Monday assorted links


1. Good of Tyler to link that. It may not have been the first thing to come to mind, but of course it was, in those days, about more than names on buildings.

And, in comparison, maybe taking names off buildings isn't such a big deal.

By the way, Slashdot is again very MR in their choices: tax the rich, China and Wikipedia, tech and jobs.

"For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate -- spanning federal, state and local taxes -- than any other income group, according to newly released data."

Some interesting pros and cons on DNS hacking.

Did they "Slashdot"? report the real problems facing most Americans?

Like the parasite is consuming the host. In 2 018, Americans spent more on taxes than on food, clothing, and health care.

Who was President in 2018 to let such a terrible thing happen? Oh yeah, Orange Mussolini who gave tax cuts to the rich but raised it on everyone else. Trump continues his plan to destroy America!

The bottom 20% of earners have a negative rate.

So this isn’t even remotely true.

It is true, because the bottom to % are giving their souls to the man, slaving away with 3 jobs.

In aggregate it is.

Facts are racist.

Total tax rate includes sales taxes, and now imputed Chinese tariffs.

What a bunch of reading impaired people. A veritable shallow end.

Good news and bad news. It's from the NYT, but from the very excellent David Leonhardt, so it's probably legit.

The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You

BTW, Slashdot continues in an economic bent, with:

Monetary Value Estimates of the Air Pollution and Human Health Impacts of Cryptocurrency Mining

It’s still wrong. You linked an op-ed piece as per usual. Christ.

What an idiotic sleight of hand. They stripped out Medicaid, food stamps, and the EITC. There’s a reason economists use net taxes.

So, bullshit. And you’re contributing to the spreading of false information.

The op-ed discusses facts.

Holey Moley if true:

"Results indicate that in 2018, each $1 of Bitcoin value created was responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in the US and $0.37 in China"

#1. Disgraceful. But not as bad as

Not sure what about your comment is the worst: the comparison of the murder of two white people to the systematic rape, torture, abuse and murder of millions during slavery, the notion that things just as horrific as what happened to those two people didn't happen to slaves during those times, or the contraposition of crimes against whites vs. crimes against blacks, as if mentioning how horrible slavery was requires one to step to the defense of white people by pointing out how terrible black people are.

Shorter version:
Cowen: "Look how bad slavery was! "
OneGuy: "So what! Black people are just as bad!"

Does anyone else see the problem here?

Maybe they were just deplorable all along.

They were a different "D." Democrats.

We habitually speak of crimes like slavery and the Holocaust as if there were such a thing as collective suffering. But each victim didn't suffer any more or less because they were one of millions of victims. Each victim suffered as an individual.

In the same way, each perpetrator committed his or her wicked act upon a single victim, even if that victim were part of a group in a gas chamber, making the act no more or less evil because it was committed in the midst of millions of such wicked acts.

Slavery isn't a crime. It was millions of individual crimes, despite being sanctioned by the state and the culture. The cruel slave-owner earned his or her place in hell with the first stroke of the lash, regardless of how many others were doing the same.

So it may not be a categorical mistake to take a crime committed in the present day, and compare it to a crime committed in slave times. Both the crime of the past and the crime of the present were committed by individuals, as a matter of choice, against other individuals. Neither perpetrator of the past or present crime will be in any lesser or deeper part of hell because of the social circumstances.

Excerpt from an interesting comment by Obs regarding Razib Khan's article on 'Anticipating Post-Postcolonialism' at

It always strikes me as strange that the European grip on Africa being now so demonized, while the Islamic-Arabic being, from my point of view, quite often extenuated. Everything Europeans being accused to have done, West Eurasian Muslims and Islam in general did and did so with much more impact and lasting to this day in a much more fundamental war.

If the Europeans wouldn’t have come to Africa, Islam and Arabic lineages would have spread much further, “ruining” indigenous cultures and doing that not just in a peaceful way at all. Slave trade would still flourish in Africa, with trade paths to the Islamic world and slave hunters would go for the last tribals and foes in innumberalbe wars.
The Khoisan people would be largely annihilated and wars would be waged from one end of the continent to the other as it was done before Europeans came in.

Yet some people prefer to blame Europeans for everything going wrong in Africa or other places and holding them responsible, while in some regions the last functioning trains from the colonial era are the only means of mass transportation available.

My point went completely over your head apparently.

