Racism Flashcards
Reducing Violence & Investing - Brookings Institution - 2021
The recent rise in violent crime, particularly the nearly 30% increase in murders in 2020, is largely concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods with pre-existing high rates of gun violence, challenging claims that protests or progressive policies are to blame. Research shows that place-based interventions, such as renovating vacant lots (Studies conducted in Philadelphia found that renovating vacant lots and rehabilitating vacant buildings in high-poverty areas resulted in significant reductions in violent crime, with one study showing a 29% drop in violent crime following these efforts), repairing homes (Another study in Philadelphia demonstrated a 21.9% reduction in total crime due to structural repairs to homes of low-income residents in majority-Black neighborhoods), and urban greening (the presence of street lighting, painted sidewalks, and public transportation decreased homicide odds by 76% in one study), can reduce violence, while economic factors like unemployment and income inequality are strongly linked to crime rates.
(It’s called urban greening because it involves adding or improving green spaces and natural elements in urban environments—like trees, parks, gardens, and vegetation. But the term has grown to include broader environmental design changes that make neighborhoods more livable, attractive, and safe.
Painted sidewalks are sidewalks that have been enhanced with colorful artwork, patterns, or murals—often created by local artists or community members. They’re used in urban design to:
• Beautify neighborhoods
• Encourage foot traffic
• Foster community identity
• Increase visibility and safety (bright colors can slow down drivers and make areas feel more cared for)
They’re especially common in placemaking projects, where cities try to turn public spaces into vibrant, engaging areas. In the context of crime reduction, painted sidewalks are part of broader “urban greening” and environmental design strategies that signal investment in the neighborhood and discourage criminal activity through increased community presence and pride).
Community-based programs, workforce development initiatives, and efforts to improve social cohesion have also proven effective in lowering gun violence, yet these grassroots organizations remain underfunded compared to law enforcement, underscoring the need for a holistic, long-term approach to reducing crime through economic and structural improvements. Youth workforce development programs have been shown to reduce youth involvement in violence by up to 45%. Programs like Advance Peace, which hire formerly incarcerated residents to mediate conflicts, have contributed to significant drops in gun homicides in cities like Stockton and Sacramento.
Studies:
The statistics regarding crime reduction in Philadelphia stem from two key studies:
- Vacant Lot Renovations:
Study: “Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). 
Findings: This study found a 29% reduction in gun violence near treated vacant lots. 
- Home Repairs:
Study: “Association Between Structural Housing Repairs for Low-Income Homeowners and Neighborhood Crime” published in JAMA Network Open (2021). 
Findings: This research demonstrated a 21.9% decrease in total crime on blocks where homes received structural repairs through Philadelphia’s Basic Systems Repair Program (BSRP).
JAMA Network Open is a peer-reviewed, open-access medical journal published by the American Medical Association (AMA). It covers a wide range of health research topics, including public health, epidemiology, and social determinants of health. Because it’s open access, anyone can read the studies without a subscription.
The Basic Systems Repair Program (BSRP) is a Philadelphia city program run by the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation (PHDC). It provides free structural home repairs—like fixing electrical, plumbing, heating, or roofing systems—to low-income homeowners. The goal is to help residents stay in their homes safely while also improving the condition of housing in the community.
In the 2021 study, researchers found that crime dropped by 21.9% on blocks where BSRP repairs were made, especially in majority-Black neighborhoods, showing a link between housing stability and public safety.
Elimination of Cash Bail Seems to be Working - Illinois Times - 2023
Since the elimination of cash bail in Illinois, Sangamon County (Sangamon County is located in the central part of Illinois. Its county seat is Springfield) Jail’s daily population has decreased by one-third, without any significant rise in crime rates. Judges now rely on detailed information to decide whether to release or detain defendants before trial, with hearings held daily (Court hearings are now held every weekday in Sangamon County in which judges rule whether newly arrested criminal defendants are detained until trial or released with conditions and mandates that they show up for future court dates. Some charges don’t qualify for detention at all. Other charges justify detention only if judges rule a defendant is a threat to public safety or a flight risk). Though some officials, like Sheriff Jack Campbell, remain skeptical of the law, citing concerns over repeat offenders, others, including public defenders and criminal justice reform advocates, argue the system has improved fairness by reducing unnecessary pretrial incarceration for low-income individuals. Data is still being collected to assess the long-term effects of the law. Sangamon County judges are agreeing with prosecutors almost 70% of the time when the State’s Attorney’s Office has requested detention.
(A flight risk is someone who’s considered likely to flee or run away to avoid legal consequences—usually before a trial or court appearance. It’s most commonly used in legal settings, like when a judge is deciding whether to grant someone bail or pretrial release.
If a person is labeled a flight risk, it usually means:
• They have a history of not showing up to court
• They have the means or motive to escape (like money, fake documents, or ties to other countries)
• The charges are serious enough that fleeing might seem preferable to facing punishment).
The impact of anti-DEI legislation
Conservative legislators in multiple states, including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, have initiated measures targeting diversity programs in state agencies, schools, and private companies, with at least 10 states already implementing restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These policies vary but often prohibit state funds from supporting diversity-based initiatives, like those seen in Alabama, or outright ban diversity offices in universities, as in Texas. Proposed restrictions in other states have faced scrutiny, with critics arguing they impede progress on addressing inequality. (They contend that such restrictions limit access to information and resources for marginalized groups, leading to the underrepresentation of these groups in higher education and perpetuating longstanding social inequities. Additionally, they argue that these policies can result in self-censorship among educators, who may avoid discussions on race, gender, and sexual orientation in classrooms due to fear of repercussions such as job loss or lawsuits from parents. Overall, critics argue that these measures hinder the advancement of initiatives intended to rectify historical discriminatory practices and promote inclusivity.) Supporters claim these measures combat what they perceive as divisive indoctrination, echoing concerns about censorship and halting progress in addressing social inequities, particularly in higher education. Some universities have disbanded DEI-related offices and programs to comply with these restrictions, which have faced legal challenges, with some judges blocking enforcement due to First Amendment concerns. (Judges have blocked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE” Act in Florida from restricting race-related training or programs in the workplace and higher education, arguing that the law’s restrictions are unenforceable and violate the First Amendment).
When DEI is gone: A look at the fallout at one Texas university - ABC - 2024
Universities across the U.S. have been impacted by anti-DEI legislation, such as Texas’ SB 17, which led to the closure of diversity offices, job losses, and the discontinuation of programs designed to support marginalized students. At the University of Texas-Austin, the loss of these resources has left students, especially undocumented and temporary status students, without vital support systems like Monarch, which previously provided mental health resources, career guidance, and scholarships. Now, student-run organizations have stepped up to fill the gap, but the burden of offering these services has fallen on the students themselves, straining their capacity to meet the needs of affected groups.
The legislation, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in 2023, prohibits DEI offices at public universities, aiming to ensure merit-based advancement. Supporters of the law argue it prevents universities from advancing political agendas, while critics say it undermines support for historically marginalized groups. Students have voiced concerns that the closures have left them without essential resources and created a chilling effect on discussions around race, gender, and sexual orientation in academic settings. Some fear these changes mark the beginning of broader anti-DEI efforts.
Jews & Hispanics - Chat GPT
“Jewish” isn’t a race in the traditional biological sense, but Jewish identity can encompass elements of ethnicity, religion, culture, and shared history.
Religion: At its core, Judaism is a religion, with people identifying as Jewish by practicing Jewish laws, customs, and rituals.
Ethnicity and Culture: Many Jewish people share ethnic and cultural elements, including traditions, language (like Yiddish or Hebrew), and historical experiences. This has created distinct Jewish ethnic groups, like Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews, each with unique cultural traits.
Race and Genetics: While not a “race” in the strictest sense, some studies have shown that Jewish groups share certain genetic markers due to historical separation and intermarriage patterns. However, Jewish people belong to various racial backgrounds, including Black, White, Asian, and more.
The concept of Jewish identity is complex and varies widely among individuals and communities, but it generally isn’t limited to a single race.
Many Jewish people, particularly Ashkenazi Jews (those from Central and Eastern Europe), are generally classified as white, especially in Western societies. However, Jewish identity is diverse, and Jewish communities exist worldwide with a broad range of racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Here’s a quick look at the major groups:
Ashkenazi Jews (European origin): Many Ashkenazi Jews are perceived as white, particularly in Western countries.
