Religion and Education

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom
-Proverbs

I recall reading that proverb when I was "gifted" the book of proverbs for a birthday sometime in my early teens. Of everything I read, that one verse stood out in my mind because of all I had witnessed up to that point and since then, was a lot of people with much fear of God but lacking seriously in the wisdom department. It's not to say these were stupid people, but as my knowledge grew and I became more inquisitive, the constant, "because of faith" answers became bothersome. It seemed to be a nice way out for trying to find out why a thing was as it was. There appeared to be this whole conspiracy to not give answers to questions that may contradict "biblical wisdom".

This especially held true for the specific evil ideology commonly referred to as "Evil-ution". Early on I was pretty ill equipped to even hold a conversation on evolution, and to be honest most of the people in the congregation were not equipped to have the conversation either. My interest in African history lead me to study human evolution and the origins of humanity which pretty much blew the whole lid off the Genesis account. Further study of the ancient Khemetic religion, further eroded the authority of the Bible. Education had irrevocably changed my understanding of God, what I then referred to as the "creative force of the universe", religion and religious institutions.

Fast forward and I would find myself posting on religion on this blog and making the comment that there was a correlation between education and certain religious expression. I caught some offline flack for that statement, but I stuck to my guns because in each case, I could demonstrate that there was a correlation between what a person didn't know and the specific belief they were espousing. Worse though, I found a rather strong desire for willfull ignorance. Not only did many of the individuals I was talking with, not know certain things they sincerely did not want to know any different.

Anyway, Gallup has done a poll which "staticises" (I made up a word there) what I have been discussing.

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

I have no doubt that such a thing is why we have these "Bible colleges" springing up around the US. College is not somewhere you go to become enlightened, it's somewhere where you get your ideas re-affirmed while being trained to be a good employee.

The relevant chart can be seen here:



Personally I'm pretty interested in the fact that of the people interviewed over 50% of people with post graduate degrees would say that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God. But then again, post graduate covers a lot of fields that have little to do with information that would blow that idea out the water. But there is no doubt that as education increases, fundamentalism drops precipitously. It goes to show that a good secular education based on the "scientific" method is extremely useful in combating religious extremism.

Technorati Tags: Black Education, Christianity, creationism, critique, Religion , science

Gas Prices High On Purpose

Many weeks ago I received an e-mail that suggested a one day boycott of gasoline purchases, exempting emergencies of course. I deleted the e-mail. I did so because I knew that the outcome would be nothing. I knew this for two reasons. First and foremost since many people depend on their vehicles to go to work or to do work, even IF they were to not purchase gas as usual the monday (or whatever day it was), they would be right back on Tuesday and therefore the total economic cost to the gas station would be zed. Nothing. Secondly, the gas stations are generally the low man on the totem pole. Yes there are price gougers out there but by and large the gas station has very little influence on the actual cost of gasoline at the pump. Fact is they already paid for the gasoline, so the providers of the gasoline already got paid, will get paid again and won't even feel the one day boycott.

Instead I have oft said that the best means for citizens to send a message to the oil companies is to pick a single outlet, Exxon for example and simply not purchase gasoline from them at all. I call this the Texaco effect. For those who don't remember, Texaco executives were exposed for the racist bums they were and as a result people avoided Texaco gas stations like the plague. As a result, of the event the local Texaco by my residence went under and was replaced by one of it's "competitors". So my thinking here was that if consumers put the target on the back of a company such as Exxon, all exxon franchises, nationwide would be threatened with going out of business and since the whole oil industry is one big cartel anyway, there would HAVE to be a change in policy in order to save that company AND the jobs that would be lost by it going under. The problem is that Americans are simply too lazy to do stuff like that. So I will assume I'm the only person who has an ongoing boycott of Exxon-Mobile, BP and Shell.

So today in the NY Times, we get a report that states flat out that the so called "shortage" of gasoline is no accident. In a totally misleadingly titled article Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump, The oil executives said what is known by now by anyone paying attention:

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years. Congress is considering legislation calling for a nearly fivefold increase in the use of ethanol.

That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.

