McGee/Jackson Arrested
I’m shocked! I never would have imagined that McGee/Jackson might be corrupt.
Ald. Michael McGee was arrested Monday by Milwaukee police in a case that is being jointly investigated by federal and state authorities, officials said Monday.
McGee is under investigation on potential public corruption charges, according to sources familiar with the probe, which has been placed under seal. Further details are expected to be announced today during a joint news conference by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.
It was unclear late Monday where and under what circumstances McGee was arrested, but sources said the arrest was made earlier than planned because investigators suspected the potential for violence.
Federal charges - this must be serious and a slam dunk for Mr. Biskupic to charge a Democrat following his recent vote of confidence by AG Gonzalez.
Misuse of federal money? Voter Rights Act? What other connection gets the US Attorney involved?
Posted by Headless Blogger on May 29, 2007 at 0934 hrs
News conference announced for 1 p.m. with Biskupic and Chisholm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0937 hrs
While it would be satisfying to see justice served against this miserable little thug, the sad reality is that any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.
At least the print media will have to pull its head of its nether regions for a few days and actually cover the story. Good luck to Biskupic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 0947 hrs
I’d see if McGee could be tried outside of Milwaukee, if possible, to avoid that situation, wrongallalong. I’m not a legal expert, but if defendants can request a change of venue for fear of jury bias, I’d think prosecutors could do the same.
We’ll see what the press conference yields.
Posted by Amy P. on May 29, 2007 at 1020 hrs
While it would be satisfying to see justice served against this miserable little thug, the sad reality is that any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.
I agree… Some time ago with all the things that McGakcson had done, not hearsay, not circumstantial evidence. Things HE had done ON the record… I though FOR SURE the “black community” would want better. That they would want a leader who represented the positive of the community.
Very shortly after that one of the local TV stations went to McGee’s constituents and did “man on the street” interviews in his district, and I was shocked that almost TO A PERSON, the sentiment was the same “he gets a raw deal from the press” “people are out to get him”.
That was when I realized how unattainable effective leadership would be for the black community to attain. When you are dealing with a constituency that is so jaded that the proclivity is to believe the consipracy theory over logic…
Not the conspiracy theory when there is no other explanation, but to embrace the consipracy theory INSPITE of so much more first account unbiased evidence to the contrary…
How do you frame a debate with a constituency like that.
Another example is the belief among the black community that the government blew up the levies in New Orleans.
These kinds of conspiracy theories are no longer the domain of the fringes, but the sentiment of the mainstream of the black constituencies.
Even guys like Mikel Holt who just continually defend McGee.
Look at the recall results… People support him in droves… When will his constituents demand better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1045 hrs
Don’t count out ‘Teflon McGee’ just yet. This guy has a Gotti-like knack for squirreling his way out of legal problems.
One thing we can count on though, is another article from Eugene Kane in defense of McGee - excusing whatever he has allegedly done.
Posted by David on May 29, 2007 at 1047 hrs
One thing we can count on though, is another article from Eugene Kane in defense of McGee - excusing whatever he has allegedly done.
lol… That’s exactly what one of the owners of my company said this morning as he and I were discussing this.
“just wait for Eugene Kane’s article tomorrow”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1059 hrs
You’re watching too many CSI’s about homicide.
The type of charges he’s facing don’t require a majority of a jury.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1255 hrs
It is state charges. Biskupic just helped in the investigation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1316 hrs
The type of charges he’s facing don’t require a majority of a jury.
If they’re criminal charges (and it appears they are), they require a unanimous verdict.
Posted by Jed on May 29, 2007 at 1323 hrs
Extortion and bribery. Basicly, he demanded personal payment for city services in his district. I suspect this reduced the number of jobs available to his constituents.