Sephardi Jews (Spain, Portugal, North Africa, and the Middle East): While often considered “white” in some Western contexts, many Sephardi Jews are of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern descent.
Mizrahi Jews (Middle Eastern origin): Mizrahi Jews are from places like Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries, often with darker skin tones than European Jews.
Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel): Ethiopian Jews are Black, reflecting African ancestry.
Jewish identity encompasses a range of racial backgrounds, influenced by the diverse places where Jewish communities have lived historically. In today’s multicultural world, Jewish people are racially diverse, though many, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, might be viewed as white by societal standards.
The concept of “race” is complex and has evolved over time. Traditionally, race has been used to classify people based on physical characteristics, such as skin color, facial features, and ancestry. However, these categories are socially constructed rather than biologically grounded; genetic studies show that human variation doesn’t conform neatly to racial categories.
Historically, racial categories have included:
Caucasian (White): Originally from Europe, North Africa, and parts of the Middle East. Physical traits often associated with this group include lighter skin tones, varying eye and hair colors, and a range of facial features.
Mongoloid (Asian): This category includes people from East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Arctic, and Indigenous populations of the Americas. Traits often include varying skin tones, straighter hair, and a distinct set of facial characteristics.
Negroid (Black or African): This category generally refers to people of Sub-Saharan African descent. Physical traits often include darker skin tones, a broader range of hair textures, and other facial features distinct to populations in Africa.
Australoid (Indigenous Australian and Pacific Islander): This includes Indigenous Australians and some Pacific Island groups. They often have darker skin tones and other distinct features from populations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
“Hispanic” is not a race but rather an ethnic category that refers to people with cultural ties to Spanish-speaking countries, primarily in Latin America and Spain. Hispanics can belong to any race, as Latin America is incredibly diverse. The term includes people with ancestry that may be European, Indigenous, African, Asian, or a mix of these backgrounds.
Here’s a breakdown of racial backgrounds within the Hispanic category:
Mestizo: Many Latin Americans are mestizo, meaning they have a mix of Indigenous and European ancestry. This mixed-race background is very common in countries like Mexico, Central America, and much of South America.
Indigenous: Many Hispanic people are of Indigenous descent, tracing their ancestry to the native peoples of the Americas. Countries with significant Indigenous populations include Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico.
Afro-Latino: Afro-Latinos have African ancestry, often due to the transatlantic slave trade. Large Afro-Latino populations exist in countries like Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Cuba.
European: Some Hispanic people, particularly in Argentina, Uruguay, and parts of Chile, have predominantly European ancestry. These individuals may be racially categorized as white.
Asian: There are also communities of Asian descent in Latin America, particularly in countries like Peru and Brazil, where people have Chinese, Japanese, or Filipino heritage.
In the U.S., Hispanic or Latino identity is a separate ethnic category that people of any race can select on forms and censuses.
In some ways, being Hispanic is similar to being Jewish, in that both are considered ethnic identities rather than races, yet both can overlap with various racial identities. Here’s how the comparison plays out:
Ethnicity over Race: Both Jewish and Hispanic identities are ethnic or cultural categories, not strictly racial ones. They encompass shared cultural practices, languages, and histories but are not limited to one racial group.
Diverse Racial Backgrounds: Both Hispanic and Jewish people can belong to multiple racial backgrounds. Hispanic people might be of European, Indigenous, African, or Asian descent, and Jewish people can also be racially diverse, including those of European (Ashkenazi), Middle Eastern (Mizrahi), North African, Ethiopian, and even Asian backgrounds.
Religion and Culture: Judaism is both a religion and a cultural identity, so Jewish people can practice Judaism or identify culturally without religious observance. Similarly, Hispanic identity often includes shared cultural aspects like language (Spanish or Portuguese) and customs, which aren’t necessarily tied to any one race.
Historical Experiences and Diasporas: Both Jewish and Hispanic people share histories of migration and diaspora. Jewish communities have historically settled across many countries, leading to varied racial appearances, languages, and customs. Likewise, Hispanic identity spans across Latin America and beyond, leading to regional diversity within a shared cultural framework.
In essence, both identities are broad and encompass a range of racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds, which makes them complex and diverse categories that go beyond simple racial definitions.
Where did we get the idea that only white people can be racist? - Peter Wood - National Association of Scholars
The defense of incoming Boston University professor Saida Grundy’s tweets labeling white college males as a “problem population” reveals a significant shift in how racism is understood by some academic and activist circles. Grundy’s supporters argue her comments are not racist but rather provoke needed discomfort about white privilege, with defenders using the hashtag #isupportsaida to emphasize this perspective. This defense reflects a widespread, if controversial, belief within the diversity industry that racism can only exist when backed by structural power. Consultants like Shakti Butler promote this idea to universities, suggesting that only whites, as members of a historically dominant group, can be racist, while racial biases or hostilities expressed by minorities are expressions of justified anger rather than racism.
This definition of racism has roots in movements like the Black Panthers and has gained traction with certain scholars and activists who reject the traditional concept of racism in favor of one that excludes the possibility of “reverse racism.” Critics argue this view distorts the reality of racial prejudice and overlooks significant legal and social progress that has dismantled much of America’s historical racial hierarchy. Redefining racism solely as “a system of advantage based on race” discounts the role of racial biases that don’t fit neatly into systemic oppression models. They contend that this narrow view fosters a new form of racism by allowing the categorization and division of groups based solely on race, perpetuating hierarchy under the guise of equity and overlooking the complexities of social inequity beyond race alone.
Saida Grundy’s comments about white college males being a “problem population” were meant to provoke discussion on privilege and systemic inequalities in higher education. Her statement highlighted what she saw as a reluctance within “white America” to confront or critique white male privilege and its impact on educational and societal structures. Grundy likely intended to challenge dominant narratives that overlook the ways in which privilege shapes the experiences and opportunities of certain groups, arguing that this privilege often goes unexamined, particularly in elite academic settings. However, her remarks stirred controversy because critics viewed them as unfairly targeting white males and as potentially racist, while supporters argued they were a way of bringing awareness to issues of racial and gender privilege.
The Fallacy of Reverse Racism - Socialist Worker - 1987
The article critiques the idea of “reverse racism,” arguing that racism is not just individual animosity but a systemic oppression rooted in economic and social structures that disadvantage Black Americans. This systemic racism manifests in higher Black unemployment rates, poverty, wage disparities, and ongoing segregation in schools and neighborhoods, issues that go beyond personal biases and are maintained by capitalist systems to keep the working class divided.
Throughout history, accusations of “Black racism” have often been used to discredit Black activists and nationalists who resist this oppression. Figures like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, who advocated for Black pride and self-defense, were labeled as “racists” to detract from their criticisms of segregation and police violence. The civil rights era saw debates about self-defense versus nonviolent protest, with some activists endorsing armed resistance against violent oppression. Black organizations and nationalist movements advocating for independent Black leadership were often seen as threatening and faced backlash from both liberals and conservatives.
The article argues that these charges of “Black racism” distract from addressing the roots of racial inequality, which lie in capitalist exploitation. Calls for racial unity from liberals often ignore the need for systemic change, focusing instead on superficial peace. Socialists, by contrast, advocate for a working-class unity based on recognizing Black oppression and supporting Black self-determination. True solidarity requires acknowledging the unique struggles of Black Americans and fighting the capitalist system that perpetuates racial divisions.
The Link Between Crime and Poverty in the U.S. by State - Jim Hughes, Open Cash Advance, February 15, 2022
Global and U.S. Poverty Rates:
In 2021, 711 million people (about 10% of the global population) lived in extreme poverty (World Bank).
The U.S. poverty rate was 11.4% in 2020, rising from 10.5% in 2019 after five years of decline (U.S. Census Bureau).
Poverty and Crime Link:
Poverty is often linked to crime through economic strain, breakdowns in social norms, and limited resources.
Gary Becker’s Economic Theory of Crime suggests individuals commit crimes when the perceived benefits outweigh the costs.
Robert Merton’s Strain Theory highlights how economic or social alienation increases the likelihood of criminal behavior.
Notable Statistics:
The U.S. experienced a 25% rise in homicides in 2020 compared to 2019, linked to pandemic-induced economic hardship (FBI).