Pointing out the evils of slavery is not equivalent to "blaming Europeans". No defence of white people or effort to paint other groups of people as more evil is necessary.

Taking all criticism of slavery as a racial insult in need of a response reveals one to identify oneself with the practicioners of slavery. It is you who are identifying white Europeans as morally responsible for slavery, and feeling compelled to defend them.

You could just as easily identify with the white Europeans who ended slavery, but for some reason you don't. Why is that?

You are correct. Recrimination is not an argument.

It's all and always about race, class, gender, etc. To wit, what do 150+ year old crimes of rich democrat slave owners have to do with the 21st century, if not to inflame racial discord?

And that is why we burned all history books.

How does that inflame racial discord? Are we not all in agreement that slavery was bad?

Everyone except [fill-in-the-blank] already knew slavery was horrid.

So, if not to inflame racial discord, what purpose does it serve?

Same goes for The NYT 1619 Project.

You aren't making sense. If everyone except [fill-in-the-black] already knew that slavery was horrid, who, except [fill-in-the-blank] is going to be inflamed by pointing out that slavery was horrid?

What? Do you think black people are going to be like "OH MY GOD! I Had NO IDEA my 7th generation ancestors were RAPED by WHITE MEN!"

Perhaps the point is to promote or justify oikophobia, as discussed in quillette today:

This pseudo-obsession with nasty things probably most of our ancestors most likely didn't actually commit but may have tolerated certainly seems of a piece with the ideas presented in that essay.

Here's the problem with that.

People have done bad things throughout history.

Someone talks about some white people, who aren't related to me, doing something bad, a long time ago.

I say "ok, fine."

Why do you say "oh no, that is attacking my group?"

Are you a slaver?

Why do you say "oh no, that is attacking my group?"

I didn't say that, stupid.

Of course you did.

You very explicitly connected criticism of the bad behavior of slavers to an attack on the west.

Wrong again. I said I believe that was the intention of the authors/editors of the WashPost piece. I did not say that I considered it a valid attack on "the west" (newsflash: I don't).

But YOU are the only one saying it's an attack on the West. What are you a mind reader that you just KNOW that the Washington Post meant it as an attack on the West? In fact the article seems to be not at all about the evilness of the QWest whatsoever, but more about debates about whether statues and buildings should honor slaveholders.
You're the only one interpreting it as an attack on the West here.

I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm not.

Why do you think it's an attack on the West?

It's not really "an attack on the west;" that's a simplistic intepretation. What I would say is that it's part of a larger pattern of a certain strata of white people becoming increasingly obsessive about race, "whiteness," "white privilege," and so on, with much of the related blather being reductive, contradictory, and often divorced from reality. When a certain class of people are talking rot and wringing their hands over a specific set of crimes and injustices that took place two centuries ago, one might just start to wonder if they have some sort of agenda, and whether the question of whether a UVA student attends a class in 2019 in Dead White Guy Hall or Dead Other Guy Hall is really the point.


Removal of Confederate Monuments was an attack on our history.

And how dare you connect the actual tragedy of slavery to this attack on our history!

You're not good at translating.

You're not good at sex.

Maybe the people who are wringing their hands over slavery and white privilege are actually concerned about the legacy of slavery and white privilege and don't have a secret hidden agenda to destroy western civilization.

Read the article I linked on oikophobia, plz. I'm not accusing anybody of plotting to destroy western civ.

(BTW, note especially that not all white people were slavers. Some were abolitionists early on. The get out of jail free card is to identify with them, instead, right?)

Or, like me, your ancestors were irish-germans who came over in the late 19th century, which means that my connection to slavery is close to zero considering slavery ended before they were born and neither Ireland nor Germany had a significant empire. (Conveniently, they left before that whole World War thing too, so they escaped the blame for that too). They also immigrated to New York and Canada and thus weren't involved in segregation or Jim Crow.

So my responsibility for the current state of black America is on the order of "they might have benefited slightly from their racial status".

Actually I'm told my paternal grandfather was pretty racist, although he sort of hated everyone who wasn't German, especially the Slavs.