Posted by triticale on May 29, 2007 at 1331 hrs
Its federal bribery and extortion charges. The state charges are under seal. Two other men were also charged in the state case. It was a joint fed and state investigation – US Attorney’s office, FBI, MKE DA’s office and MKE police.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1336 hrs
“any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is simple racism. I love it when white folks claim that they know how every last black person thinks. Luckily, I suppose, white folks are somehow blessed with the gift of making intelligent decisions based on the evidence at hand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1342 hrs
Jed, you’re correct—two ways. One way I erred was in typing too fast (delete “don’t”) but another way was from hearing of lower charges being filed. They are serious criminal charges—substantial battery and conspiracy, and that’s just for starters.
Wow. Wouldn’t that be not just the reported “threat” of violence but actual violence undertaken already? No wonder the rush to arrest, even on a holiday, and the high bail (and the delays today in preparing the complaint to finally get him into court hours late).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1402 hrs
The federal complaint, the news conference audio—and many devastating audios of and/or on earlier McGee transgressions—are (see right-hand column) at http://www.620wtmj.com/_content/news/story_7769.asp
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1411 hrs
“any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is simple racism.
I agree.
Posted by David on May 29, 2007 at 1458 hrs
To clarify: I agree that what ‘wrongallalong’ wrote is racist.
Posted by David on May 29, 2007 at 1459 hrs
Racist perhaps… Intelligent thought would dictate that there are no absolutes, although certainly we speak in them at times.
Propensity to be offended aside… One must only look at polling that is done to see that GENERALLY (not absolutely) but generally, the percentages of the black community who support Michael McGee are much higher than the percent of “white” voters who do.
Look at polling numbers on a variety of issues with racial implications…
Look at the stark differences in polling numbers racially white vs. black with regard to believing OJ is innocent.
The difference in those numbers is statistically significant and while there are no absolutes, statistically a black juror in Milwaukee is FAR more likely to acquit Michael McGee than a white juror.
Without passing any judgement on who is right or wrong, anyone who pays attention to the news and polling could draw this conclusion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1515 hrs
I’m surprised that the proclamation of racism took as long as it did after that post. I won’t backtrack one bit on my comment.
“the sad reality is that any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is”
For those of you who believe this is a racist thought, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise because it’s just not worth the effort. This statement cannot be disputed. It’s been proven over and over in recent years.
If you can create an argument that a typical black juror is not less likely to convict a black defendant, please share it with us. Be sure to focus on the word “likely” when making your case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1540 hrs
“the sad reality is that any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is”
While I can’t endorse the statement as it is written, (although its kinda splitting hairs) I don’t know if I’d say that “any” single black juror will likely prevent a conviction.
But I will say that surely a “jury of his peers” will include members of the black community and with the propensity of many of that demographic to be VERY sympathetic to Michael McGee (as demonstrated in the recall voting) and as also demonstrated by opinion polls on other issues that show that the black community is much more likely to believe allegations of conspiracy and ‘framing’ of black defendant than an all white jury would.
Look at Steven Avery… He was white… By and large the white population didn’t believe his claims of alleged conspiracy by the authorities.
Had Steven Avery been black, I believe the black community would have STRONGLY supported his claims of conspiracy against him because its show that demographically the black community is much more likely to do so. (as in believing OJ was framed, as in believing the goverment blew up levee’s in New Orleans etc)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1627 hrs
Since McGee has been under investigation since May 2006, is it possible that the reason he wasn’t charged with disorderly conduct or violating his restraining order when he threatened his girlfriend in court is because they had this bigger fish to fry? I wonder if perhaps our criticism of the DA was misplaced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1629 hrs
That statement is unequivocally racist. It is certainly no less racist just because black people tend to support McGee in higher percentages than white people. When you are using race (in this case black) as a proxy for something else (in this case, a person that supports Mike McGee so strongly that they would skirt the law to aquit him) and there is no causal relationship between the two, you are being racist. Period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1706 hrs
Let’s note that when McGee would not answer Mayor Barrett’s call today to voluntary resign from Common Council committees, the president of the Common Council took action to remove McGee—which a mayor cannot do, and something that Marvin Pratt was slow to do to a white ex-alderman charged when Pratt was president of the Common Council.
The current Common Council president, Willie Hines, is black.
