Saturday, March 7, 2009

50 Years of Denial

"They are afraid to say so in public, but many of the North's big-city mayors groan in private that their biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes. In 1,551 U.S. cities, according to the FBI tally for 1956, Negroes, making up 10% of the U.S. population, accounted for about 30% of all arrests, and 60% of the arrests for crimes involving violence or threat of bodily harm--murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. ... Negro leaders sometimes argue passionately that arrest statistics wildly distort the comparative incidence of crime among Negroes and whites because cops are more likely to arrest Negroes for petty crime or on mere suspicion. ... But inequality of treatment by the police may actually tend to shrink rather than inflate the statistics of Negro crime. Says Newsman [Charles] Wartman in the next breath: 'When Negroes violate social morals--six, drinking, gambling--white cops bypass this as "typically Negro'." ... Whether the statistics of Negro crime overstate or understate the reality, they are shrouded from public attention by what a Chicago judge last week cllled a 'conspiracy of concealment.' In many cities, Negro leaders and organizations such as the [NAACP] put pressure on politicians, city officials and newpapers to play down the subject. Fearing loss of Negro votes, few elected officials dare to resist the pressures. ... But in fact, some studies have shown that, contrary to popular conviction, crime rates among foreign-born whites were lower than among U.S.-born whites. ... But the moderate crime rates among European immigrants, subject to similar stresses of poverty and bad housing, suggets that other factors may be more important. ... Crime rates run high in the Negro slums of Harlem and South Side Chicago, but they also run high in the Negro districts of [LA] and San Francisco, where the houses are comparatively decent. ... Slum dwellers who move into brand-new public-housing projects often turn them into new slums as verminous and crime-ridden as the tenements they left behind. ... But even heroic efforts by Negro leadership could only dent the Negro crime problem, because essentially it is a white problem. And it will remain a severe problem until Northern whites, private citizens as well as civic officials, recognize that Negro crime is basically a symptom of a failure in integration. ... Negroes are more prone than whites to break the laws, rules and customs of society, because they are excluded from full membership in it", my emphasis, Time, 21 April 1958, link:,8816,810262,00.html.

See, Time solved the Negro crime problem 50 years ago, whites cause it. After $6 trillion in anti-poverty money spent in 2009 dollars and various affirmative action programs, what does Time think we should do next? Integrating schools did not improve Negroes scholastic attainments either.


Anonymous said...

It's a tough problem.

And I think being upfront about what is happening is the first step... it is time to rethink the programs/policies which just chug along... are they just good employment for those involved or do they actually help change conditions for those they are set up to help?

50 years of orthodoxy... ???

Independent Accountant said...

See my 1 September 2008 post: "Dead Elephant in the Living Room" for my answer.

Printfaster said...

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose

Money's only function is atonement for white guilt. The reformation did away with indulgences for Christians. Perhaps funds for inner city negroes need to be stopped by a modern day Luther? We could certainly argue that inner cities are purgatory, and that money will do nothing to get these souls out of purgatory.

I have decided to use the term negro since Eric Holder said that we were cowards for not addressing issues of race openly.

Thoreau said...

Quid pro quo, KPMG, tax shelters, audits of DOJ and unemployment. U-6 unemployment is 15% yet KPMG remains employed by many of its clients including the DOJ. Word on the street is KPMG’s revenues are down at least $300 million which seems low given the number of failed financial institutions KPMG audits whose financial statements were riddled with tax fraud (at least according to Mike Hamersley) and accounting fraud (which apparently only the markets could figure out, right Citi). When are the massive layoffs at KPMG going to start as apparently accounting fraud is out of vogue? Word on the street is KPMG not only audits a disproportionate amount of Insurance companies engaging in accounting fraud and tax fraud but KPMG’s own purported Bermudian fraudulent Captive insurance company, Park, was engaging in accounting and massive tax fraud. How can this be? KPMG as part of its deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ was given the audit of the DOJ, perhaps, a quid pro quo for KPMG agreeing to throw several of its tax partners under the bus and destroying theirs’ and their families lives, pay a large fine, be monitored by a fellow who used to work for the government as head of the SEC, Breeden (millions in fees earned by a former government official (more quid pro quo)); a deal struck by Flynn, Loonan, Bennett, Taft and Holmes. Which partners will KPMG throw under the bus next to help in avoiding indictment by the DOJ for the massive $100s of Billions in accounting fraud KPMG assisted their financial clients in purveying against the public and the markets. Is it possible the KPMG partners believe that since KPMG audits the DOJ the massive accounting fraud they purveyed will be allowed? Are the DOJ accounting statements riddled with fraud like most of KPMG’s clients? If I were a KPMG partner I would not count on it judging by what the U.S. Government did to Sadam once a good friend of the U.S., is the same type of devastation and destruction coming to KPMG? Word on the street is KPMG through its captive insurance company, Park, not only defrauded its partners (and the KPMG Board of Directors) by kiting current legal claims into insurance liabilities with the help of none other than AIG but committed massive tax fraud itself with the approval of KPMG’s internal legal counsel Loonan and Taft . In fact, the world renowned whistleblower Mike Hamersley testified to the Senate and DOJ, that the type of “tax structuring” KPMG’s captive insurance company entered into (and many of KPMG’s clients) was in fact, tax fraud. And believe me, Hamersley claims he knows tax fraud when he sees it since while at KPMG he purveyed much of this type of tax fraud for his clients, the very same tax fraud he decried to the Senate and DOJ about while destroying the lives of many families, the emails are there for the world to see yet no one looks, why? Does KPMG believe it and its partners are immune from prosecution for continued and massive accounting and tax fraud because of the “deal” it struck to audit the DOJ? If the U.S. government’s behavior in the past towards its presumed friends, KPMG should not count on it and if you are a partner at KPMG that purveyed accounting and tax fraud (at least according to Hamersley), you can only expect to be thrown under the bus for a life of ass raping just like KPMG, Flynn, Loonan, Bennett, Taft and Holmes did to its tax partners (over rather trivial sums compared to the massive financial fraud presently destroying this country). Of course there may be hope since Hamersley a tax fraudster by his own definition has a high level government job destroying lives over the very same type of tax fraud he used to commit not withstanding the fact the government knows he committed tax fraud (based on Hamersley’s own emails), Quid pro quo?

Independent Accountant said...

I think your comment would be more appropriately appended to one of my other posts. That said, the DOJ, Fed and SEC have bigger fish to fry than KPMG and its tax evasion cases. More important is KPMG's apparent "wilful blindness" to Citigroup's insolvency. This seems to be what the Fed, etc., want, a third party to scream in the face of substantial contradictory facts that Citigroup is solvent. Welcome to the real world.

Tax partner said...

Thoureau, please help me out here. I am a bit confused by your statements about Hamersley. I read Travails in Tax and personally observed Hamersley's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. He seems like an exceedingly honest guy to me. Didn't KPMG say Hamersely had absolutely no involvement or knowledge of tax shelters in its press release to the Senate Finace Committee after Hamersley testified in October 2003? I read that KPMG press release on the PBS Frontline website. By the way, you seem to be the same blogger going by the name "whistelwhat" on other blogs. Am I mistaken?