Maybe not having much of an emotional stake or group identification with slaveholders makes it possible to objectively observe how wierd the reactions of some white people are to this issue. Every time someone brings up slavery they're like "NEVER MENTION THAT TIME I POOPED In THE BACK YARD WHEN I WAS 10, THAT NEVER HAPPENED! YOU'RE LYING! "

Who should pay for whose health care and how. Whether go to war with [Iran, Russia ... Turkey?]. The homeless and urban renewal. Whether to commit to fossil fuels. The future of work. The collusion of business and immigration. UBI. Crumbling this or that. Our trade relationship with China. Slavery. These are some current issues.

Race relations is a perpetual undercurrent in American politics that undercuts rational discussion on a lot of different issues. Not to mention that harmonious inter-ethnic relations has benefits entirely independent of whatever the government is doing. Some of us just like living in communities where people are happy and get along with one another.

And you see the major American media outlets furthering that goal, rather than pushing it farther away, in their day-to-day decisions, their obsessions and their omissions, the themes and editorial frameworks they prefer? What some readers mysteriously liken to the beating of a drum?

To put oneself in the shoes of empathy and understanding, if not sympathy, with one side, not both, seems hubristic and self regarding - to imagine yourself in a stand in with the winners, and with the positive caricature. Throwing the others under the bus as some sort of cartoonish deplorables, rather than people of their time no doubt with many virtues (perhaps a measure of, if not greater, equal bravery, patriotism, loyalty - the virtues which truly matter). Which probably would be rather ill considered anyway, since society will likely probably ascribe you to this category in time too, no matter how you choose to identify.

Translation: You better start identifying with slaveholders real soon, because all those brown people are going to blame you for it anyway.

"Going to"?

I thought you were the architect of individualism who needed no group identities ("Those people you identify with... those aren't your accomplishments!" and the like), in any case, so it seems a bit odd that you suddenly propose a strong and tribal identification with particular historical people, rather than a neutral, humanizing stance. I suppose this group identity is OK, and a national group identity is not, then.

Your point about how those early 19th century slaveholders were people who probably had many good qualities is well taken. It shouldn't be necessary to defend or minimize the evils of slavery to recognize those good qualities. Or to take offense at depictions of those evils in order to defend them. Even Hitler was a human who probably had good qualities. Recognizing that doesn't require one to point out bad things done by Jews.

He was a vegetarian and hated cruelty to animals.

I still think the world would have been better off without him.

"(perhaps a measure of, if not greater, equal bravery, patriotism, loyalty - the virtues which truly matter"

I see. This rape thing is indeed a minor issue better left unmentioned. Who can judge? Strangely enough, the gallant cause is the only one racists, I mean, brave, loyal patriots want to grace with such historical even-handedness.

Dude. The slavers were the losers. And for a century since most of us red blooded Americans have identified with the other side. The slavery-ending winners.

You red blooded Americans are that way because you're drenched the blood of the natives that had lived in North America for many centuries. As soon as the other side had freed the slaves they sent them after the natives. The post-Puritans just weren't happy unless they were killing somebody and stealing their stuff.

Hazel, I completely agree that "Pointing out the evils of slavery is not equivalent to "blaming Europeans"." At least not logically. However, I suspect many people will see it that way. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of American college students would be surprised--no, shocked--to learn that slavery existed for thousands of years all over the world, that European enslavement of Africans was not the first major enslavement in history.

The whole "masters rapping their slaves" is sort of a meme. The culture of the plantation was one that seriously prohibited that kind of thing. The actual evidence for sadistic masters and families violently mistreating their emaciated and fearful slaves is surprisingly thin despite how prominently it features in mainstream Hollywood movies.

"Statistics further suggest that rapes were rare on plantations. Most people of 'mixed race' in the South were either slaves who lived in cities, where opportunities for interracial liaisons were far greater, or free. According to the 1860 census, 20 percent of urban slaves and 39 percent of free blacks in southern cities were mulattoes. But among rural slaves, who made up 95 percent of the slave population, only 9.9 percent were mulatto. Of the slave population as a whole, mulattoes made up only 7.7 percent in 1850 and 10.4 percent in 1860. Moreover, only 1.2 percent of the former slaves interviewed by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s reported being raped by a master, only 5.8 percent reported hearing about the rape of another slave, and only 4.5 said that one of their parents had been white. According to Fogel and Engerman [Time on the Cross, 1974], all of the available evidence taken together indicates that the 'share of Negro children fathered by whites on slave plantations probably averaged between 1 and 2 percent.' Even Fogel and Engerman's most hostile critics concede that it was no more than 8 percent. There is also evidence of significant numbers of consensual relations between white men and slave women, which would make the percentage of children produced by rape even smaller."