So it’s just not that simple in the state’s only majority minority city—where there are plenty of Milwaukeeans of color who are appalled by McGee. And some of them may be—we will see—among the businessowners who came forward to “snitch” on him to start the entire investigation. It’s just not that simple. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 1936 hrs
I love the facts that are coming out…sounds like he was “forced” to shake down these businessmen to cover those pesky, surprise expenses - like attorney’s fees when your girlfriend wants a restraining order…or your constituents circulate a recall petition.
Where’s a good, honest liberal supposed to find the money for those things otherwise?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2126 hrs
McGee is NOT a liberal. Good god, he and his dad are “conservatives” the way national socialists, attila the hun, or islamofascists were and are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2133 hrs
Prediction: One of the victims of extortion is Indian or Pakistani. The McGees constantly endorsed shaking these guys down on their radio show. The “community” accepts this. If no black victims appear, or anyone who appears sympathetic to McGee backers, McGee will retain support.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2212 hrs
Remember what Tom Barrett’s plan was a few years ago to eliminate corruption at City Hall?
Yes, his idea was to force lobbyists to register, then pay an annual fee of $125.00 dollars.
Another great Barrett idea that did not quite do the job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2007 at 2320 hrs
RE # 26, you are correct.
http://mfile.akamai.com/12894/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/0530/13408876.200k.asx
That’s the link to Channel 12’s interview with one of the shakedown victims…Ajit Singh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 0919 hrs
Give me a break on the racism thing. EVERY AND ANY thing any white persons says that has a negative meaning toward a minority is racist in todays’ America so of course it isn’t even arguable that it isn’t a racist statement. (And the “any single black juror” was a particularly undefendable statement)
So ‘this is a racist statement’ people, what is your point? Can a black person be guilty? If so, is it ok for a white person to comment on it? Is wrongallalong a racist because he wrote it or xxpilot a racist because he is defending it? Don’t get free speech and in this case honest feelings mixed up with RACISM or BEING a RACIST. If you honestly believe the three of us are anti-black, say so and we can debate it. The biggest problem I see with ‘libs’ on the subject of racism is that you have long ago equated any negative comment on minorities as racism. Racism is evil. Talking about how bad it is that a black leader and city council member is a thug or how inner-city blacks, especially the 15-30 year old black male tends to use guns to solve arguments, or how a majority of black people either approve of or are afraid to speak up against either situation is not racism. It is a Milwaukee community problem that the majority has to deal with. How can we deal with it if the majority of people cannot even talk about it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1009 hrs
Tuergas - you are full of it. While there may be some instances of hypersensitivity here and there, what has been discussed in this thread was a straight-up characterization of how all black folks think and the declaration that they are incapable of jurors of following the law and applying it to the evidence. Nothing contained in your post happened.
Actually, one real problem is that at the first hint of any discussion of race in our community, people like you freak out and scream that the race card is being played.
Yeah, anyone who thinks that members of a partciular racial or ethnic group all think the same way or, as here, that they are not - as an entire group - capable of things that other folks are - here, serving as a juror - is a racist. Ok?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1126 hrs
So boblauqhalott, nothing in my post happened? Michael McGee Jr. is just an honest Joe with a mainstream opinion and work ethic/habit that is being targeted by the Government unfairly and over 70% of the murders in Milwaukee in the last 12 months were not black vs. black murders, and the cops have been pulling in the wrong guys? There is no no-snitch policy in the McGee’s district and the McGees have been using that phrase to secretly mean “I want ice-cream” as a joke on us dumb white folk?
Once again you are doing EXACTLY what you are saying you are not doing. Read my post. I said wrongallalong’s comment was particularly UNDEFENDABLE, I said that a MAJORITY of black people in that area either approve of those happenings or are afraid to speak against it. Proven by opinion polls, the recount vote, etc.
You not only do not speak about the issues themselves, you deny the possibility of their existence by saying “Actually, one real problem is that at the first hint of any discussion of race in our community, people like you freak out and scream that the race card is being played.”
One dingus gives an extreme statement and he is the sole representative for conservative thinking to every liberal who has posted on this blog.
