When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
In this thread: Random social observations backed by credible evidence, and debate appertaining thereto. No subject is verboten, but hyperbole is.
So, what possible reason might liberal politicians have for inventing the fallacy that law enforcement in the US is systemically engaged in some kind of war / ethnic cleansing policy against blacks? Might it have something to do with creating a social demand for "change?"
Study finds blacks are not more likely to get hurt after police stops
By Max Ehrenfreund July 26 at 12:00 PM
Black and Hispanic people are more likely to be injured by police than whites are because police are more likely to stop them, according to a new study.
The research, published Monday by the journal Injury Prevention, did not, however, find that police were more likely to injure blacks and Hispanics than whites after they were stopped.
The study contributes to a continuing debate among researchers about racial bias in the use of force by police. Other recent research suggests that police are more likely to push, shove or handcuff black and Hispanic civilians after stopping them, or to use a baton or pepper spray on them.
The new study used a federal sample of hospital records from 2011 and 2012. It is one of the first studies to comprehensively examine not only the lethal use of force but also injuries inflicted by police that do not result in death, which are far more common than fatalities.
Last week, for example, an officer shot and wounded an unarmed man in North Miami, Fla., as he lay on his back in the street with his hands in the air. The man, a behavioral therapist named Charles Kinsey, is black, and many observers saw evidence of police bias in the videos of the incident that circulated online.
Injuries inflicted by police accounted for 3.3 percent of all injuries resulting from an attack by another person, and the deaths by police accounted for about 6.5 percent of all homicides, according to one of the authors of the new study.
Roughly 55,400 people were injured or killed in interactions with police officers in 2012. About 32 out of every 10,000 stops or arrests resulted in a visit to the emergency room. Another 1.7 encounters per 10,000 resulted in a hospitalization, and an additional 0.7 incidents ended in death. The data on police killings came from the Guardian and The Washington Post.
The rates of hospitalization and death per stop and arrest did not vary by race. However, police were twice as likely to stop or arrest Latinos compared to whites and three times as likely to stop or arrest African Americans, so members of those groups were also more likely to be seriously hurt or killed.
The racial disparities in stops and arrests could indicate bias on the part of police officers, said Ted Miller, an author of the study and an economist at the health-research organization Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, headquartered in Calverton, Md. The disparities also could reflect that police spend more time in places where crime is more common, which are often poorer neighborhoods where more people of color live.
The data did not include cases in which patients neither were admitted to nor went to an emergency room. It could be that police allow racial bias to influence decisions that involve less thought, such as whether to push, shove or handcuff a civilian, but that officers are more judicious and think carefully before using the the kinds of weapons and hand-to-hand maneuvers that can cause injury.
Miller and his colleagues compared hospital records on incidents involving police to those for cases of assault in general. Injuries resulting from assault were more severe than the injuries that law enforcement inflicted, and victims of assault were more likely to be admitted to the hospital.
"For the most part, police who have to inflict an injury on somebody are trying to inflict as little injury as they can while controlling the situation and protecting their own safety," Miller said.
The exceptions were the comparatively rare cases of firearm violence. Forty percent of gunshot wounds inflicted by law enforcement were fatal, compared to just 26 percent of gunshot wounds in general.
In unpublished research, Miller and his colleagues also compared their data from the United States to data on police interactions in Australia.
The number of injuries per arrest was similar in both countries, suggesting that police in Australia do not interact with people who are inherently less violent. Yet Australian police killed almost no one. Miller attributed the difference to Australia's strict gun-control laws, which allow the police to avoid using lethal force while still protecting themselves and the public from harm.
"That makes a difference in the ability of those situations to escalate to the point of being deadly," he said.
Hmmm. So by framing the police as villains, we also distract attention away from what is, at its heart, a constitutional 2A issue. That seems like something that conservatives would do more than liberals.
Could it be that *both* major political parties have a clear motive to incite social unrest against the very law enforcement institutions which prop up their authority?
What I saw is that Whites are twice as likely to be stopped as Asians.
#WLM!!
Asians generally do better in America in most things. They do better in school, they get mortgages more then whites, they have less issues with cops then whites. No body cares about asian's so no one really knows about asian privilege.
And yet the RNC and Mr. Trump allowed Trump's daughter to spout the Pay Gap Lie as she introduced him. Oh, he can solve that problem by simply quoting this article..." Look what I've done, and I'm not even president yet...."
(I have attached the full article below. You can get the gist with a quick skim.)
If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.
How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men’s earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.
The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed “full time.” What is important is the “adjusted” wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.
The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, “We are still trying to figure that out.”
One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
“In fact,” says the National Women’s Law Center, “authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men’s and women’s earnings.” Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn’t the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn’t we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women’s supposedly inferior negotiating skills — not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW’s 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count “social science” as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that “social science” includes both economics and sociology majors.
Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and “media occupations” under a single rubric—“other white collar.” Says Furchtgott-Roth: “So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That’s not a comparison between people who do the same work.” With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.
Women’s groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women’s choices, those choices are not truly free. Women who major in sociology rather than economics, or who choose family-friendly jobs over those that pay better but offer less flexibility, may be compelled by cultural stereotypes. According to the National Organization for Women (NOW), powerful sexist stereotypes “steer” women and men “toward different education, training, and career paths” and family roles. But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren’t women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women’s choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones — what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled.
It will not be not easy for the AAUW and its allies to abandon the idea of systemic gender injustice. AAUW officials are trying mightily to sustain the bad-news-for-women narrative. According to “Graduating to a Pay Gap” publicity materials, “The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field.” Many journalists seem to have read and reported on the AAUW’s press releases rather than its research.
That is the hype. Look at the numbers.
Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and the War Against Boys. Her new book, Freedom Feminism — Its Surprising History and Why It Matters, will be published in 2013 by AEI press.
I'm gradually coming around to the eugenics argument. Based upon that, it only seems logical that men identifying as women should be allowed to be aborted.
07-27-2016, 10:14 AM
What's not wrong with anything?
0
