BLACK BERMUDA TRIANGLE – White Conspiracy Vs. Negroes – RACIAL PROFILING Part 3 of 4
Published @Blog-City originally Aug. 7, 2005
BLACK BERMUDA TRIANGLE -
WHITE CONSPIRACY AGAINST
BLACKS IN AMERICA –
Part 3 of 4
Originally published @ Blog-City August 7, 2005 (H: 844 + C:1)
Republished April 10, 2007 (H: 819 + C:2 – August 29, 2009 Total H: 1,663)
This is the 3rd of 4 articles entitled, “Black Bermuda Triangle: White Conspiracy Vs. Negroes” –
Yes, It Does Exist!
If you have not already done so, please read Part 1, “Conspiracy Responsibility Overview”.
If you have not already done so, please read Part 2, “Rockefeller Drug Laws”. “the circular illogic of racial profiling.”
Arrest and incarceration statistics do not justify racial profiling; they are a product of it.
RACIAL PROFILING – 2nd Vertex of Black Bermuda Triangle – Part 3 of 4 Articles
Racial Profiling is WRONG! Anyone, who is a person of color and not an Uncle Tom, knows that. The only people who think it’s a good idea, like Bill Maher, are Whites, who will never fall into that net themselves. It’s the same as those “have mores”, who send their kids to private schools, then vote against each and every public school bond issue because their kids and grandkids will never grace a public school.
But it’s not fair to hold the “have mores” to the same moral standards as Middle America. Nor is it fair to hold White people, who favor racial profiling, to the same moral standards as human beings. After all, morality is for the other guy. To misappropriate Leona Helmsley’s quote (“Only poor people pay taxes”), I would substitute, “Only poor people observe morality”. The horrible truth is that both quotes are basically accurate.
Some have suggested that we need not search “girl scouts” and “grannies”. Well, if we follow that policy, Al Qaeda will recruit girl scouts and grannies to be terrorists. Wouldn’t you, if you were Al Qaeda’s brain trust? The enemy will adapt!
Some racists will do or say anything to preserve their own feelings of superiority and “slave master” mentality. Any justification of racial profiling is unacceptable. Look for suspicious people, not people who wear special types of clothing or have particular pigmentation. That gives Carte Blanche to (guess who?) – Caucasians, of course. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the two Whites responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, were neither Muslim nor Black, but Caucasian. John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban arrested in London, is Caucasian. Why has no one suggested we profile Caucasians?
If you are White, try to imagine yourself in an African country where all Caucasians are profiled, questioned, searched and incarcerated because they are Caucasian looking. You wouldn’t like it, especially if you were guilty of nothing. What must Muslims, on their way to pray, feel about being profiled in the good ole U.S.A. because they appear to be Muslim? How do Viet Namese, Hispanics, Chinese, Italians or other ethnic groups, erroneously profiled as Muslim, feel?
To Whites, don’t all Blacks look alike? Air flights have been delayed or cancelled because two men on board were speaking in a foreign language. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t distinguish between Russian and Spanish, let alone Arabic.
Finally, let’s release McVeigh (oh, that’s right – he was executed already). Well then, let’s release Nichols and Lindh. After all, they are Caucasian and could not possibly have done anything wrong; they don’t fit the profile! Right? I know it makes no difference to anyone who favors that process, but racial profiling is inefficient and obnoxious/abhorrent/invidious/repellent/repugnant/revulsive to all profiled people of color, and ineffective – let me reiterate, “RACIAL PROFILING DOES NOT WORK”! But that won’t stop the Racial Profiling lobbyists, AKA “Racists”.
WHAT IS RACIAL PROFILING?
Racial profiling is the use of race as one consideration in suspect profiling or other law enforcement practices. Advocates are divided on the degree to which race should be considered a factor. Some would argue that race should:
never be considered for any reason in a police action
should never be considered the primary or motivating factor
should only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptors (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks). This is often referred to as the “be on the lookout” (BOLO) exception.