In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Did you get that? companies are "reconsidering or scaling back" plans for new refinery capacity? reconsidering? I would have bought the argument if they said that the announcement devalued the current construction of refineries. But no, the plans for increased capacity were scaled back? Why is there planning? going on? What these executives want you and I to believe is that they do not have any research departments that foresee and project consumption based on different market indicators. They want you and I to believe that they had no clue that gasoline consumption would not increase. Got that? These multi-billion dollar companies with record profits know less than you and I about gasoline consumption forecasting.

Even worse is that by their statement it takes 5 years to increase capacity by 1.6 million barrels a day. Which means had they had intended to meet forecast demand without the huge increase in prices (enough of this silly inflation adjusted crap, ask someone who's making 30 grand a year or less if inflation adjusted $1.45 price means squat when filling up is 30 bucks a pop), they had to have started at 2002. 2002 folks.

Now read this:

Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.

More expensive why? Well if we've been paying attention to the news coming out of say Venezuela, then we know that not only do the oil companies own the domestic refineries they are usually the majority stakeholders in the drilling and refineries abroad. In other words, these oil execs are complaining about purchasing import oil that they already own! This is some real racket we have going on here.

More:

Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity. But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries declined while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand grew, however, and capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the United States have been running at or close to full capacity.

Get it. back in the mid 90's you could purchase a gallon of regular unleaded for 99c. I remember 5 bucks giving 5 gallons. But most important to this post is the admitting that the oil industry is "consolidated" which is another word for "monopoly" or "cartel". They admit that refineries were shut down for not being profitable.

Well thanks to Google we can find out just how "unprofitable" $1 gas was:

Gas prices boost Exxon, Shell profits

IRVING (AP) - Higher natural gas and crude prices helped Exxon Corp. and Shell Oil Co. increase profits by about 50 percent in the final three months of the year.

Exxon, the nation's largest oil company, reported Tuesday that net income was $2.49 billion, or $2 a share, on revenue of $37.62 billion in the fourth quarter. That's an increase of 49 percent over the $1.68 billion, or $1.35 per share, on revenue of $31.5 billion in the same quarter in 1995.

For the full year, Exxon reported net income of $7.51 billion, or $6.02 per share, on revenues of $134.36 billion. In 1995, the company earned $6.5 billion, or $5.18 per share, on revenues of $124 billion.

Exxon stock rose 87.5 cents to $103.37« per share on the New York Stock Exchange Tuesday morning.

Unprofitable? Really? Not good enough for you? Check this out:

For Shell and for the industry, analysts said they expected profits to rise on increasing demand for petroleum products now that all major industrialized regions are in a recovery. Many analysts predicted crude oil prices would average around $18 a barrel this year, up from just under $17 last year. In the chemicals sector, the turnaround will be even more dramatic, with some analysts predicting triple-digit percentage gains in profits for 1995.

I mean what are these oil companies taking us for? Complete idiots? Yes. Yes they are. We, sorry, y'all elect people who don't have the stones to put the brakes on these oil companies. Y'all put people in officer who work(ed) for Oil companies. Ya'll let the US Government get taken over by corporate lobbies and have turned public office into the place that goes to the highest bidder. So don't be shocked when not even the vaunted NY Times can't do basic research and challenge to Oil industry line.

Plainly put the gas prices are what they are because the Oil companies want it that way. If there are capacity issues it is quite intentional and they have admitted as such. So until the consumer puts one or more of these companies into the ground by simply not purchasing refined gasoline from them, we, the consumer will continue to be reaching for the soap on the ground.

Technorati Tags: critique, governance, Oil Prices, Exxon

Pew Make Stupid "Muslim Violence" Poll

So this morning I had Good Morning America on to get my daily dose of Non-news. So there is this "news piece" that discusses a Pew poll that indicates that Muslims agree with violence. That was the lead. 1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence. So I'm thinkin' "And". Now before going into the actual poll, we really have to see the actual purpose of the "news piece" was to simply slander American Muslims. Lets be serious here upwards of 1 in 2 American Christians agree with violence. Why isn't that news? Why isn't that news since Christians claim to follow a man that was non-violent? Shouldn't THAT particular fact be "news"?