By the way, thanks a lot wrongallalong you can find a “single” person of every major race who will do or say ANYTHING that is physically possible so it is a statement wholly false, stupid, and meant purely to be combative. Then the whole blog revolves around the idiot statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1158 hrs
what has been discussed in this thread was a straight-up characterization of how all black folks think and the declaration that they are incapable of jurors of following the law and applying it to the evidence.
I don’t think “all” black folks think the same way. I think that a much higher percentage of ‘black folks’ for whatever reason, past experience, upbringing, whatever… A high percentage of ‘black folks’ have a proclivity to believe in these conspiracy’s when it comes to accusations against a black person.
Wether or not that proclivity is, or is not justified is not my arguement.
I have observed public opinion polls in the news media on these issues where a conspiracy theory that involved ‘black folks’ was polled, and the results stratified by race.
In those results, for example, in the OJ verdict, when stratified by race black respondents were far and away more likely to believe that he was framed.
In the instance of the New Orleans levy conspiracy theory public opinion polls stratified by race showed an exponentially higher percentage of black respondents embraced the theory than non-black respondents.
And anecdotally, watching the news last night, the overwhelming majority of people interviewed (who happend to all be black) in McGee’s district all said the same thing “they think he is being framed” “they think he’s a successful up and coming black politician and he’s being set up” “that the authorities are “out to get him”“
In my opinion, a “jury of Michael McGee’s peers” in Milwaukee would NEVER return a guilty verdict against him.
right or wrong, justified or unjustified, the black population in Milwaukee is more willing to believe in a politician who’s got the record of Michael McGee than they are willing to believe the prosecutors, shop owners who have spoken out, and other authorities, or anyone else who criticizes or condemns Michael McGee.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1313 hrs
From the JSOnline:
Today’s hearing in Milwaukee County Circuit Court for Ald. Michael McGee drew a packed house in Judge Dennis Moroney’s courtroom in the Safety Building.
Sheriff’s deputies announced there was seating for 25 and everyone needed to have a seat to stay in the courtroom.
“Everyone come out to support McGee, so what are we supposed to do?” one woman said.
Another supporter told a deputy, “You’ll get a chance to lock us all up real soon.”
Is it safe to say McGee supporters are idiots, or is that racist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1440 hrs
Tuergas I don’t follow most of what you are ranting about. McGee (before these charges) won 64% of the vote. Any idea what percentage of the district voted?
This discussion was limited to a single declaration about how one person posting was certain that no black juror would ever vote to convict. This is a racist statement in the plainest way.
I have no idea what else you are going on about.
And, yeah, its one thing to talk about statistical trends, white or blacks are x% more or less likely to do or not do a thing, middle-class cat owners are x% likely to also own a honda, etc. That’s totally different from what was posted.
And, as an aside, the fact that a reporter can find one or two people to say crazy things doesn’t give a reason to paint an entire community any more than finding one or two crazy white folks to say crazy things tells us what every white person thinks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1531 hrs
This discussion was limited to a single declaration about how one person posting was certain that no black juror would ever vote to convict. This is a racist statement in the plainest way.
I’m not going to defend the original statement because the author can feel free to do so if he choses.
I will say that how “I” read the statement was:
any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is
I read it as saying it only takes ONE juror (any single juror) on a jury to embrace the sympathetic attitude towards Mike McGee that MANY in the black community do (I’d suggest an overwhelming majority do, but I have no impirical evidence to support that opinion) but a jury must be unanimous and any single black juror who by demographic would have a propensity to be likely to be very sympathetic to Mike McGee dispite all this evidence to his character and his behavior.
I think it was a poor choice of words perhaps… Perhaps a bit emotionally motivated… But maybe its just my perspective. I tend to suspend judgement when I can’t be certain about things.