While often associated with police procedures, the issue came into the international spotlight because race was included among the factors used by aviation authorities in several countries to attempt to identify potential terrorists and prevent them from boarding airplanes. Virtually all advocates agree that race ought not to be the only factor in suspect profiling. Most would agree that the police should not, for example, pull over only speeders of a particular ethnic group while letting others go. Some groups say that if a disproportional number of members of a race are, for example, stopped, searched, or arrested — compared to the general population or to other races — it must necessarily be due to discrimination. These groups regard the disproportion as evidence of “racial profiling” and oppose it. They want authorities to reduce the disproportion. Some members of this group point out that, even where disproportion is thought to exist in the number of minorities who commit certain crimes, by their very status as ” minorities ” they usually represent only a fraction of the total number of criminals, and therefore the concentration of enforcement on minorities represents something other than a desire for police efficiency.
Yet these same statistics also point out that an arrest is more likely to be made when pulling over a black person than a white person. According to the US Department of Justice, the prevalence of incarceration for the entire population is 1:37, yet 1:3 black males are imprisoned in their lifetime compared to Hispanics at 1:6 and whites at 1:17. Currently there are as many blacks, who have served time in prison, as there are whites who have served time in prison. Caution must be used with even these statistics, because unless examined critically, by department and state, they might lend credence to an overzealous police practices that have let whites and Hispanics go free while harassing young black males.
Other groups, in contrast to this view, claim that the disproportion is primarily a result of disproportional behavior by members of certain races. These groups deny that the disproportion is due to “racial profiling” and do not call on police to reduce it. Including race as one of several factors in suspect profiling is generally supported by the law enforcement community, though there are many notable exceptions. It is claimed that profiling based on any characteristic is a time-tested and universal police tool, and that excluding race, as a factor, makes no sense.
Minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it is claimed, so they get more attention from law enforcement. Proponents claim that suspect profiling that deliberately omits race results in less effective, inefficient law-enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
BEYOND THE MYTHOLOGY OF RACIAL PROFILING
Opinion Page, San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/13/00
By Linda Hills, Executive Director, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Randa Trapp, President, NAACP of San Diego
An ordinary commuter turns the key in the ignition, glances in the rear view mirror, and pulls away from the curb. Rounding the corner, his slightly worn tires slip on a fresh layer of light rain. He executes a perfect “California rolling stop” at an intersection and enters the freeway, accelerating to a comfortable 70 mph for the cruise into downtown. Our commuter just violated the traffic code at least four times, just as we all do each time we get behind the wheel. But if our commuter is a person of color, there’s a good chance he won’t make it to work without being pulled over for “driving while black or brown.”
Police Have A Choice About Whom They Stop According to the U.S. Supreme Court, any violation of the traffic code is a legitimate pretext for pulling a driver over, even if the officer is only on a fishing expedition for bigger offenses. Thus, if a police officer wants to target a particular driver, all she/he has to do is wait for the inevitable traffic violation to occur. African Americans, Latinos, and Asians believe that the driver’s skin color is often the determining factor in whether or not the officer exercises his or her discretion to stop a vehicle.
San Diego A Model
In response to the community, the San Diego Police Department became the first in the nation to voluntarily record the race and ethnicity of every driver stopped. Preliminary results were recently released following a joint review by the Police Department and its consultants, ACLU, NAACP, Urban League, Latino Unity Coalition, and Asian representatives. The results are troubling, but consistent with what communities of color already believe, ‘if your skin is black or brown, you’re more likely to be stopped’. African Americans and Latinos represent 28% of the driving population, but are 40% of those stopped and 60% of those searched.