In 2019, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported, and 734,500 individuals were held in U.S. local jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
As of June 2020, the U.S. had the highest global incarceration rate, with 655 prisoners per 100,000 people (Statista).
Poverty Measurement in the U.S.:
The federal government uses Poverty Thresholds (Census Bureau) and Poverty Guidelines (HHS) to measure poverty and determine program eligibility.
The federal poverty level varies by household size and is updated annually.
State-Level Disparities:
Highest poverty rate: Mississippi (19.78% in 2022).
Lowest poverty rate: New Hampshire (7.16% in 2022).
Highest homicide and firearm death rates: Louisiana (12.4%) and Alaska (23%).
Lowest homicide and firearm death rates: New Hampshire (1%) and Massachusetts (3.4%).
How Poverty Leads to Crime:
Economic Hardship:
COVID-19 exacerbated poverty, leading to 74.7 million unemployment claims by March 2021.
Unemployment disproportionately affected low-wage industries, contributing to increased crime rates.
Social and Structural Factors:
Poverty correlates with incomplete education, unemployment, and family instability, which can increase crime.
Addressing poverty through quality education, equitable wages, and robust social programs is crucial to reducing crime rates.
Broader Context:
Violent and non-violent crimes are distinct, as not all crimes involve violence, and not all violence is criminal.
Understanding the multifaceted causes of crime—beyond poverty—is critical for effective prevention strategies.
Black Inventions - Chat GPT
You’re absolutely right to point out the crucial role that social and historical contexts play in the development of technology and innovation. The claim that Black people haven’t contributed substantially to inventions is both incorrect and rooted in a failure to understand how systemic oppression has limited opportunities for marginalized groups throughout history.
Historically, Black people have been systematically excluded from educational systems, economic opportunities, and positions of power in societies that were driving technological progress. For example, during the height of industrial and technological advancements in Europe and the United States, Black people were often enslaved, colonized, or otherwise oppressed. This lack of access to resources, formal education, and intellectual spaces inevitably suppressed their ability to contribute visibly to technological and scientific fields.
Despite these barriers, Black inventors have made countless contributions that are foundational to modern life. Here are a few examples:
1. Garrett Morgan - Invented the traffic signal and the gas mask.
2. Lewis Latimer - Played a crucial role in the development of the electric light bulb by inventing a more durable carbon filament.
3. Madam C.J. Walker - Pioneered the modern hair care and cosmetics industry.
4. Dr. Shirley Jackson - Made significant contributions to telecommunications, including technologies behind caller ID and fiber optics.
5. Otis Boykin - Invented components for the pacemaker and improved resistors used in computers and radios.
It’s important to emphasize that technological advancement often reflects societal structures of power, not inherent ability. For most of history, those in power had access to wealth, education, and institutions that preserved their legacies and inventions. Conversely, the achievements of Black individuals were frequently erased, stolen, or under-acknowledged.
The argument you’re describing also seems to veer into pseudoscience, using discredited ideas about “genetic intelligence” that have been debunked repeatedly by scientists. Intelligence and creativity are universal human traits, not tied to race, and the disparities in visible contributions stem from systemic inequities, not inherent differences.
Your point about the lack of social power is crucial. Black people have faced and continue to face structural barriers that limit their ability to access and capitalize on opportunities. But history shows that when those barriers are removed or diminished, Black innovation flourishes, disproving the racist assumptions underlying such threads.
The author of that tweet may be partially correct about the earlier existence of versions of the gas mask and traffic signals, but their claim oversimplifies and misrepresents the history of these inventions. Garrett Morgan didn’t invent the first-ever gas mask or traffic signal; instead, he made significant improvements to these technologies, which had profound impacts on their usability and effectiveness. Let’s break it down:
Gas Mask
• Before Garrett Morgan:
• Early versions of gas masks existed in the 19th century. For instance, the “smoke hood” was used in the 1820s, and later designs in the mid-1800s offered basic protection against dust and smoke.
• Garrett Morgan’s Contribution:
• In 1914, Morgan patented a safety hood and smoke protector that was highly practical for rescue missions in smoky and toxic environments. His design included a system that allowed fresh air to be drawn in while filtering out smoke and pollutants.
• His invention saved lives during rescue operations, such as the 1916 Cleveland Waterworks disaster, and became a precursor to modern gas masks used by firefighters and soldiers.
Traffic Signal
• Before Garrett Morgan:
• Primitive traffic control devices existed in the 19th century. For example, a manually-operated traffic signal with semaphore arms was installed in London in 1868. Later, electrically powered signals appeared in the early 1900s.
• Garrett Morgan’s Contribution:
• In 1923, Morgan patented an automated traffic signal with a “T-shaped” design. What made his innovation notable was the inclusion of an intermediate stop position, which allowed for safer transitions between stop and go signals. This innovation laid the groundwork for the three-light traffic system we use today.
The Larger Issue
It’s not uncommon for inventors to build upon existing ideas—this is how innovation progresses. Garrett Morgan’s contributions are significant because his designs were practical, impactful, and advanced the utility of earlier inventions. To dismiss his work entirely because earlier iterations existed reflects either a lack of understanding or an intentional minimization of his achievements.
Additionally, this pattern of undermining Black inventors is common in racist narratives, which often focus on discrediting achievements rather than acknowledging the historical context. Many inventors, especially Black innovators, faced systemic barriers, including the lack of recognition for their work due to racism. For instance, patents were often denied to Black inventors or credited to others in power.
So, while it’s true that earlier versions of the gas mask and traffic signals existed, Garrett Morgan’s innovations made them far more effective and widely adopted. His contributions deserve recognition, not dismissal.
History is full of examples where individuals who made significant improvements to existing technologies are widely recognized as “the inventors.” This phenomenon reflects how innovations are often incremental, with key contributors building upon earlier concepts. Here are a few notable examples:
Thomas Edison and the Light Bulb
• Before Edison: The concept of electric lighting existed before Thomas Edison. For example, British chemist Humphry Davy demonstrated the first electric arc lamp in 1802, and Joseph Swan developed a working incandescent light bulb in the 1870s.
• Edison’s Contribution: Edison developed a practical, long-lasting carbon filament bulb and created the necessary infrastructure (like power stations) to make electric lighting viable for widespread use. As a result, he’s often credited as the “inventor” of the light bulb, despite building on earlier efforts.
Alexander Graham Bell and the Telephone
• Before Bell: Italian inventor Antonio Meucci created an early version of a voice communication device in 1854 but lacked the resources to patent it. Similarly, Elisha Gray independently developed a similar concept around the same time as Bell.
• Bell’s Contribution: Bell successfully patented his telephone in 1876 and made it commercially viable. His ability to secure the patent and promote the device gave him historical recognition, even though the concept predated him.
The Wright Brothers and the Airplane
• Before the Wright Brothers: Many inventors, including Otto Lilienthal and Samuel Langley, worked on powered flight. Lilienthal made advancements in gliders, and Langley built an aircraft capable of sustained flight.
• The Wright Brothers’ Contribution: They created the first controlled, sustained, and powered flight in 1903 by developing critical innovations like wing-warping and a lightweight engine. Their achievement is remembered as the defining moment in aviation history, overshadowing their predecessors.
James Watt and the Steam Engine
• Before Watt: The steam engine existed before James Watt, with Thomas Newcomen’s engine (1712) being a significant precursor.
• Watt’s Contribution: Watt improved the engine’s efficiency by adding a separate condenser, which made steam power practical for widespread industrial use. His improvements revolutionized the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution, leading to his recognition as the “father of the steam engine.”
Guglielmo Marconi and the Radio
• Before Marconi: Nikola Tesla and others had already demonstrated the principles of wireless communication before Marconi.
• Marconi’s Contribution: Marconi successfully turned wireless communication into a practical system, obtaining key patents and creating the first commercial radio telegraphy system. This earned him the title of the “inventor” of the radio, though Tesla’s contributions were later recognized.
Steve Jobs and the Smartphone
• Before Jobs: Devices like the IBM Simon (1992) and early BlackBerry models were precursors to smartphones.
• Jobs’ Contribution: Steve Jobs and Apple revolutionized the concept of a smartphone with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. Its design, user interface, and ecosystem set the standard for modern smartphones, making Jobs synonymous with the innovation.