Then again, if we are talking about being completely accurate bob, you said:
This discussion was limited to a single declaration about how one person posting was certain that no black juror would ever vote to convict
and specifically wrongallalong used the word “likely”
Likely is not absolute, “ever” is, so if you are going to take someone to town, you should really be very sure you not letting your bias influence your perception of their comments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1550 hrs
And, as an aside, the fact that a reporter can find one or two people to say crazy things doesn’t give a reason to paint an entire community any more than finding one or two crazy white folks to say crazy things tells us what every white person thinks.
Except that a group of people coming to support a scumbag in the courthouse is a relatively small sample to chose from.
And, I think it’s safe to say that any supporter of McGee is an idiot at this point given his previous track record.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1623 hrs
bob, the post is about the arrest of McGee and Jackson. If all you entered this post for is to dispute the single statement that wrongallalong made that “the sad reality is that any single black juror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.” and all you are doing is calling it a racist remark then you are 100% right. No need for you to post again.
If you are not calling him specifically a racist with all its ugly connotations, and you didn’t mean to lump all conservatives as believing the above statement as fact, thus inferring we are all racists, then again, no need for you to post again.
I will say it is amusing to me how you can so casually be exactly as offensive to conservatives as wrongallalong was to blacks (“people like you freak out and scream that the race card is being played.”) and sit back and feel good about your pathetic self. But then I guess I generalize too. With only a few exceptions (Scott for example) when I think ‘liberal’ I think Hypocrite.
“And, as an aside, the fact that a reporter can find one or two people to say crazy things doesn’t give a reason to paint an entire community any more than finding one or two crazy white folks to say crazy things tells us what every white person thinks.” You mean like attributing wrongallalong’s single comment to all conservatives?
Thanks for rewording my point in the last paragraph of post 31. It seems odd you didn’t seem to have the wit to understand it when I said it.
“Tuergas I don’t follow most of what you are ranting about.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1650 hrs
Tuerqas, I don’t think wit is necessary to understand anything you’ve said. I don’t think anybody carried the characterization of the one “all it takes is one black juror…” comment beyond that one comment and commentor.
Of course not all conservatives are racists and not all comments that criticize black people are racist. Nobody here even implied otherwise. But that one comment was (as you admitted) racist. But you defended… something. Not the comment maybe, but you felt it necessary to tell people to drop the race card stuff when the only accusations of racism were directed at an obviously racist remark. So you took accurate accusations of racism and for some reason expanded them to mean “liberals always do X….” and “every time someone criticizes a black person, X happens…” But that isn’t what was going on here. Shit, I’m the least liberal person here (unless you mean liberal like Milton Freedman was liberal) and I’m calling that racist comment exactly what it was.
XXXPilot, even your interpretation of the comment is racist. Equating “black juror” with “sympathetic to McGee’s cause”, is racist. By defintion. You are using race (black) as a proxy for something else (sympthetic to McGee) that has no causal connection. That is racist.
That said, Mike McGee is a pig-fucker and I hope he gets what’s coming to him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 1755 hrs
XXXPilot, even your interpretation of the comment is racist. Equating “black juror” with “sympathetic to McGee’s cause”, is racist. By defintion. You are using race (black) as a proxy for something else (sympthetic to McGee) that has no causal connection. That is racist.
just for clarification (and perceptions) its XX pilot (as in the motorcycle “XX” , not XXX (no porn involved)
So jijarwm, not that I’m acknowledging that you are the arbitor of what is or isn’t racist, but i’m curious as to your opinion… because I saw polling data on news reports that showed that when stratified by race, blacks were 3 or 4 times more likely than whites to believe in conspiracy’s against members of their own race, and I mention that information that I’ve observed here in this post, that is “racist”?
If so.. i’m ok with that, I’m just trying to get at the working definition of ‘racist’ here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2007 at 2215 hrs
If you see such data and you say “I saw polling data that showed that stratified by race, blacks are 3 or 4 times more likely than whites to believe in conspiracies against members of their own race” it would not be racist.