But back to the "1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence" claim. So they didn't really say what Muslims they contacted for this particular poll. This is important because last I checked African-Americans make up a HUGE portion of the American Muslim population. Given that a large portion of this group are influenced by "any means necessary" Malcolm X, it wouldn't be at all surprising that African-American Muslims may not be averse to "violence." Of course one has to define what "violence" means.

The "news" report went on to "clarify" that the question was whether American Muslims agreed with violence in defense of Islam. That statement can be taken many ways. Someone can take the comment to mean that one should kill or harm someone who "defames" Islam or it could be taken as self-defense or defense of another Muslim who his or herself is being threatened or even the defense of one's Mosque. While I personally have issues with the first suggestion, the latter are pretty much a given.

Overall, the "news piece" was simply a piece of propaganda because it reported on nothing that a thinking person could not have figured out on their own. Nor did it put the question in any real perspective. Given the violence that American Christians are quite willing to visit on Muslims, I'd think that the 1 in 4 is a pretty small number and the real news would be in questioning why American Christians not only "agree" with violence against non-Christians, but why they actually commit this violence on a pretty regular basis.

Technorati Tags: critique, Islam, Christianity

Police Shooting in the Bronx

Just coming up 6 months since Sean Bell was shot and killed by the NYPD, we have yet another shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer. What is more egregious about this particular shooting is NOT that the officer in question is black. After all we know that black men can and will devalue the life of another black man and have done so since before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Maafa). No what is the most problematic thing here was that the officer ran out his house, confronted the would be hit and run driver and effectively decided on his own that the would be hit and run driver ought to be executed.

As we pointed out in our discussion of the Sean Bell case as well as the white boy shot in North Carolina, there is an increasing sense of impunity growing in law enforcement, emboldened by Head of State Bush. Since we know that Fermin Arzu was not armed, we know that the off duty police officer was not threatened with immediate mortal danger. Since Fermin Arzu was shot in the back, we know, beyond doubt that the officer, unlike the claims of the Sean Bell case, could not have been about to be rammed by a moving vehicle. The officer shot at the van at least 5 times. It is pretty clear to me, that given that Fermin Arzu was unarmed and the officer in question was wearing a hoody and claims to have been wearing his badge around his neck (Sean Bell's killers said the same thing). Perhaps it was Arzu who felt threatened. Not to excuse the fact that he mashed up two vehicles, but who's to say that the officer didn't brandish HIS weapon during the apparent argument and Arzu, fearing for his life attempted to get away? We'll never know will we.

And that is the point. It is not the job of the police anywhere to administer deadly force where an officer's life in not in jeopardy. I'm not understanding how this is simply not understood. Furthermore, this situation has a clear alternative resolution. Once the officer came out of his house to confront Fermin Arzu all he had to do was take down the license plate and get a good look at the man. He then could have used his cell phone, assuming he had one, and called in the plate and description and let his uniformed and on-duty coworkers deal with the situation. A clear, non-violent, no dead people way of dealing with the situation. I thought this up and I'm not even in law enforcement. How hard can it be for a trained professional police officer to come to the same resolution?

I said it before and I'm going to say it again, when police shoot and kill people in their own homes because they mistake a play-station controller for a gun there is a problem with tactics. When police kill people who's homes they've barged into by "mistake" and the owner defends her home, there is a problem with tactics. When this stuff happens not only are the officers involved at fault, but there is a serious problem with the leadership who are clearly NOT setting the example that killing civilians in the course of ones duty is NOT acceptable unless under very specific circumstances.

Don't expect to hear the usual Sharpton haters discuss this. NO. expect the usual about how Sharpton, etc. are exploiting Fermin Arzu's death for personal gain. Expect the same lame excuses about how the police put their lives on the lines every day. etc. etc. Expect someone to bring up the idiot in Manhattan that murdered two auxiliary police officers as if it is even relevant to this situation.

God forbid, that here during Allergy season I should have a sneezing fit and run into someone in a clear accident and end up with a hooded officer yelling at me with his gun out and I get my head blown off because I may not understand what he is saying but will try to take my chances by getting away from the man, in the hood, with the gun (not saying that is what went down).

Technorati Tags: Fermin Arzu, Police Tactics, Sean Bell

World N!gg@ Law.

When you travel abroad, they got world nigga law.
some folks get on a plane to go where they please,
but I go overseas and I get over sees!

