As has become an unfortunate habit with the Left, the snarl "RACIST" tends to begin the debate. It's designed, so I have found, to end the debate as well, because the idea is not to exchange views but to bully the opponent into silence. White privilege, reparations, shaming and all that.
This same tactic is apparently going to be the main strategy deployed by opponents of Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General.
I would like to say the ploy has nothing more than its usual degree of tiresome odiousness, but that would be wrong. It has more than the usual degree, because, in fact, for his entire career, Sessions has worked to preserve and improve black lives.
Black lives, and the rights of black people (like all others) to live in peace and safety must and will be a paramount goal of the incoming Justice Department.
The question is not whether black lives matter. The question is how best to protect them.
We already know the answer. Because blacks are disproportionately crime victims -- of property crime and especially of violent crime -- the best legal policies we can adopt are those that suppress the crime rate.
And what policies are those?
Exactly the ones Jeff Sessions has championed his entire career: Hiring and supporting police; proactive policing strategies; fair but stern sentencing for drug traffickers; understanding the incapacitating effects of imprisonment; and constraining naive judges.
We know how these policies have worked because, with unfortunate recent exceptions courtesy of the Obama Administration, we've had them for the 20 years Jeff Sessions has been in the Senate. They were developed during the Reagan Administration when he was a prominent federal prosecutor.
They have worked to cut the crime rate in half. No, they were not the only cause of this astonishing success, but no serious observer doubts they contributed to it significantly.
Who benefited the most from the achievements in the war on crime? The people who were most at risk of being crime victims -- African Americans.
What happens when successful policies are relaxed or, worse, repudiated? We don't have to look far for the answer to that, either. Chicago and Baltimore are shocking examples. The Department of Justice (sometimes with the connivance of local like-minded authorities) imposed consent decrees designed to hamper aggressive policing. The Chicago decree has been in effect for some time; the Baltimore decree is still being worked out, but police there have already learned to watch their backs. When six of your officers are charged with multiple felonies, then -- notwithstanding the fact that not a single one of the charges was proved in court -- you get the message.
Back off. Give the streets back to the dealers and the strongarms. This is exactly what has happened, as Baltimore now experiences historic highs in murder, as reported last week, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/baltimores-300th-killing-this-year-a-violent-milestone-in-a-riot-scarred-city/2015/11/14/448dc4ba-8a1f-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html?utm_term=.acdcb6d37f8d
The news from Chicago is even worse. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-violence-700-homicides-met-20161201-story.html
Anyone want to take a guess about the race of the murder victims?
The easy part is to stand on the podium a la' Al Sharpton and thunder about the importance of black lives. The hard part is doing something about it. Jeff Sessions has spent his career, as a prosecutor and a Senator, doing the hard part.
Others talk the talk. In defending the lives and property of black people, Jeff Sessions has walked the walk.
Since you mentioned it, here's a link to a site with details on this year's crime violence in Chicago. Although it certainly appears well researched, I cannot vouch for the site's accuracy. It's also a few days or a week out of date.
It does represent race/sex breakdowns of this year's shootings, by both victim and suspect. Note the rather shocking number of unsolved murders, well below any national average.
http://heyjackass.com
Yes, that's the correct link. I just checked it again.
JCC
BLACK-2-BLACK Crime, Venue: Syracuse, NY
Syracuse man, acquitted of murder, confesses on Facebook
December 20, 2016
SYRACUSE, N.Y.-
"I did that. Me and another black male," Thomas said in the video,
according to court papers."
"(N-word), I beat this!" Thomas wrote on Facebook, according to court
papers. "SO GET OFF MY (expletive). I DID DAT."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Southwick told a judge in March that
the admissions to murder are evidence that Thomas is a danger to
the community.
"Believing that his acquittal in state court shielded him from any
further prosecution, the defendant now tells the world, 'Yes, I did it,'"
A witness saw two men shoot Paulk to death, but the jury acquitted Thomas.
A month after the verdict, Thomas wrote on Facebook again ...
"Ma [my] work stay makin da news," the post said, according to court papers.
Thomas boasted on Facebook again in July 2015 .. about 10 people being
shot in a violent July 4 weekend: "10 shootins in 1 day n nobody dies,
that's how u no I'm not involved."
~ www.syracuse.com/crime/
index.ssf/2016/12/syracuse_man_acquitted_of_murder_confesses_on_facebook.html
Here's an opinion piece from the opposite viewpoint (to demonstrate that "the left's" concerns aren't merely fantasy):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/18/attorney_general_jeff_sessions_would_doom_civil_rights_law.html
Not sure that citation demonstrates your point. The author assumes as fact numerous disputed allegations without any indication that he knows or cares that they are disputed.
Does he live in such a bubble that he doesn't know? Is he so lazy, uncaring of whether his allegations are true, or both that he didn't even bother to check?