Indeed, free women, white or black, were in effect under the complete dominion of their husbands at the same time slavery existed and in many ways until the mid 20th century. One legal manual declared that "a husband cannot by law be guilty of ravishing his wife, on account of the matrimonial consent which she cannot retract."

Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States.

I won't even, but somebody probably should.

White men and slave women can't have "consensual relations". One of them is a slave, who can't legally consent (or refuse consent).
Plus where talking about teenage boys who have nubile women around who can't legally say no. There's enough rape going on even with fully emacipated women around, it's hard to imagine men in that era NOT raping their slaves.
Most likely most such rapes were not actually violent, since the slaves knew perfectly well they could be beaten or whipped for refusing.

Wrong, slaves and masters can actually have friendly relationships and yes slaves do have agency and free will. Try actually reading the book "A Renegade History of the United States" or the Slave Narratives from the WPA themselves. All the available evidence contradicts the claim white men were going around raping every woman insight. As much as you may want to believe that, it's not actually true. I'd put his idea next to the "right of the first night".
Extrapolating heinous crimes unto an entire group based on anecdotes in nonsense.

Just because they didn't rape every slave, doesn't mean they didn't rape MANY slaves.
And I'm not basing this on anecdotes. I'm basing this on observation of the typical behavior of males when they are around nubile females that they have power over.

The view makes no sense given how few white males even had access to a slave woman. Only 1/5 of Southern families had any slaves at all around 1860. Most slaves women appear to have gone unmolested. Your deep seated hatred of men and obvious sexism is blinding you to the truth.

This seems like an appropriate moment to pause and remember Strom Thurmond.

You seem to think that slavery originated in the south. It did not. Black slavery existed for millennia in Africa. The African chiefs fought wars with other African tribes to capture slaves who were raped and tortured. Somewhere around 900AD Arabs/Muslims in Northern Africa began buying slaves from African tribes and selling them. It wasn't until the 1500's that Europeans began buying these slaves from the Muslims to bring to the new world that slavery was introduced/foisted on America. In 1861 there were just over 32 million Americans in the U.S. and perhaps 10,000 of them owned slaves. It was America that ended slavery in 1861-65 and in the process most of those 10,000 slave owners were killed. And your complaint today is "so what if white people are killed tortured and raped by blacks, they deserve it!!" There is literally no one in the U.S. alive today who ever owned a slave and literally no one in the U.S. alive today who was a slave in the U.S. And you want to punish innocent people for something they did not do!!! Is that your proud position?

Where the hell did I suggest that it originated in the south? You're like Jeff R where you see someone criticize slavery and assume that it's some sort of generalized attack on the West. "Slavery was bad!" "Whoa! That's an attack on my group!"
What are you, a slaver?

Actually I criticized slavery. AND I criticized your and others hypocrisy and THAT is what bothers you so you make the lame smear that anyone who criticizes your hypocrisy must be a slaver!! LOL!

Brevity is the soul of wit.

The response for Tyler's #1 is "So What?"

1. The abusers were young males from affluent families. As I pointed out at another blog post this morning, the abusive behavior of young males from affluent families toward young females has only changed as a matter of degree not of kind.

Cowen showed good judgment at an early age, choosing not to live in the toxic environment of a male dorm, electing to attend a college without dorms. Also, as pointed out in the linked article, the abusive male behavior was almost always either joint (two or more males) or committed in front of male classmates to prove their standing. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, when two or more young males from affluent families gather, abusive behavior can't be far.

Good of rayward to break the idea this is Black vs White, rather than affluent vs non-affluent. But even that breaks too - non-affluent young males too. Probably happens still in every city, every day, across the US, and a good density of it more in every poor area.

4. #5: “Increase taxes...” How about move the criminal justice system up in the order of priorities. In other words, cut spending elsewhere. As for setting priorities, term limits for legislators and governors would help, as seats would not be permanently controlled by perpetual pork projects.

It's easy to be a Democrat. Increase Taxes!

It Don't Mean Nothing. Already Americans spend more on taxes than on food, clothing, and health care.

Not always true, although good point!

Sometimes your tax payment is someone else's health care.

Also, if you're a beginning corporate drone with a family, you could be making $50K/year, and receive $20K in health insurance.