-Mos Def
"Mr. Nigga."

So reading the Toronto Star from a link from Black Electorate, I find that Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party has been blocked from entering Canada because of a "five-year-old misdemeanour offence."

Now I'm going to be "fair" and note that Canada and the US have laws on the books that will bar the entry of persons with certain criminal backgrounds. Just the other day I was reading about some white professor who had tried LSD during research at a college and was barred entry into the US (or Canada) because the border agent googled his name and found an article in which he discussed his LSD use. Never mind that it was 30 years ago. The man was refused entry. Since 9-11 stuff like this has been going down. I'm not clear as to what the misdemeanour is and none of the reports that I've read so far have said what it is.

[Update] I don't follow Hip Hop concerts but as at least 2003, the Canadian Government saw fit to allow 50 Cent into canada to perform. I don't need to remind the readership that 50 has a criminal record. Furthermore it is written that:

Volpe's spokesman, Steven Heckbert, said permits allowing those with criminal records to enter Canada are issued regularly.

"It's permission that's granted typically about 12,000 times a year," Heckbert told the Canadian Press.


So I would presume that Negroes talkin' guns, bitches and hos are OK by Canada.

[/update]

What has gotten attention are statements made by the group that had arranged for Dr. Shabazz's appearance:

"What is to blame is the power of the Jewish lobby to influence politicians, to influence media, to influence whatever," said Nkem Anizor, president of the radical new Toronto group Black Youth Taking Action.

This statement illicited a response from one Jewish organization:

"The attempt to blame the Jews speaks volumes," Canadian Jewish Congress chief executive Bernie Farber said of Anizor's remarks.

"It is clear to us now that this was not just an invitation given out without thinking," he said in an interview. "This (Toronto) group, we believe sadly, makes common cause with the anti-Semitic views of Mr. Shabazz."

This of course is par for the course. You'll note that Bernie Farber claimed that the Black Youth Taking Action group attempted to blame Jewish people, en masse when the statement was pretty clear that it was directed at the "Jewish lobby" which any intelligent person knows:

a) does not represent all Jewish people and can be questioned as to whether they represent the majority of Jews anywhere and therefore:
b) The Jewish lobby cannot be synonymous with all Jewish people.

But small details such as that aren't important to the media.

The Toronto Sun also had an article in which we find the following:

black activist mob yesterday.

It's a "Jewish conspiracy," was one of the many anti-Semitic slurs.

It's the result of "white supremacy," was another common theme.

They are "enslaved by the enslavers' children" and "to hell with diversity." Do you want to hear more nonsense from a group claiming to be running an Education not Incarceration campaign?


I love how the relatively small gathering was referred to as a "mob". It's always "nice" to see white folk throw the word "mob" around when it comes to black people gathering. I mean really now, I'm pretty well read. I understand that mob can be used in "benign" ways such as "flash mob" which is a large group of people who converge on a location from a cell phone call to do something and then disperse. But we know full well that mob was used here in it's most negative connotation of "irresponsible" and potentially "dangerous" black people.

The next piece of foolishness is the supposed "slur" of "Jewish Conspiracy". I mean we all know that to claim that there is a Jewish lobby of any sort with any kind of power is a "slur". Unless of course it is the Prime Minister of Israel saying it. Right.

Moving along, we find this nice piece:

"It serves only as a divisive force limiting our effectiveness to fight the real and pressing issues of systemic racism, black on black violence, and the lack of economic opportunities plaguing the black community," said Rev. Don Meredith of the GTA Faith Alliance in a statement put out by B'nai Brith Canada.

"As responsible black community leaders we join with B'nai Brith in urging our federal and provincial leaders to work in tandem to ensure New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz does not have opportunity to spew hatred in Canada."

So what we have here are "responsible" black leaders. We know where THAT term comes from, but for those not in the know, whenever the white power structure needed a black face to cool out the "angry black mobs" they found someone, usually a Reverend, to be the black face that told everyone to cool out and how the "outside agitators" are only bringing discord into the peaceable community and upsetting the good white folk who have and are doing so much to help us "cullud folks". Different time, Different country, Same junk. Had the "responsible negroes" up in Toronto, been real black men and women, they would have first and foremost been upset that it is possible that legal excuses were made in order to stifle free speech. They would also have had an issue with outside, non-black organizations feeling that they can dictate what black folk should and should not listen too. Them days supposed to be done.