Why This Happens
This dynamic often occurs because:
1. Practicality: The person who makes an invention usable and commercially viable often garners recognition.
2. Timing: They introduce their improvements at the right time, when society is ready to adopt them.
3. Marketing and Influence: Their ability to promote and protect their work (e.g., through patents) plays a huge role in their legacy.
4. Historical Bias: Marginalized inventors may have been overlooked or excluded, amplifying the visibility of those with more resources or societal power.
This pattern highlights that invention is rarely the work of a single person but often the culmination of collective progress and incremental improvements.
Martin Luther King Jr. Infidelity - Chat GPT
There is evidence suggesting that Martin Luther King Jr. was unfaithful to his wife, Coretta Scott King. FBI surveillance, conducted as part of its efforts to discredit King during the Civil Rights Movement, reportedly captured incriminating information regarding extramarital affairs. However, much of this evidence remains controversial, as the FBI’s surveillance was politically motivated and not always reliable.
While historians and biographers have acknowledged King’s personal flaws, including allegations of infidelity, they also emphasize that these aspects should not overshadow his monumental contributions to the fight for civil rights and social justice. Coretta Scott King, for her part, remained committed to King and his legacy, and she played a pivotal role in carrying forward his work after his assassination.
The evidence regarding Martin Luther King Jr.‘s alleged infidelity primarily comes from FBI surveillance conducted under J. Edgar Hoover’s leadership. The FBI launched a covert campaign against King, known as COINTELPRO, in an effort to discredit him and undermine the Civil Rights Movement. The surveillance included wiretaps, hidden microphones, and hotel room bugging. Here’s an overview of the key pieces of evidence:
- FBI Recordings
• The FBI placed King under extensive surveillance starting in 1963, claiming concerns about communist influences in his movement.
• Secret recordings allegedly captured conversations and activities suggesting King engaged in extramarital affairs. The FBI sent one such tape anonymously to Coretta Scott King, along with a letter intended to pressure King to step down or even take his own life.
• While the tape reportedly included audio of sexual encounters, its authenticity has been questioned, and it has never been released publicly. - FBI Files
• Declassified FBI files suggest that the agency documented King’s interactions with women who were not his wife, including reports of King staying in hotel rooms with other women during civil rights events.
• These files were written by agents whose goal was to tarnish King’s reputation, so their objectivity is often criticized. - Historians’ Accounts
• In his 1989 biography “Bearing the Cross,” historian David Garrow detailed some of the claims based on FBI files and recordings, suggesting that King had consensual extramarital relationships.
• Garrow and others argue that the FBI’s evidence appears credible in certain cases, but the overarching campaign to destroy King’s reputation casts a shadow over its validity. - Unsealed 2027 Documents
• Some of the FBI’s surveillance material, sealed in the National Archives, is set to be unsealed in 2027. This may provide more clarity about the extent and nature of the allegations.
Controversies and Limitations
• Motivations of the FBI: The FBI’s actions were rooted in hostility toward King and the Civil Rights Movement, leading many to question the reliability of its claims.
• Lack of Public Evidence: Most evidence remains classified or unavailable, and the tapes have not been independently verified.
While many historians and biographers accept that King likely had extramarital relationships, they caution against drawing conclusions solely based on the FBI’s biased accounts. These allegations are often framed within a broader context of King’s humanity, emphasizing that personal flaws should not diminish his monumental contributions to civil rights and social justice.
The FBI’s campaign to destroy Martin Luther King Jr.’s reputation was part of a broader effort under COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program), a secret initiative led by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. This program aimed to surveil, discredit, and disrupt civil rights leaders, organizations, and other perceived threats to the U.S. government. King was a primary target due to his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement, his growing influence, and his advocacy for racial and economic justice.
Key Aspects of the FBI’s Campaign Against King
- Surveillance and Wiretapping
• The FBI began wiretapping King’s phones and placing hidden microphones in his hotel rooms in 1963.
• The FBI justified this surveillance by falsely linking King to communists, particularly Stanley Levison, a trusted advisor.
• The surveillance aimed to gather personal and potentially compromising information to tarnish King’s public image. - Smear Campaign
• The FBI compiled reports on King’s alleged sexual activities and sought to use this information to discredit him among allies and the public.
• Hoover authorized agents to share unverified and damaging information about King with politicians, journalists, and religious leaders, hoping to erode his support. - Anonymous Letter to King
• In 1964, the FBI sent an anonymous letter to King, along with an alleged tape of his sexual encounters. The letter accused him of being morally unfit to lead and suggested he should commit suicide to avoid public disgrace.
• The letter read, in part: “King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is.”
• Coretta Scott King received the package, but King and his advisors recognized it as an attempt to undermine him. - Propaganda Efforts
• The FBI fed negative stories about King to the media, attempting to portray him as corrupt, immoral, or a threat to national security.
• Agents actively sought to divide King’s supporters by sowing distrust and spreading misinformation within the Civil Rights Movement. - Disruption of Civil Rights Activities
• The FBI tried to undermine King’s leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) by creating internal conflicts and sabotaging funding efforts.
• They monitored King’s speeches and public appearances, often exaggerating his criticisms of the government or framing him as a radical. - Opposition to King’s Anti-War Stance
• When King began speaking out against the Vietnam War in 1967, the FBI intensified its efforts, accusing him of being unpatriotic and attempting to link him to communist agendas.
• King’s criticism of economic inequality and his plans for the Poor People’s Campaign also heightened the FBI’s hostility.
J. Edgar Hoover’s Role
Hoover had a personal vendetta against King, viewing him as a threat to the status quo and an obstacle to law enforcement. Hoover publicly called King the “most notorious liar in the country” and worked tirelessly to discredit him both personally and professionally.
Outcomes and Legacy
Despite the FBI’s extensive efforts, their campaign failed to derail King’s leadership or diminish his legacy. After his assassination in 1968, many of the FBI’s unethical actions came to light, leading to widespread criticism of COINTELPRO. In the 1970s, the U.S. Congress investigated these abuses through the Church Committee, revealing the scope of the FBI’s illegal and unethical activities.
Today, the FBI’s actions against King are widely regarded as a dark chapter in American history, showcasing the dangers of unchecked government surveillance and abuse of power.
The FBI’s covert campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and others involved in the Civil Rights Movement came to light primarily through investigations and revelations in the 1970s, most notably as a result of the following events:
- 1971 Burglary of an FBI Office
• A group of activists, known as the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI, broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, on March 8, 1971.
• They stole thousands of classified documents, including memos detailing COINTELPRO operations.
• The documents were sent to newspapers, including The Washington Post and The New York Times. This exposed the FBI’s illegal surveillance and sabotage of civil rights organizations, anti-war activists, and other groups.
• Among the documents were references to the surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., though specifics were not fully clear yet. - The Church Committee Investigation (1975)
• In response to growing public outrage over government abuses, the U.S. Senate formed the Church Committee, led by Senator Frank Church.
• This committee conducted a thorough investigation into the FBI, CIA, and NSA’s misconduct, including COINTELPRO operations.
• The investigation uncovered the FBI’s attempts to discredit King through surveillance, blackmail, and smear campaigns.
• The Church Committee revealed that the FBI had deliberately targeted King as part of a broader effort to suppress dissent and control political activism. - Declassification of FBI Files
• Over the years, many FBI files related to COINTELPRO and the surveillance of King have been declassified, providing additional details about the extent of the FBI’s actions.
• These documents include memos detailing the FBI’s obsession with discrediting King, the anonymous suicide letter sent to him, and the agency’s attempts to undermine his work in the Civil Rights Movement. - David Garrow’s Research
• In 1981, historian David Garrow published the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography “Bearing the Cross”, which used declassified FBI documents and other sources to detail the FBI’s actions against King.
• Garrow’s research brought to light the full scope of the FBI’s surveillance and harassment of King, making it widely accessible to the public. - Public Awareness of COINTELPRO
• The revelations about COINTELPRO, combined with the Church Committee’s findings, painted a clear picture of the FBI’s abuse of power under J. Edgar Hoover.
• Public scrutiny forced the government to dismantle COINTELPRO and implement some reforms to limit surveillance abuses, such as the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.