Two thirds of all stops occurred during daylight hours, when the color of a driver’s skin is more easily observed. Rational Discrimination or Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? One common response is, “Since people of color commit more crimes than whites, it only makes sense to look for lawbreakers among the black and brown.” This perception is so common that for many, including some police officers, it is almost unconscious. This “profile” of a lawbreaker is based, so the explanation goes, not on racism, but on experience. The profile makes every person of color a likely potential criminal to law enforcement and justifies a legal pretextual traffic stop. But this response is not based in reality.
Every study of racial profiling shows that, contrary to popular belief, people of color are NOT more likely to carry drugs or other contraband in their vehicles than whites. In Maryland, the percentages of black and white drivers carrying contraband were statistically identical. The U.S. Customs Service’s own figures show that while over 43% of those searched were minorities,the “hit rates” for these searches were actually lower for people of color than for whites. This is consistent with research results showing that the rate of drug use generally reflects a group’s percentage in the overall population. Yet, many believe that people of color are responsible for most of our nation’s drug crime. This belief is reflected in the criminal justice system.
Because African Americans and Latinos are stopped and searched at extremely high rates, they are also arrested and incarcerated at extremely high rates. New Jersey’s Attorney General calls this “the circular illogic of racial profiling.” Arrest and incarceration statistics do not justify racial profiling; they are a product of it.
The Deployment Ploy
Other police departments claim that because of the high crime rate in minority neighborhoods, more officers are deployed in those areas. More police, more chances for people to be pulled over. Again reality rears its head. The crimes, which warrant a higher concentration of police, are violent or property crimes. Yet, 97% of the vehicle stops in the San Diego study were based on a vehicle code violation. Only 1% of those stops actually led to an arrest. There is no justifiable connection between vehicle stops and effective crime fighting in neighborhoods of color and, if it is the explanation for the disproportionate impact on African Americans and Latinos, it should be fixed. http://www.aclusandiego.org/racial_profiling.html
The Roots of Racial Profiling
Why are police targeting minorities for traffic stops? REASON *
By Gene Callahan and William Anderson
It is early in the morning, and the well-dressed young African-American man driving his Ford Explorer on I-75 sees the blue lights of the Georgia State Patrol car behind him. The officer pulls behind the sport utility vehicle and the young man’s heart begins to sink. He is on his way to Atlanta for a job interview. The stop, ostensibly for speeding, should not take long, he reasons, as the highway patrol officer walks cautiously toward the Explorer. But instead of simply asking for a driver’s license and writing a speeding ticket, the trooper calls for backup. Another trooper soon arrives, his blue lights flashing as well. The young man is told to leave his vehicle, as the troopers announce their intention to search it. “Hey, where did you get the money for something like this?” one trooper asks mockingly while he starts the process of going through every inch of the Explorer. Soon, an officer pulls off an inside door panel. More dismantling of the vehicle follows. They say they are looking for drugs, but in the end find nothing. After ticketing the driver for speeding, the two officers casually drive off. Sitting in his now-trashed SUV, the young man weeps in his anger and humiliation.
Unmotivated searches like this are daily occurrences on our nation’s highways, and blacks and white liberals have been decrying the situation for several years. Many conservatives, on the other hand, dismiss such complaints as the exaggerations of hypersensitive minorities. Or they say that if traffic cops do in fact pull over and search the vehicles of African Americans disproportionately, then such “racial profiling” is an unfortunate but necessary component of modern crime fighting. One of us teaches in an MBA program that enrolls a fairly large number of African Americans, and the story comes from one of our students. Indeed, during class discussions, all of the black men and many of the black women told stories of having their late-model cars pulled over and searched for drugs.
The practice of racial profiling grows from a trio of very tangible sources, all attributable to the War on Drugs, that $37 billion annual effort on the part of local, state, and federal lawmakers and cops to stop the sale and use of “illicit” substances. The sources include the difficulty in policing victimless crimes in general and the resulting need for intrusive police techniques; the greater relevancy of this difficulty given the intensification of the drug war since the 1980s; and the additional incentive that asset forfeiture laws give police forces to seize money and property from suspects.