But most curiously, the above quotation makes it pretty clear that there is a plan or determination by at least one Jewish-identified organization to use it's influence in the government to stiffle the free association of black people thereby confirming the supposed "anti-semetic" comment made by the Toronto youth group.

Now I have my disagreements with Dr. Shabazz and I may not have been so moved to attend his presentation, but I damn sure am not going to have outside groups tell me what I can and cannot listen to. Furthermore, I will not allow Jewish organizations dictate to me what is and is not "anti-semetic" and I defintely will not be getting up on stage with such a group to lay a blanket condemnation on another black person committed to uplifting black people and the use of legal means to do so.

I hope that Minister Faust over at the Bro-Log will post some reports from other media sources.

Technorati Tags: Black Crime, Black Panther Party, Canada, governance, politics

Hating Sharpton

I've been feeling this for a while now. It reared it's head during the last presidential election and since the Imus situation and the acquital of the Duke Lacrosse players it has shown up again: Sharpton Hating (tm).

What is Sharpton Hating? it' pretty clear. People hate Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) because they show up when black people are insulted, threatened, etc. Sharpton takes the risk of being wrong by speaking out. Whereas you and I, work for someone else and have to put up with various insults and the like, Sharpton (and Jesse) don't work for anyone and are free to call spades, spades. In other words, they make their living, by and large by being there when racist stuff happens.

The Sharpton Haters feel that since Sharpton makes his living in such a manner that he the the reason racism is alive and well in America. By their logic, the reason racism exists in America today is because Sharpton and Jesse create it in order to make their living. Good one right? Now I'm not dumb enough to think that there aren't people who are so pathological as to want to make up slights for their own benefit. It happens. But I'm not feelin' that about Sharpton at all.

It bothers me that someone who made his living running up and down a wooden court and is on record making seriously derogatory remarks about black women, would even be considered a credible critic of someone who has been standing up for black people. it bothers me that sports writers, who make their living writing about people who make their living entertaining people by throwing, dribbling and hitting balls, feel they have something credible to say on what Sharpton is or is not doing. It especially bothers me because should any one of these types of people were to get shot at, or discriminated against, Sharpton would be the first person there to back them up.

It really is the case of most of these Sharpton Haters, that they are mad because relatively speaking, Sharpton is a free man. By a free man, I mean he can say what is on his mind about the state of America, without much fear of reprisal. He doesn't have to call anyone
"nappy headed hos" or hire people to make "race jokes". He doesn't have to trade on stereotypes or anything like that. Say what you want about Sharpton. Say anything you like, but the one thing that cannot be said is that he's a liar (We can debate the merits of the Tawana Brawley thing elsewhere). I have never seen Sharpton, in a debate where he has been caught lying.

The other component to this Sharpton Hating, is that many of those who are hating on Sharpton are doing so based on the reports by the same people that he exposes. How often is it that I hear black commentators talking about how Sharpton is a hypocrite for not going after MC's for using profane language. Anyone who has followed Sharpton knows full well he has been speaking out about such language, yet the same commentators are nowhere near the events where these things happens. There is no news in Sharpton talking about those things.

Certain black commentators have also tried to say that Sharpton has not addressed black on black crime. This is another completely false critique. I expect these kinds of critiques from white people. But the growing number of black talking heads and writing hands, have engaged in the Sharpton Hating. I can only surmise that these ill-informed people are acting, as usual, at the behest of some white "cheque writer" somewhere up the food chain. After all, as pointed out in the sound track below. Denigrating other black people will surely get you paid. Apparently there is a market for toms too.

Apparently to these Sharpton Haters, Red lining, mass unemployment of black men in places like NYC, predatory lending and corporate control and prostitution of Hip Hop is all the work of Sharpton. Yes, Sharpton is to blame for the Duke Lacross players waving brooms at strippers. Sharpton is responsible for the marginalization of conscious Hip Hop (which is not always clean Hip Hop). Yes, Sharpton is responsible for police misconduct and the drug dealers on your corner. Sharpton is why there's so many murders in Newark. Heck, while we're at it, why not blame the whole Iraq war on Sharpton.