Legacy of the Revelations
The exposure of the FBI’s actions highlighted the dangers of unchecked government power and surveillance. It also solidified King’s legacy as a courageous leader who faced not only societal racism but also deliberate sabotage from the U.S. government itself. While many details about the FBI’s surveillance of King remain classified, the full truth is expected to become clearer when additional files are unsealed in 2027.
Examining The Reasons For Chicago’s Violence - NPR; 2016
Michel Martin (Host)
Reports that Chicago had 90 homicides in August, the highest in 20 years, with 472 people shot that month.
Highlights various possible causes: guns, repeat offenders, economy, gangs, education system, and geography.
Lonnae O’Neal (Senior Writer, ESPN’s The Undefeated)
Argues that violence in Chicago has deep historical roots, citing Al Capone and the city’s gangster history.
Believes violence is caused by a mix of factors accumulated over decades, and a lack of political will to address them.
Andre Hamlin (Former Gang Member, Security Head for Derrick Rose)
Says lack of activities for youth leads to crime.
Describes personal experience of getting into trouble due to “too much downtime.”
Dr. Carl Bell (Psychiatrist, 45 years in Chicago)
Suggests fetal alcohol exposure contributes to poor impulse control and violence.
Notes liquor store concentration in poor neighborhoods leads to unintended prenatal alcohol exposure, later manifesting in violent behavior.
Father Mike Pfleger (Chicago Faith Leader)
Criticizes faith-based communities for being silent on gun violence.
Believes churches need to reclaim their moral voice and hold corporate America and government accountable.
Reverend Jesse Jackson (Civil Rights Leader)
Attributes violence to poverty, lack of jobs, and economic inequality.
Argues Chicago’s inner city is neglected compared to wealthier areas.
Calls for a White House conference on violence, investments in jobs, education, and poverty reduction.
Criticizes lack of response from Illinois’ governor, Congress, and the White House.
Expresses determination to keep fighting for solutions.
Main Takeaway
Chicago’s violence crisis is driven by historical, social, economic, and systemic factors, requiring urgent intervention in jobs, education, and community programs.
Curbing Chicago crime, one jigsaw cut at a time - Richard Mertens; The Christian Science Monitor; March 29, 2022
Gun Violence and Community Solutions in Chicago
Shawn was at home when he heard gunshots. Outside, he found his best friend, Brandon McKnight, bleeding on the sidewalk. Brandon was shot by two men on 66th Street and died that night in a Chicago hospital. His death was one of many in the city, part of a surge in gun violence.
Rising Homicide Rates:
Chicago homicides:
943 in 1992
Dropped to 415 in 2013
Rose to 797 in 2021 (highest in 25 years)
Other cities like Philadelphia are also seeing record murders.
Possible Causes:
COVID-19 disruptions
Civil unrest and “defund the police” backlash
Systemic issues: segregation, inequality, distrust of police
Political & Law Enforcement Responses:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot proposed property confiscation from gang members.
NYC Mayor Eric Adams reinstated an anti-gun unit.
Community-Based Solutions:
Anti-violence programs focus on youth outreach, community-building, and promoting nonviolence.
Illinois allocated $250 million over three years for such initiatives.
Biden’s Build Back Better plan included $5 billion for community intervention.
Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation (PBMR):
A Catholic-run organization helping at-risk youth with job training, education, and mental health support.
Based in Chicago’s Near South Side, using “radical hospitality” to welcome those failed by other systems.
Organizes peace circles, outreach work, and employment programs like woodworking and T-shirt printing.
Restorative Justice & Violence Prevention:
Outreach workers help at-risk youth with court appearances, job interviews, and conflict mediation.
Programs provide stipends to encourage participation.
Research shows they reduce individual involvement in shootings but don’t significantly lower citywide crime rates.
Urban Renewal as Crime Prevention:
Flint, Michigan’s “Clean and Green” program maintains 3,600 vacant lots.
University of Michigan study found a 40% drop in violent crime in treated areas.
(From Genesee County Land Bank website: The Clean & Green program, initiated in 2004 by the Genesee County Land Bank Authority, aims to engage community groups in maintaining and beautifying vacant properties in and around Flint, Michigan. Over its 20-year span, the program has achieved significant milestones:
Community Engagement: Approximately 10,000 residents have participated, including over 4,250 youth, with more than 1,150 of them employed through the program.
Financial Investment: Nearly $7 million has been directly invested into community-based organizations participating in Clean & Green.
Property Maintenance: Collectively, participants have completed over 333,000 vacant property mowings, valued at more than $15.5 million. Additionally, nearly 600 vacant houses have been decoratively boarded by Clean & Green groups.
Beyond aesthetic improvements, the program has contributed to public safety. Research by the University of Michigan’s Youth Violence Prevention Center indicates that areas maintained by Clean & Green experienced 30% fewer assaults and 40% fewer violent crimes overall compared to areas without such community-engaged greening activities.
In its 2024 season, Clean & Green maintained nearly 3,500 vacant properties every three weeks, resulting in approximately 30,000 mowings. The program engaged over 500 residents, including nearly 300 youth, and contributed to blight elimination efforts valued at more than $1.5 million).
Shawn’s Perspective:
Grew up in a gang environment, arrested twice on gun charges.
Counts “10 dead, like 30 in jail” among his friends.
Struggles with the unpredictability of street violence.
Finds refuge at PBMR, working in the print shop, trying to build a future.
Despite ongoing violence, efforts like PBMR and urban renewal programs offer hope by tackling both individual trauma and systemic issues.
Why People Misperceive Crime Trends (Chicago Is Not the Murder Capital) - Toni Monkovic and Jeff Asher; The New York Times: TheUpShot; 2021
Crime Perception vs. Reality:
A New York Times quiz revealed misconceptions about crime, especially in Chicago, where most wrongly thought it had the highest murder rate (it was actually seventh).
Media, politics, and public bias contribute to inaccurate crime perceptions.
(As of 2022, several U.S. cities had higher per capita homicide rates than Chicago. Six of these cities include:
New Orleans, Louisiana: In 2022, New Orleans experienced a significant increase in homicides, leading to a homicide rate higher than that of Chicago.
Jackson, Mississippi: In 2022, Jackson reported a total of 138 murders, resulting in a homicide rate of 89.8 per 100,000 residents, surpassing Chicago’s rate.
East St. Louis, Illinois: This city has consistently experienced high violent crime rates. In 2013, its per capita homicide rate was about 18 times the national average, indicating a higher rate than Chicago.
St. Louis, Missouri: Historically, St. Louis has had one of the highest homicide rates in the U.S., often exceeding that of Chicago.
Baltimore, Maryland: Baltimore has consistently reported higher per capita homicide rates compared to Chicago.
Detroit, Michigan: Detroit’s homicide rate has frequently surpassed that of Chicago in recent years.
It’s important to note that while Chicago often reports a higher total number of homicides due to its larger population, its per capita homicide rate is lower than that of these cities. Per capita rates provide a more accurate comparison of homicide prevalence relative to population size).
Murder vs. Overall Crime Trends:
While the U.S. murder rate rose by 25% in 2020 (largest increase on record), overall crime declined, largely due to a drop in property crime.
Property crime fell by 7.9% in 2020, likely due to COVID-related restrictions limiting opportunities for theft.
Public Misconceptions About Crime:
People consistently believe crime is rising, even when data shows otherwise (Pew and Gallup polls confirm this long-term trend).
(Pew Research Center and Gallup are both well-known organizations that conduct public opinion polling and research on social, political, and economic issues.
Pew Research Center: A nonpartisan think tank that provides data-driven analysis on various topics, including politics, social trends, technology, and demographics. Known for conducting extensive surveys and publishing reports based on public opinion research. Does not take policy positions but provides research that helps inform policymakers, journalists, and the public.
Gallup: A global analytics and advisory company best known for its public opinion polls on political, economic, and social issues. Conducts the Gallup Poll, which tracks public sentiment on topics like presidential approval ratings, employment trends, and global well-being. Founded in 1935, it has a long history of measuring public opinion and workforce trends).
Psychological “negativity bias” makes bad news more memorable and influential in shaping perceptions.
Police Budgets and Murder Rates:
No clear link between police budget cuts and rising murder rates in 2020.
Of 105 major cities, most increased police budgets, yet murder still rose.