If you see exaclty the same data and say “All it will take is one black juror to aquit McGee” it is racist. If you see these two statements as being the same (which is what you did, right?), it is racist. It is attributing the thoughts of some (even most!) black to all blacks. That is the definition of racism. I’m not the arbitor of racism, I can just read the dictionary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0849 hrs
JIJAWM, neither did I. I thought in my very first post I made it clear I agreed that the comment was racist. It just seems to me that in Milwaukee (I forget we are not all local, I apologize) we have a one sided violence problem, and no one is allowed to say that it is young black males. Any time it is brought up in any context, the subject immediately and irrevocably becomes a racist issue, not just a race issue. We (white people) are waiting for ‘black leaders’ and black parents to step up and start addressing the problems. It is not happening. ‘Black leaders’ that are respected by the problem people are rappers and people like the McGees. There are many, many, many, black parents and Reverends that are good leaders and parents just as there are many white good and bad parents. Right now in Milwaukee, however, the majority of people in a Democratic city are handcuffed from helping the situation because we are the wrong color. That too is racist.
I was hoping to get the blog going in a direction along these lines and “I got Tuerqas you are full of it” and that I am a racist ranter.
You see, I disagree with the second part of your statement “Of course not all conservatives are racists and not all comments that criticize black people are racist.” In the daily world (at least in the Milwaukee area) virtually every negative comment about a black person is painstakingly examined for racism. Newspapers won’t print an eyewitness description of a ‘black’ crime suspect. Doyle is spending money trying to find out why our court system seems to have a preponderance of black people, never connecting or allowing anyone else to connect the FACT that a preponderance of crimes are committed by black people. I think a part of the problem is that we cannot talk about it.
Thank you very much for the correct spelling of Tuerqas by the way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0850 hrs
xxpilot did not do that, wrongallalong did. And I thought that was generalizing, not racism. I think of racism as hating, discriminating against, or in any way being negative to a person because of their race.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0855 hrs
If you see exaclty the same data and say “All it will take is one black juror to aquit McGee” it is racist.
That is NOT what was stated. If you have to change what someone wrote in order to make your point, you are grasping at straws.
I specifically explained how I interpreted the remark (which was different than what you quoted) and suggest that you are biasing your interpretation of a statement that was worded somewhat ambiguously one way, and I another.
I think of racism as hating, discriminating against, or in any way being negative to a person because of their race.
I agree…
And when someone labels something a “racist” statement, I’m quite certain they are doing so to paint the statement as inappropriate, rather than a matter of fact “that is racism”
Because under JIJARWM’s definition of racism…
The Congressional Black Caucus is racist…
Black entertainment television is racist…
The United Negro College Fund is racist…
The NAACP is racist
The National Association of Black Journalists is racist…The truth is, at the risk of throwing this topic further off-topic is that it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to be a racist in this country as evidenced by all those racist organizations… (so long as you are not white)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0918 hrs
XXXPilot, yes, all of those organizations are racist. Throw in affirmative action if you want. Almost everything I say is said matter of factly. I’m not trying to paint you or that statement as anything but racist.
The actual statement at issue is “any single black jurror will likely prevent a conviction, no matter how overwhelming or incriminating the evidence is.” How is this statement substantively different than my paraphrase? (for the record, I can’t “copy and paste” on Owen’s blog for some reason. Otherwise I would have included the quote as written). The fact of the matter is that this statement clearly suggests, even SAYS, that black people as a race will ignore the evidence. What <i>you<i> did is think that the statement is okay because data suggests that for a large proportion of black people it could be true. Again, assuming that the thoughts of ALL black people include X, based on data indicating that the thoughts of some, or even most, black people include X is still racist. Just say you’re sorry dude.
Tuerqas, I think I noted that you acknowledged the statement to be racist. My criticism of you was to take an accurate accusation of racism and treat it as an invitation to address innaccurate accusations of racism. I don’t see how newpeople being prevented from describing as suspect as black (which is obviously NOT racist if the suspect is black) by the PC police is relevant to an actual legitimatly racist statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0938 hrs
Ooops, I added another X again. Sorry about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 0939 hrs
How is this statement substantively different than my paraphrase? (for the record, I can’t “copy and paste” on Owen’s blog for some reason. Otherwise I would have included the quote as written).
sometimes I can copy and paste (with the mouse), sometimes I have to highlight and then use ctrl-c to copy and then I can paste with the mouse.
anyway…
The fact of the matter is that this statement clearly suggests, even SAYS, that black people as a race will ignore the evidence.