So when you start seeing the Sharpton Haters running off at the mouth, or keyboard, recall who they work for, worked for or where their larger interests lay. Doesn't mean Sharpton is above critique, but the blatant hating directed his way: Suspect as hell.

Technorati Tags: Al Sharpton

Market 4 N!gg@z

For those unawares there is a video over on YouTube by Talaam Acey entitled "Market 4 Niggaz". I enjoy Talaam Acey's work and decided to do a remix of that piece. hear it below:

Market 4 Niggaz
Poem: Talaam Acey
Music Arrangement: Sondjata "Mista" Olatunji

Justices Gone Wild

Recently the US Supreme Court has made some decisions that I have found to be so disturbing that I have come to believe that the mental affliction that President George Bush has, is in fact highly contagious. The first decision was the one in which the Justices, none of whom are medical doctors or experts in the field decided that so called "partial birth abortions" are illegal. Well no, actually that a state ban on such actions are constitutional. Now this should bother everyone and in my opinion should not be framed as an abortion issue. Prior to this event, we have the Terri Shiavo case in which members of the US congress sought to pass a law based on their opinion that Terri Shiavo should not be taken off of life support. Much of this clear meddling in the personal medical life of both Terri and her rightful guardian, was based on the religious moral values of the members of congress that came out. If nothing else serves as a shining example of the reason for a separation of religion and the state, the Terri Shiavo case was it.

It was unfortunate that the Iraq war became the center of focus for much of the election news during the last election. Even though the Iraq war is a very important issue, I thought that this feeling that congressmen and women thought they could invade the private life of a citizen in order to determine what medical procedure should or should not be performed was a gross violation of the constitutional rights of US Citizens by one of the very bodies responsible for upholding said constitution.

So it came as little surprise to me that the Supreme Court would get in on the action. Reports said that the courts majority decision was that the Congress has the right to pass laws that they saw fit and to ban procedures they find reprehensible. There are a lot of things people don't agree with. For example I have no wish to be a vegetable. I have no wish to be live paralyzed from the neck down. I would like for my loved ones to be able to end life support under those circumstances. There are people who do not agree with that. I say that is perfectly fine for them. THEY shouldn't make such decisions but they do not have the right to dictate to me what manner of life I should live or what medical conditions I should be forced to "live through". In the case of the partial abortion ban, the justices put their personal, religious, etc. opinions over that of the medical establishment (with it's own faults) and experts in the field. While partial birth abortions may be rare, the fact of the matter is that some situation may arise where it may need to be done as the best procedure to protect the life of the mother. By using the language the court is reported to have used, it is only a matter of time before other abortive acts become "reprehensible" and therefore subject to congressional banning. Eventually we will see a situation where doctors would be unable to induce an abortion to save a mother until some other medical threat appears (often worse than the initial reason the woman showed up in the hospital). The NY Times had an article on that very situation in a South American country last year.

The next dumb decision made by the court was in regard to police chases. When they reported on it, ABC News noted that 30% of the victims of vehicle chases are innocent civilians. The issue at hand was the danger that such cases pose to the general public.. That 30% number clearly showed that police chases are a danger to the public. What I haven't seen is a report that shows how often criminals that escape car chases are caught later. Nor have I seen the percentages of captures when there is no chase involved. In other words what is the clearance rate for crimes that involved vehicles but not police pursuits. Is it possible to catch the criminal without the initial pursuit? If so shouldn't, for the safety of the public, there be restrictions on the conditions under which a pursuit will be undertaken? After all, given that most criminals in vehicles do not want to bring attention to themselves and want to survive to enjoy the spoils of their crime; wouldn't they be more likely to not speed, crash, dodge and weave and do those things that can get civilians killed? And if the ultimate purpose of policing is to keep the public safe, then why is a 30% civilian casualty rate acceptable but not a rarely performed abortion procedure?

Shiavo posts:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-kicking-horse-some-more-i-was.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/insanity-of-it-all-today-i-read-op-ed.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/teri-shiavo-and-you-even-though-most.html

Technorati Tags: critique, privacy, Supreme Court, US Constitution