Budget changes in 2020 were typical of economic downturns (like during the Great Recession).
Conclusion:
Crime trends are complex, and public perceptions are often misaligned with reality due to media coverage, political narratives, and psychological biases.
Thomas Sowell Critiques - Reddit
- “In a vacuum, Sowell seem serious and well-researched”
As an academic, he is considered utterly irrelevant by both his fellow economists and other social scientists more broadly. To quote another user from r/AskEconomics,
“You can think of him as the representation of someone at Chicago in the early 1970s who has essentially never looked or internalized any research past that point. He’s not someone who is taken especially seriously or cited at all by modern scholars.”
His last serious academic contributions were in the 1970s (e.g., see his profile on REPEC and look at the years). Since then, he has become a full-time right-wing pundit engaged in US “culture wars” narratives (see here for insight on the nature and content of American “culture wars”), who spends his time promoting anti-intellectualism (see here for insight on US anti-intellectualism and its relationship with conservative actors) and writing pop books meant to provide a sheen of scientism to conservative beliefs or policies (e.g., see entries for his work on Google Scholar, again, look at what he published since the 70s), i.e., bullshit.
To clarify a bit following discussions: I am pushing back here on the idea that Thomas Sowell is a serious academic and a credible expert, and that people can take his claims at face value. What I recommend is to be skeptical about his writings and if possible, to seek more credible and reliable sources of information.
Sowell is often cited by conservative people and other right-wing pundits like him to support their beliefs about the condition of Black people in the US (e.g., see the culture of poverty thesis which I briefly discuss below) and to dismiss mainstream explanations (such as systemic racism). As I have argued elsewhere (again, see my discussion on anti-intellectualism in the US), American conservatives do not wholesale reject the concept of “experts” - they often do have people with a similar status as “intellectuals,” such as Sowell, who serve to provide legitimacy to particular ideas, policies, etc. Regardless, propping up false authorities or giving undue weight to fringe scholarship (while denigrating mainstream scholarship) are common techniques of denialism.
For those who are interested in the kind of topics which scientists research, especially those who are not trained in a given discipline or lack relevant knowledge, there are some critical thinking skills which I strongly encourage cultivating, such as vetting your sources (i.e., is a paper legit?) and asking yourself whether someone is a credible expert or a false authority, keeping in mind that there is a cottage industry of bullshit which operates alongside long-running political efforts to undermine mainstream knowledge-producing institutions not considered to be aligned with conservative goals. [Edit end]
[Last edit] I will briefly make a last general comment addressing the reactions to my reply. I am fully aware that I have not engaged with the book in question (Black Rednecks and White Liberals), I am not daft. This was deliberate. My reply outright begins by quoting the following claim, “In a vacuum, Sowell seem serious and well-researched.” I am convinced that I have been explicit my main goal was to address the notion that Sowell is a credible and reliable source of information, and whether he merits consideration. If you believe otherwise and that it is worthwhile to engage with his ideas, that’s on you.
Ideally we would all engage in extended good faith and intellectually edifying discussions, but I choose to deal with reality. Debunking bullshit frequently requires the expenditure of considerable amounts of time and efforts (precious resources which each of us have in limited stock), and by the time you have finished pointing out the issues with a given pile of bullshit, a greater pile has likely already been amassed. You end up being bogged in and repeating the same exercise over and over again. Therefore, I would recommend being more discerning as to avoid exercises in futility. I do not believe that popularity is an appropriate criteria. Skillful bullshitters are often popular; the point of bullshit is to persuade large audiences regardless of substance.
That said, I have cut to the chase and addressed the main corpus of ideas that Sowell, and other like-minded conservative pundits, have been hammering on for decades: again, see below, where I explicitly discussed the culture of poverty thesis. With that, I am leaving this thread alone (and no amount of baiting will get me to “debate”). [Edit end]
Given that he has virtually no contemporary presence in academia and that he lacks any credibility as an expert, and that bullshitters like him are dime a dozen, you will find few who will take the time to seriously engage with his “contributions.” I’d expect that whatever he’s argued in the book you’ve read might as well be made the fuck up.
Putting aside Sowell, you can find plenty of research and critiques of the idea that Black Americans fail to prosper because their culture is deficient, e.g., because they fail to have the “right” values to achieve succes unlike, say, Asian Americans. For illustration, see this interview with sociologist Philip Cohen who discusses the discredited status of “cultural theories” preferred by American conservatives. Also consider the work done on the “Model Minority myth”, which is often marshalled against Black Americans to dismiss structural and institutional explanations and give cover for systemic racism.
Also, more broadly, the so-called culture of poverty thesis is a zombie idea which keeps coming back, regardless of whether or not there is actual support for it. See for illustration sociologist Stephen Steinberg’s essay for the Boston Review, “Poor Reason: Culture still doesn’t explain poverty”. On the other hand, there is plenty of theoretical and empirical support for institutional, structural, and political theories of causes of poverty.
- Sowell’s theories seems kind of rough. I’ve only read a little of that book, but from anthropology I’d suggest the most pertinent theory to improve his own is in Bateson’s “on national character”.
It’s better to think of group dynamics as relational pairs, including intergroup dynamics. It’s impossible to seriously consider the reason for, outcome to, and essential nature of characteristics he considers without considering how those characteristics result from and exist in relationships, e.g. poor people’s relationship to rich people and black people’s relationship to white people.
If sowell’s theory is correct it is correct because the learned behavior of cultural groups in the south have relational pairs, such as a passive-active pair that attaches activity to the wealthy and passivity to the poor. Given the origin of agrarian politics and culture in the south, i.e. plantations and serfdom, it should be reasonable to see where this relational behavior stems from. It would require more knowledge of southern cultural dynamics to know exactly how historic relationship between groups shaped behavior and outcomes through such relationships.
There is absolutely a cultural divide between southern, Anglican, agrarian, rural culture, and both northern puritan culture and mid Atlantic protestant/capitalist culture which are both heavily industrial and urban. Specific differences in immigrant behavior in those regions also contributes to cultural differences.
- One critique is how he seems to push non mainstream econ ideas such as “cutting taxes for rich pay for themselves through economic growth in 2020”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc-bELgAowU
https://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf
But that has been studied and proven false.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/do-tax-cuts-pay-themselves
Some advocates of tax cuts have suggested such cuts will not lose revenue since they will spur economic growth and thus produce enough additional tax revenue to pay for the direct cost of the cuts. Although it is theoretically possible for tax rates to be so high and disruptive that a rate cut would pay for itself, there is practically no evidence to suggest this would occur with today’s tax code. More likely, tax cuts may generate enough additional economic growth to replace a small share of the revenue loss. A number of economic studies confirm this finding. For example, a 2005 study from Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl found that tax cuts could pay for between 15 and 32 percent of their initial cost. The bottom line is that while tax cuts can help accelerate economic growth in some circumstances, they will not generate anywhere close to enough growth to fully offset the revenue losses they create.
also, he thinks global warming is fake which is very wrong. If are you interested in “conservative” economists, check out mankiw
> > someone defending sowell»
He seems to be discussing the Reagan tax cuts various tax cuts over the course of the 20th century in both of the links you provided. I don’t see any claims about 2020.
Furthermore Sowell is talking about how these specific tax cuts for the top income bracket did not decrease their contribution to the totality of tax revenue. This supposedly happened as a result of changes in the allocation/classification of assets and income for purposes of tax optimization. The source you linked to talks about the revenue neutrality of tax cuts in general due to economic growth. These are separate claims with tangential overlap at best.
He also appears to provide statistical evidence in support of his claims that the rich paid more in taxes both as a percentage of total tax revenue and in absolute numbers. I am not an expert on this topic and none of your other links are talking about this. Would you mind explaining how you think Sowell is wrong?
- As an economist, he hasn’t produced much, if any original work. He’s been with the Hoover Institute for a number of decades and has been focused on writing popular books than research papers. When he’s right, for example with rent control being a bad policy, mainstream economics agrees with him but he writes his books in a way that doesn’t make that fact clear - which I think causes casual readers without economic training to view the economic profession as being taken over by radical leftists and leads people to reject economic theories that don’t fit with their narrative. When he’s wrong, it’s typically because he uses univariate thinking…for example, CA’s housing crisis is caused by regulation/NIMBYism, which while part of the problem is not the whole solution. On a personal note, he appears to be highly partisan while claiming to be libertarian, for example, he was pro-Iraq and the only criticism I’ve read of his regarding the Iraq war was how liberal academics were wrong to criticize the surge, which he devotes an entire chapter of Confict of Vision to discussing without ever mentioning a critique against the war itself.
