it’s hard to understand the failure of that event to have come to pass by now.  Trump, to me, is obnoxious, rude and loud.  Showing my regional bias, he comes across as a caricature of a boorish New Yorker. 

But that appraisal is not shared by the twenty percent or so Republicans, certainly not all Manhattanites, who report that they support his presidential bid.  However, perhaps those characteristics are precisely the reason why they back him.

Of course, the prospect of the New York real estate magnate becoming president is laughable.  He gives little cause to believe that he thinks before he speaks.  The phrase “shooting from the hip” applies.  “Thoughtful” does not. 

Yet he gives voice to the outrage that far more than twenty percent of the GOP electorate feel on the failure of Washington to control illegal immigration or reverse the decline of America’s authority in the world. 

Donald Trump – on these subjects – says what many people believe (myself included).  They are greatly frustrated that their voices are ignored.  Due to his notoriety – his TV-garnered fame – Trump’s is not.

No, he’s not a serious candidate.  What are his qualifications -  his education and his experience - that qualify him to lead America? 

[To be sure, Barack Obama lacked the attributes of a qualified candidate.  His dismal performance proves the point.] 

Nonetheless, Trump’s broad support is ominous.  It means that a substantial portion of the conservative base of the Republican Party is so disgusted and disillusioned with “serious” candidates that they may tempted to be absent at the polling booth when a more conventional Republican is on the ballot.  

That is the real challenge after Donald Trump has ceased to amuse.