But your point is true in the aggregate. Would be even more so if we didn't have a $1T deficit.

It's easy to be a Republican. Increase taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich! Then start a trade war, which are very easy, to make things even more expensive! Did we forget about the deficit as we Republicans tend to do? Yes, make them larger than when Democrats are in office!

Dick the Butcher, why are you are so obsessed with democrats? You're one of those people that like to accuse modern Democrats of being aligned with slaveholders, as if the political re-alignment that everyone knows about, didn't happen. This is your argument? Are you 9 years old? You assume we're all idiots, but you yourself look like the idiot. Kind of like your moron president. Utterly worthless.

#1 I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that slavery was occurring in the South in the early 19th century and that Southern slave owners behaved like that. I don't about y'all, but there should've been a civil war or something...

#4 Not bad, especially #2. But some other like court enforcement mechanisms need to be left alone. One other that really needs to be addressed is violent vs. non-violent offenders. I'm in favor of curtailing some extreme sentences for non-violent offenders, but increasing mandatory minimums for violent offenders and juveniles.

#5 More bad news for Western fecundity. Seems like it's all bad news these days.

Maybe we should erect some statues for celebrate the rapists.

#3 They are plotting a communist revolution!!

#4 (also Noah Smith's tweet that spawned it) sheesh

1 - incentivize low recidivism

Why not? But also I don't know how reasonable it would be to expect a stellar outcome, especially taken in with the lackluster effect of the ACA changes. What if locking someone in a prison is exactly the worst 'treatment' for criminality (and i.e. low recidivism)?

2 - make legal settlements against officers more salient to taxpayers

ok sure

3 - lead abatement

ok sure

4 - pay for jobs for teenagers

...or eliminate/lower minimum wages?

5 - tax for faster justice system

ok sure

but what about ending drug prohibition? Or maybe thinking about the logic of incarceration -- do we really want to put bad people in a painful bad people box and then let them go and hope they do well? Or what about addressing the invasive nature of police-as-traffic enforcers? Or the dearth of jobs in low ses localities (see the minimum wage)?

I mean really, low hanging fruit: delete the Controlled Substances Act.

4. What teenager values $4 more than hour?

Enough to spend half your free time every month to earn $200? Dont be absurd.

While I personally don't believe drug users should go to prison the war on drugs isn't the main culprit behind America's large prison population. Indeed, there really is no monocausal explanation we can target.

#1: Sure, and next they'll tell me the slaves in the fields were whipped, too!

3. Over at Fox News, the Trump propagandists were discussing the risk that Republicans would grow gonads and vote to impeach Trump, and Sean Hannity reassured the gathered bloviators that will occur when pigs learn to use tools.

Why are you watching it in the first place?


6, Make it a condition of employment that no law enforcement officer can consume alcohol or drugs at any time and subject them to random testing. People with 24/7 access to fast cars and firearms can't be impaired.

7. Eliminate all K-9 units. Dogs can't tell friend from foe and often bite the wrong person. They also lie for treats. A dog bite is extrajudicial punishment.

6. Edward Norton is a disruptive tech guy.

5. This is a little misleading. Orgasticity for men is down because women, acting as gate keepers, aren't letting men determine the frequency of sex. Women's orgasticiy isn't really down, it's low where it's always been, boorish males unable to satisfy women today as boorish males have always been unable to satisfy women.

I’d be willing to bet your estimate on the coefficient for “boorish” is exactly backwards. As in a sign change.

The dependent variable here tracks inversely and closely, to testosterone levels btw.

Almost 1 in 5 American women are in SSRIs.

Surprised the decline isn’t even larger.

When it comes to tools, Tyler’s the sharpest in the shed

Had context appealed to Professor Taylor somewhat, he could have continued his narrative with another startling sentence:

"Throughout the first half of the 19th century, male students studying at Northern anatomy schools regularly dissected, carved, and cut into pieces the stolen bodies of freed and enslaved blacks and those of white paupers for the advancement of Science."

The Doctors' Riot of 1788 (Columbia College of the day) alerted New Yorkers to anatomists' hunger for dead bodies, but the NY Legislature did not address the problem satisfactorily until the April 1854 "Act to Promote Medical Science" provided for the distribution of unclaimed bodies from public institutions.

I had a hunch, so I looked it up.

According to the Roper Center at Cornell University, in the year 2000, a majority of non-Hispanic whites and a majority of blacks agreed that "race relations were generally good."

