I’m late to this rodeo, and I really don't care if KathyTheShopper made assumptions about the race of persons based upon their names.* Yeah, maybe it's indicative of certain things, but I don't see it as the true problem with her conclusion, and why I think her conclusion misses the boat.I do want to comment on the issue about whether the higher percentage of blacks who are incarcerated than their percentage in the general population is relevant to the issue of whether this population actually engages in more unlawful behavior.* I think that anyone who watches this issue would reject this conclusion, and I hope that some of you will reconsider jumping to the conclusion that, because a person with a "black-sounding" name was arrested, it means that we should be concerned with blacks in our neighborhood.The studies on the topic pretty clearly show that the incarceration rate of blacks and their illegal drug usage don't connect.* Whites tend to use drugs more, and deal drugs more, than is reflected in their arrest and conviction rates.* Blacks tend to use drugs less, and deal drugs less, than reflected in the incarceration figures.There really is a plethora of studies that indicate that the higher percentage of convictions stems from racial profiling.* (And I’m not going to get into a debate over the meaning of racial profiling.* I think that both sides to the debate agree that racial profiling would include persons being stopped more often because of their race; being charged more because of their race; being convicted more because of their race; and receiving longer sentences because of their race.* Whether the definition is or should be broader than that is your fight.* It doesn't matter to my point here, so I'm not engaging).The study that I know best comes from Seattle.* In the field, this study is considered authorative.* I first learned of the study because it was cited in a speech by an official from a federal agency during the Bush II years.* The conclusions are pretty stark:
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/...nforcement.pdfThe only conclusion that I think that can be drawn is that blacks are being targeted, and as a result, their incarceration rate is higher.* This is often referred to as “DWB” or “driving while black.”* I have one anecdotal story on this.* I went to a town hall meeting on racial profiling in my community.* Any number of people stood up to talk about how they were profiled.* What absolutely amazed me were the number of Blacks who talked about being pulled over for something hanging from their rear view mirror.* I hang my parking pass from my rear view mirror.* I wasn’t even aware that it was unlawful.* But it is being used as a reason to pull over blacks in large numbers in my community.* Which leads to more arrests.* Which leads to more charges being filed.* Which leads to more convictions.* Which leads to long sentences.The problem that I had with the post regarding how an article with names identified as being black somehow served as “proof” that there was an increased drug problem in the area because of blacks was at least two-fold.* The first was that one article, identifying persons with names that the OP thought were black, meant anything larger than that these folks had been charged with a crime.* My neighbor three doors down was arrested for peeping in windows.* He’s white.* I don’t connect, nor should anyone connect, the fact of his race to a larger conclusion about the perversions of whites.Second, the conclusion that, because there was a higher population of blacks in the prison population than the general population, means that blacks bring crime, or at least blacks from Chicago bring crime, just isn't supported by any empirical evidence.* I don't know anyone who works in this field who doesn't think that the higher incarceration rates don't stem, at least in part, from racial profiling.* The Bush administration, for god's sake, saw it as a big enough issue to declare a prohibition to federal enforcement officers to cease using racial profiling.* I'm not a GWB fan, but I don't think that he would have issued the prohibition if his administration didn't see a problem.I don't know of a study that supports the idea that the rate of incarceration of blacks actually equates to the rate of their engagement of the criminal activity being charged.Third, and finally, I have something to add about the drug usage in Iowa.* (And that is where the poster on the whole “the blacks are invading and crime is rising” was from, wasn’t she?* If not, I apologize to all Iowans.)I have some experience about how the federal courts in Iowa have been overwhelmed with drug charges.* And their problem hasn’t been related to crack use, which is the only drug that is more often or at least as often used in the black community than in the white community, at least according to studies.* It has been meth.* Iowa has had a major meth problem for more than a decade.* And meth tends to be more a “drug of choice” for whites than for blacks. And from my perspective, which has been informed by many conversations with judges, meth is probably one of the worst chemical inventions to ever occur.* And Iowa has a problem with it.* I’m told that the meth lab problem has been declining in Iowa because people are becoming more aware of the signs of a meth lab, so it is less of a hospitable place for manufacturing meth than it was.* My point is that I doubt that you were decrying the problems of whites and their meth habit in 2004 or 2005, when meth production in Iowa was peaking.* Frankly, if I lived in Iowa, I’d be worrying more about that vacant farm with the anhydrous ammonia tank parked out front than I ever would be concerned about an article dealing with arrests for drugs of some folks with names that lead you to think that the black folks are bringing a drug-related plague to your community.