The Practice of Racial Profiling
Although some observers claim that racial profiling doesn’t exist, there is an abundance of stories and statistics that document the practice. One case, where law enforcement officers were particularly bold in their declaration of intent, involved U.S. Forest Service officers in California’s Mendocino National Forest last year. In an attempt to stop marijuana growing, forest rangers were told to question all Hispanics whose cars were stopped, regardless of whether pot was actually found in their vehicles.
Tim Crews, the publisher of the Sacramento Valley Mirror, a biweekly newspaper, published a memo he’d gotten from a federal law enforcement officer. The memo told park rangers “to develop probable cause for stop…if a vehicle stop is conducted and no marijuana is located and the vehicle has Hispanics inside, at a minimum we would like all individuals FI’d [field interrogated].” A spokeswoman for Mendocino National Forest called the directive an “unfortunate use of words”.
The statistics are equally telling. Consider Crises of the Anti-Drug Effort, 1999, a report by Chad Thevenot of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a group that monitors abuses of the American legal system. Thevenot writes: “76 percent of the motorists stopped along a 50-mile stretch of I-95 by Maryland’s Special Traffic Interdiction Force (STIF) were black, according to an Associated Press computer analysis of car searches from January through September 1995….
Blacks constitute 25 percent of Maryland’s population, and 20 percent of Marylanders with driver’s licenses.” As this story was being written, New Jersey was holding hearings on racial profiling, and one state police investigator testified that 94 percent of the motorists stopped in one town were minorities. Minorities are not only more likely to be stopped than whites, but they are also often pressured to allow searches of their vehicles, and they are more likely to allow such searches.
In March, The New York Times reported that a 1997 investigation by New Jersey police of their own practices found that “turnpike drivers who agreed to have their cars searched by the state police were overwhelmingly black and Hispanic”. Some commentators, such as John Derbyshire in National Review, have defended racial profiling as nothing more than sensible police technique, where police employ the laws of probability to make the best use of their scarce resources in attacking crime. As Derbyshire put it in his February 19 story, “In Defense of Racial Profiling,” the police engage in the practice for reasons of simple efficiency: “A policeman who concentrates a disproportionate amount of his limited time and resources on young black men is going to uncover far more crimes — and therefore be far more successful in his career — than one who biases his attention toward, say, middle-aged Asian women”.
(Tabacco: Why does a policeman have to be biased at all? That seems to be the operative question!)
George Will, in an April 19 Washington Post column, contends that the use of race as a criterion in traffic stops is fine, as long as it is just “one factor among others in estimating criminal suspiciousness.” Similarly, Jackson Toby, a professor of sociology at Rutgers, argued in a 1999 Wall Street Journal op-ed that, “If drug traffickers are disproportionately black or Hispanic, the police don’t need to be racist to stop many minority motorists; they simply have to be efficient in targeting potential drug traffickers.”
(Tabacco: The operative question here is, ‘If you never profile White drivers, how will you know what percentage of whites are drug traffickers?’ That would make an interesting study, wouldn’t it? We could determine if poor Blacks are inherently more likely to be drug traffickers than say poor Whites. But that’s right, you can’t target poor Whites, whereas Blacks, poor or not, is a slam-dunk! Do you think anyone will ever fund such a study?)
Case Probability vs. Class Probability
The stories and statistics that draw outrage tend to share two common elements: They involve a search for drugs and the prospect of asset forfeiture. These types of investigations have led police from the solid ground of “case probability” to the shifting sands of “class probability” in their quest for probable cause. Once police are operating on the basis of class probability, there is a strong claim that certain groups of people are being denied equal protection under the law.
Case probability describes situations where we comprehend some factors relevant to a particular event, but not all such factors. It is used when a doctor tells a patient, “Given your lifestyle, you’ll probably be dead in five years.”