Probably the media only meant to keep the South in its crosshairs, but I think we all ended up being made to pay for that our behavior that bad, bad year. Starting with the creepy pretense that none of us ever heard of slavery before, and those who had, foolishly have a mostly favorable impression of it.

It happened again in 2014, evidently. I think, should you ever get a call from a pollster, you'll know how to answer. Don't you forget it.

For 50 years black income as a percentage of white income has hardly changed, but before 2000, median income was steadily rising, which created for most black people (and most white working class people) the illusion of progress. Starting in 2000, we had 15 years of stagnation in median income. It's not surprising that those below the 90th percentile have developed much higher levels of outgroup hostility under those conditions.

the lack of sex drive in women could be due to the pill and also due to lack of marriage. Population ageing could bias the results as sex drive declines with age.

#4 is mostly bad ideas for criminal justice policy.

Rehabilitation? It was only a slight exaggeration for Robert Martinson to say: "Nothing works." Liberals persist in believing that government can save souls despite being mugged repeatedly by unpleasant reality.

Officer misconduct? Sums are not large enough for voters to care.

Lead abatement? "Urban areas have greater concentrations of risk, especially old industrial cities." Why don't the Democratic machines running those cities and states spend more money on that rather than, say, subsidizing vagrants? (TDS: But Trump!)

Summer jobs for all? Party like it's 1935 with the National Youth Administration.

Increase state/federal taxes to adequately support our court systems and law enforcement? The liberal creed: Never ever cut any government program to fund other government programs because all government programs are valuable and underfunded by those mean-spirited Republicans.

3. Pigs recorded using tools for the first time.
One out of three build a brick house, one out of three a wood house.

A great measure of how despaired racists are is that they now have to praise rape.

1, Who knew? Democrats passed the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and fought reconstruction and set up the KKK.

5. Really? Is this girl from another planet?

Ball of Confusion? Temptations, 1970.

#1. What I'd like to see is a comprehensive review of slavery around the world from 1800-1820, across all countries/regions in magnitude and severity. Then do a comprehensive review of slavery around the world 2000-2020, all countries and regions. Then let's see both how the west compared to other regions then, and how it all compares through time.

Until then I don't give two s***s and a f*** about this kind of propaganda whose purpose is clearly to build resentment for and undermine one group of people in favor of another.

Sex is rape. Rape is a crime. Sex is a crime. Prostitution is slavery and rape. Free-will and consent are illusions. Wage labor is slavery. Slaves had no agency. White folks had unlimited power. Slaves were always "abused". "Masters" were all exactly the same, and always cruel. Unlike folks today.
I don't necessarily agree, but those are views held by some.
As I sometimes do I will suggest a book: For the Glory of God, by Rodney Stark (2003, Princeton UP). There are also quite a few excellent books on slavery in Brazil, which I unfortunately do not have close enough at hand to include here and modesty prevents my from mentioning others.
Also Eugene Genovese's The World the Slaves Made (if memory serves on the title) suggests that the relations between slaves and masters was variable and complex and that relations within the salves and within the master was lifewise.

Re the rehabilitation article (thing): I recommend Brother Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice. Brother Eldridge asked, how do you rehabilitate a man who was never habiliated in the first place? This model suggests that something is broke and it can be fixed with counseling (talking and introspecting about childhood "traumas", low self-esteem, and "feelings"). According to some ethnography, cons (like Brother Eldridge) regard these programs as just another hustle (or at best something to break up the routine). Criminals don't want their identifies altered, don't want to be "rehabiliated" because they don't think there is anyhthing wrong with them (they didn't do anything wrong, they just "went too far"). What they want is to be better criminals. I recommend Beggars & Thieves: Lives of Urban Street Criminals, by Mark S. Fleisher (U of Wisc. P, 1995).

The man who raped White women as an insurrectionary act and regarded raping Black women as mere practice for the real thing?

No thanks. Plenty of books on the subject without reading his and calling him "brother".

#5 was interesting because he also linked to that interesting Psychology Today article from a couple of days ago.

I clicked in here to see what Hazel Meade had to say about #5, but found she was too busy trying to troll people into being racists that she had no time to offer an opinion on sex. There's a lesson there.

#1 You reckon alcohol was involved? And if you think THAT was bad, you should also go back to the 1600s....

Comments for this post are closed