No I think it says they they will LIKELY ignore the evidence… I believe that is an accurate statement based upon data I’ve seen from opinion polls in similar issues. (as I’ve explained previously)
Again, assuming that the thoughts of ALL black people include X, based on data indicating that the thoughts of some, or even most, black people include X is still racist.
not when there is impirical data to support the conclusion…
Racist… perhaps in the ‘literal’ sense (although people use the term racism to intimate unfairness) and I don’t AT ALL believe its unfair to suggest that a black juror is VERY LIKELY to believe a defense based on conspiracy theory of McGee being “framed” in spite of stong evidence to support conviction.
See “dude” I’m not willing to turn off my brain and stop making corellations of behavior because its based on race, when IN FACT (newsflash) there are significant patterns of behavior that are predictable based on race more than any other characteristic.
I didn’t make that so… I just observed it. Don’t hate the messenger “dude”
So you want me to apologize for thinking, observing patterns and predicting outcomes? Negative ghostrider
When I walk up to a black person on my way to work in the morning, I KNOW that its LIKELY that he and I don’t like the same kind of music. I’m not SURE we won’t, but I DO KNOW its LIKELY we don’t like the same kind of music.
Its true… Demographically, its 100% true. Its not an absolute, but its true.
That doesn’t mean I assume EVERY black person only likes hip-hop or rap, but reality tells me its likely.
Demographically I KNOW a black person on the jury is more likely to acquit McGee. Doesn’t mean I don’t want black people on the jury. Doesn’t even mean I think its UNJUSTIFIED for them to have a proclivity to embrace conspiracies against accused black defendants. (as I stated earlier)
And I absolutely believe its going to be very difficult to find a jury of Michael McGee’s peers that will convict him no matter what the evidence (because one can always say the evidence was manufactured etc). As others have said “good luck biskupic”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1012 hrs
Sigh…The whole McGee controversy is centered around the term ‘racism’. THE POST is about the McGee arrest. Is wrongallalong’s one stupid comment the only concern you and bob had? If you read the posts again (I don’t blame you if you don’t) no one except wrongallalong defended the comment as written. Why is that considered to be the central and only point of the post?
The “invitation” to discuss the larger problem of racism misinterpretation is in the post. It is what inspired the stupid comment in the first place. McGee is a mean-spirited, angry waste of a human being. Nevertheless, he inspires or bullies other people (overwhelmingly of his own race) to follow his views and he constantly “uses the race card” in his own rants. If any argument is made against his views, they are routinely tagged as a racist and the focus now shifts to whether the critic is a racist and should they be fired and how much of a racist is he/she really. No discussion is ever carried on about racial the disparity of violent crimes (for example) because it is immediately shouted down as racist.
xxpilot’s comments in this blog is a perfect example. He has given good logical arguments using data and his experience to talk about ‘perceptions by race’ being a valid tool in analyzing racial problems. The only answers to his posts can be paraphrased as ‘you are defending the obviously racist comment made by wrongallalong and it cannot be defended HAH!’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1031 hrs
Sorry, insert ‘blog’ for ‘post’ where necessary in my last post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1033 hrs
Okay XXPilot, I’ll give you that the word “likely” in the comment could be construed as suggesting a statistical likelyhood based on data. I retract my call for an apolgy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1034 hrs
No, Tuergas, you had it right. Boots and Sabers is a blog. Owen’s original words called “McGee/Jackson Arrested” is a post. The things other people posted underneath are “comments.” So you are commenting on Owen’s post on the blog. How’s that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1131 hrs
Thanks…right…wheels turn…brain functions…well sometimes anyway. Blog, post, comment…got it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2007 at 1146 hrs
Total Entries: 19644
Total Comments: 129735
Most Recent Entry: 02/08/2012 01:08 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 02:17 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 144
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 02:17 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).