- Sowell is not a real economist, he’s an ideologue. He has been constantly denying extremely well documented empirical phenomena like the gender wage gap or the existence of monopsony in the labor market, to push a market fundamentalist ideology. He has not published a peer reviewed paper for decades.
Was George Floyd a Good Person? - Chat GPT
Whether George Floyd was a “good person” depends on the context and what aspect of his life you’re focusing on. Like most people, he was complex and had both flaws and strengths.
Here’s a nuanced breakdown:
⸻
Past and Legal Troubles
• George Floyd had a criminal record, including drug-related offenses and a robbery conviction. These were well-documented and occurred mostly in the early 2000s.
• He served time in prison, and after being released, he moved to Minneapolis for a fresh start.
⸻
Efforts to Turn His Life Around
• In Minneapolis, he worked as a truck driver and security guard, and those close to him say he was trying to improve his life.
• Friends and family described him as a kind person, a loving father, and someone who tried to keep peace in his community.
⸻
Legacy and Impact
• Regardless of his past, Floyd’s death during a police encounter in 2020 sparked a global movement for police reform and racial justice.
• For many, he became a symbol of injustice and a catalyst for social change, not because he was perfect, but because of the circumstances of his death.
⸻
Bottom Line:
George Floyd had a criminal past, but he also made efforts to change. Whether one views him as a “good person” depends on what you emphasize—his past actions or his attempts at redemption and the broader impact of his life and death. It’s possible to acknowledge both the mistakes he made and the injustice of how he died.
George Floyd was involved in a 2007 aggravated robbery in Houston, Texas, where he and five other men forced their way into a woman’s home. According to court documents, Floyd pushed a pistol against the woman’s abdomen and forced her into the living room while they searched for money and drugs. Floyd pleaded guilty to this charge in 2009 and was sentenced to five years in prison.   
However, there is no credible evidence to suggest that the woman was pregnant at the time of the robbery. Some social media posts have falsely claimed that Floyd assaulted a pregnant woman and threatened her unborn child, but these assertions have been debunked. Additionally, a widely circulated photo purportedly showing the injured woman is actually of Andrea Sicignano, an American student who was assaulted in Madrid in 2018, and is unrelated to Floyd’s case.
George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, involved several factors, including the presence of fentanyl in his system and the use of an alleged counterfeit bill. Here’s a detailed examination of these aspects:
Fentanyl in George Floyd’s System:
• Toxicology Findings: The official autopsy report indicated that Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine in his bloodstream at the time of death. 
• Medical Examiner’s Conclusion: Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, concluded that Floyd’s death was a homicide caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” While the presence of drugs and underlying health conditions were noted as contributing factors, they were not deemed the direct cause of death. 
• Expert Testimonies: During Derek Chauvin’s trial, medical experts testified that the levels of fentanyl found were below the average amounts typically seen in fatal overdoses. They asserted that Floyd’s death resulted from asphyxia due to sustained pressure on his neck and back, rather than a drug overdose. 
Counterfeit Bill Incident:
• Initial Encounter: On the day of his death, Floyd attempted to purchase cigarettes at Cup Foods in Minneapolis using a $20 bill that a store employee suspected was counterfeit. The cashier, Christopher Martin, testified that he immediately believed the bill was fake and offered to cover the cost himself, but his manager instructed him to report it to the police. 
• Police Involvement: The call to law enforcement led to the arrival of officers, culminating in the confrontation during which Floyd was restrained and subsequently died.
In summary, while George Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and was involved in an incident concerning a suspected counterfeit bill, medical evaluations and expert testimonies concluded that his death was primarily caused by the physical restraint and compression applied by law enforcement officers during his arrest.
George Floyd and Derek Chauvin both worked at the El Nuevo Rodeo nightclub in Minneapolis, but it’s unclear whether they knew each other. Floyd served as an inside security guard during certain events, while Chauvin worked as an off-duty police officer handling outside security. Maya Santamaria, the club’s former owner, noted that their shifts overlapped on Tuesday nights but couldn’t confirm if they were acquainted.   
Initial reports suggested they had interacted, with former coworker David Pinney stating they “bumped heads.” However, Pinney later retracted this, admitting he had mistaken Floyd for another employee. 
Given their distinct roles and the club’s environment, no definitive evidence confirms that Floyd and Chauvin knew each other personally.
Target High-Violence Cities with Evidence-Based Strategies -
Council on Criminal Justice
Violent crime rates in the United States have fallen substantially from their peak in the early 1990s, yet the country still suffers far more homicides per capita than any other wealthy nation. In 2018, the last year for which official data is available, 16,214 people were murdered in the United States—about 44 people per day.*
Urban violence accounts for more murders in the U.S. than any other form of violence. Since Sept. 11, 2001, hundreds of citizens have died in terrorist attacks and mass shootings. During the same period, more than 100,000 people have perished from violence on the streets of our cities.
Poor people of color living in urban communities bear the brunt of this burden. For young Latino men, homicide is the second-leading cause of death. For young black men, homicide is not only the leading cause of death, but also accounts for more fatalities than the nine other top causes combined.
While the human costs of these tragedies are incalculable, the social and economic costs have been quantified, and they are staggering. Credible studies estimate that a single murder costs the nation at least $10 million in criminal justice and medical costs, lost wages and earnings, damaged and devalued property, and diminished quality of life.
America’s high rate of urban gun violence is perceived to be one of the most intractable issues of our time, but 30 years of rigorous social science demonstrates that certain strategies can save lives. When implemented with fidelity, a short list of evidence-based interventions such as focused deterrence and cognitive behavioral therapy have reduced shootings and killings in dozens of cities.
A new federal grant program supporting such strategies could demonstrate that urban violence is simultaneously one of the most serious and solvable social challenges facing the nation today. This proposed program would direct significant operational federal dollars to the localities most in need, building on current efforts at the U.S. Department of Justice that offer training and technical assistance. Funding would be explicitly tied to the data-driven, evidence-informed strategies that are proven to reduce violence, a balanced mix of enforcement and non-enforcement approaches.
*Most recent data available as of this report.
Recommendation
Congress should fund a robust new grant program, to be administered by the U.S. Department of Justice in consultation with other federal agencies, to reduce violent victimization, trauma, and incarceration in the U.S. cities that are most affected by urban violence.
Implementation Steps
To ensure the grant program saves the most lives possible, funding would be reserved for the 20 cities with the most homicides in absolute numbers and the 20 cities with the highest homicide rates per capita, including large low-rate cities like New York and small high-rate cities like Gary, Indiana.
While funding would be reserved for the 40 cities specified in (a) above, cities would be required to submit plans annually to receive said funding.
To ensure a proper focus on evidence, city plans would be required to devote 85 percent of funding to interventions shown by credible scientific evidence* to reduce violent victimization and offending.
To ensure proper strategic focus, cities would be required to specify in their plans the small number of proven-risk individuals and locations that drive the majority of violence in their jurisdictions and pledge to devote the funding toward those individuals and locations.
To ensure proper balance, city plans would be required to distribute at least 50 percent of funding toward non-enforcement-oriented approaches to reducing violence among the individuals and locations identified in (a) above. To promote the development of community capacity and leadership, city plans must devote 10 percent of funding to efforts intended to either promote innovative approaches to urban violence reduction, build capacity and leadership within the communities most impacted by violence, or both.
To promote development of evidence-informed approaches, city plans would be required to devote 5 percent of funding to rigorous evaluation.
To ensure accountability, city awards would be adjusted upward or downward annually based on their compliance with the criteria set out in (2) above.
To serve participating cities, 3 percent of all funds would be reserved to establish a network uniting federal agencies with participating cities in order to socialize evidence-informed approaches through peer-to-peer learning, and to facilitate a specialized network of technical assistance providers. One percent of such funds would be reserved for a national evaluation of the program.
*Credible scientific evidence means causal evidence as defined by Crimesolutions.gov: “Evidence that documents a relationship between an activity, treatment, or intervention (including technology) and its intended outcomes, including measuring the direction and size of a change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change.”
Annotated Citations
Abt, Thomas. Bleeding Out: The Devastating Consequences of Urban Violence – and a Bold New Plan for Peace in the Streets. Basic Books, 2019.
Thomas Abt, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and formerly a senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and former Chief of Staff to the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice, builds on existing studies and research in Bleeding Out to provide evidence-based approaches to combating violence in urban communities. Noting that a small number of individuals commit the vast majority of violence, Abt demonstrates that targeted strategies such as focused deterrence can improve community safety, reduce lives lost, and save cities millions of dollars.
Abt describes crime—violent crime in particular—as “sticky,” meaning that it tends to cluster around small numbers of dangerous people, places, and behaviors. Abt uses proven best practices to show that a balance between prevention and punishment is far more effective in the long run than either option in isolation. Moreover, Abt contends that there must be trust in local criminal justice authorities in order for violence prevention plans to succeed.
The book’s final chapter provides two plans, one local and one national, to reduce homicides by over 50% over the course of eight years. He estimates that an 8-year federal grant program would cost $900 million, while saving many times more than that in taxpayer and social costs. Abt reinforces the need for sustained commitment by stating that “rather than letting short-term successes or failures dictate policy choices, science supports setting a solid plan in motion and sticking with it.”
Kennedy, David M. Don’t Shoot: One Man, a Street Fellowship, and the End of Violence in Inner-City America. Bloomsbury USA, 2011. https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City-ebook/dp/B005PWMFRE
“Gang- and drug-related inner-city violence, with its attendant epidemic of incarceration, is the defining crime problem in our country. In some neighborhoods in America, one out of every two hundred young black men is shot to death every year, and few initiatives of government and law enforcement have made much difference. But when David Kennedy, a self-taught and then-unknown criminologist, engineered the ‘Boston Miracle’ in the mid-1990s, he pointed the way toward what few had imagined: a solution.
“Don’t Shoot tells the story of Kennedy’s long journey. Riding with beat cops, hanging with gang members, and stoop-sitting with grandmothers, Kennedy found that all parties misunderstood each other, caught in a spiral of racialized anger and distrust. He envisioned an approach in which everyone – gang members, cops, and community members – comes together in what is essentially a huge intervention. Offenders are told that the violence must stop, that even the cops want them to stay alive and out of prison, and that even their families support swift law enforcement if the violence continues. In city after city, the same miracle has followed: violence plummets, drug markets dry up, and the relationship between the police and the community is reset.”
Braga, Anthony, et al. “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” Criminology & Public Policy, vol. 17, no. 1, 2018. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12353
Focused deterrence programs use problem-oriented policing and public health interventions to deter serious violent crime. This study reviews a series of quasi-experimental evaluations of various focused deterrence programs. “In all 12 studies in which the impacts of focused deterrence strategies on violence by gangs and criminally active groups were evaluated, researchers reported at least one statistically significant crime control impact associated with program implementation.” These studies were directed at reducing crime by street gangs, criminally active groups, drug markets, and high-risk individuals. While standard model policing (rapid response, increase in arrest rates, randomized preventative patrol) have been found to have almost no effect on appreciable crime reduction, focused deterrence strategies have shown statistical improvements in overall crime reduction. The study concludes that “these strategies generate noteworthy crime reduction impacts and should be part of a broader portfolio of crime reduction strategies available to policy makes and practitioners.”
Lipsey, Mark W., et al. “Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders.” 13 Aug. 2007. Campbell Systematic Reviews, https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/better-evidence/criminal-offenders-cognitive-behavioural-programmes.html
“Cognitive-behavioural therapy can prevent criminal offenders from continuing their criminal careers. However, some treatment programmes work better than others. A new Campbell review shows that a small number of factors make the difference. It is particularly important for the programmes to be stringently implemented, by well-trained providers. No significant differences were found in the effectiveness of the different types of programmes or brand names. Whether the treatment is implemented in prison or in the community has no influence on the outcome.”
“The review concludes overall that there are three decisive factors that influence the effect of cognitive therapeutic treatment programmes for offenders. Namely: How well the treatment is implemented, the absence or presence of certain treatment elements, and the risk of recidivism of the offenders participating.”
Feucht, Thomas, and Tammy Holt. Does Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Work in Criminal Justice? A New Analysis from Crimesolutions.gov. National Institute of Justice. 2016. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249825.pdf
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) “is a class of therapeutic interventions based on a common theory about the connection between our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs—cognitions—and our behavior.” This overview of 50 CBT programs found that “[p]rograms serving juveniles or both juveniles and adults were somewhat more likely to be rated ‘effective.’ ” The particular programs that were most effective were those that focused on reentry, crime and crime prevention, and victims and victimization. Where these programs are not effective are in preventing domestic violence reoffending.
Chat GPT:
Violent crime in the United States has declined significantly since the early 1990s, but the country still experiences far more homicides than other wealthy nations, with urban violence accounting for the majority of these deaths. Young Black and Latino men are disproportionately affected, and the economic and social costs of these crimes are immense. Research suggests that evidence-based strategies like focused deterrence and cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce violence in cities when implemented properly.
To address urban violence, a proposed federal grant program would allocate funding to the cities most affected by homicides, requiring them to use data-driven strategies that have been proven to reduce violence. The program would balance enforcement and non-enforcement approaches, ensuring that funds target high-risk individuals and locations while also fostering community leadership. Cities would be required to submit annual plans demonstrating their commitment to evidence-based interventions, and funding levels would be adjusted based on compliance and effectiveness. The initiative aims to reduce violent crime, minimize incarceration, and improve public safety while ensuring accountability through rigorous evaluation and peer-to-peer learning networks.
Examples of Focused Deterrence and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in Addressing Urban Violence
Focused Deterrence
Focused deterrence strategies use a combination of law enforcement, community engagement, and social services to target individuals or groups most likely to commit violent crimes. Some key examples include:
Boston’s Operation Ceasefire (1990s - Present)
One of the most well-known focused deterrence programs, Operation Ceasefire targeted youth gun violence and gang-related homicides.
Police, community leaders, and social workers directly engaged with gang members, offering them support (e.g., job training, education) while making it clear that any continued violence would result in swift and coordinated law enforcement action.
The program led to a 63% reduction in youth homicides in Boston during its initial implementation.
Richmond, California – Operation Peacemaker Fellowship
This initiative focused on young men at high risk of gun violence, offering mentorship, education, and financial incentives to participate in anti-violence programs.
Participants, called “fellows,” received life coaching and job training while being monitored by outreach workers.
Over several years, Richmond saw a 50% decrease in gun-related homicides.
New Orleans Group Violence Reduction Strategy
Launched in the 2010s, this program identified key individuals responsible for violent crime and brought them into “call-in” meetings with law enforcement and community leaders.
They were given a choice: stop engaging in violence and receive support (such as job training and education), or face swift and targeted law enforcement action.
The strategy helped reduce homicides and gun violence in New Orleans.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in Crime Prevention
CBT programs aim to change harmful thought patterns and behaviors that contribute to violence. Examples include:
Becoming a Man (BAM) – Chicago
This school-based program focuses on at-risk young men in high-violence areas.
It teaches impulse control, emotional regulation, and conflict resolution through group therapy and mentorship.
A study found that BAM reduced violent crime arrests by 50% and increased high school graduation rates among participants.
Cure Violence (formerly CeaseFire Chicago)
This program treats violence as a contagious disease and employs trained “violence interrupters” (often former gang members) to mediate conflicts before they escalate.
It uses CBT techniques to help individuals change their thinking about retaliation and violence.
Cities implementing this approach have seen homicide reductions of 40-70% in targeted areas.
Roca – Massachusetts and Baltimore
Roca is an intensive CBT-based program targeting young men at the highest risk of reoffending.
Participants go through a multi-year process that includes CBT sessions, job training, and mentorship.
The program has been linked to significant reductions in recidivism among violent offenders.
Conclusion
Both focused deterrence and CBT have been successfully implemented in cities across the U.S. to reduce violent crime. Focused deterrence works by targeting those most at risk for violence and providing them with a clear choice between support and enforcement, while CBT helps individuals develop better decision-making and emotional control to avoid violent behavior.