Class probability refers to situations where we know enough about a class of events to describe it using statistics, but nothing about a particular event other than the fact that it belongs to the class in question. Class probability is being used when an insurance company estimates that a man who is 40 today will probably live to be, on average, about 80. The insurance company is not making any statement about the particular circumstances of any particular man, but merely generalizing about the class of 40-year-old men.
(Tabacco: Sounds to me like the topic of a future article.)
This distinction helps us to differentiate two ways of using information about race or ethnicity in a police investigation. As an example of the first type, employing case probability, consider a mugging victim who has told the police that her mugger was a young Asian man. Here, it is quite understandable that the group of suspects investigated will not “look like America.” There is no sense in forcing the police to drag in proportional numbers of whites, blacks, women, and so on, proving that they have interrogated a representative population sample of their city, before they can arrest an Asian fellow. No, their investigation should clearly focus on young Asian men.
(Tabacco: This example is obvious to anyone. We have probable cause to profile Asians, in spite of the possibility the victim is dead wrong about the ethnicity – we all know how non-Whites all look alike. Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the opportunity.)
It’s not at all impossible that a prevalence of some type of criminal activity in some ethnic group will lead to many investigations that focus on members of that group. As long as this is based on evidence gathered from particular crimes, there is nothing untoward here. If it turns out, for instance, that Bulgarians are especially numerous among purse-snatchers in some city, then a summary of police interrogations might discover evidence of “Bulgarian profiling” in the investigation of purse-snatching. But this may be a statistical mirage if it turns out that no one in the police force set out to focus on Bulgarians as potential purse-snatchers. The emergent result is an unintended outcome of policemen following an entirely valid principle of crime investigation: Concentrate on suspects who fit the description you have of the suspect. But when we turn our attention to the type of racial profiling that occurred on the highways of Maryland and New Jersey, or that is described in the Forest Service memo, we find a very different phenomenon, one where investigations proceeded on the basis of class probability.
Here, before having evidence of a particular crime, police set out intending to investigate a high proportion of people of some particular race, ethnic group, age group, or so on. Their only justification is that by doing so, they increase their chances of discovering some crimes.
Additionally, there is a fundamental difference between the type of crime, such as the mugging example above, that is usually investigated by gathering evidence about a known crime, and narrowing the search based on such evidence, and the type investigated by looking in as many places as possible to see if one can find a crime.
The first type of crime generally has a victim, and the police are aware of a specific crime that has been committed. The crime is brought to the attention of the police by a complainant, even if the complainant is a corpse. However, the use of class probability in police investigations is correctly regarded with extreme suspicion, as it violates a basic principle of justice: The legal system should treat all citizens equally, until there is specific, credible evidence that they have committed a crime.
In the cases we’ve been discussing, we can say that the odds that any particular young black or Hispanic man will be hassled by the police are much higher than for a white man who, aside from his race, is demographically indistinguishable from him. These minority men, no matter how law-abiding they are, know that they will be investigated by the police significantly more often than other citizens who are not members of their racial group.
The social cost of the alienation produced by this situation cannot, of course, be measured, but common sense tells us that it must be great.
Drug War Profiling Practices
Both statistical studies and anecdotal evidence support the view that drug crimes are the almost exclusive focus of investigation in racial profiling cases. Hence, The New York Times reported in February that, “The New Jersey State Police said last week that the number of drug arrests on the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike fell last year, after the department came under scrutiny for racial profiling.
The number of drug charges resulting from stops on the turnpike were 370 last year, compared with 494 drug charges in 1999. There were 1,269 charges filed in 1998. On the parkway, troopers reported 350 drug charges last year compared with 783 in 1999 and 1,279 in 1998.” The Record, a Bergen, New Jersey, newspaper, obtained state police documents last fall.
One document, used for training, teaches troopers to zero in on minorities when scanning state roadways for possible drug traffickers. Titled“Occupant Identifiers for a Possible Drug Courier”, the document instructs troopers to look out for“Colombian males, Hispanic males, Hispanic and a black male together, Hispanic male and female posing as a couple.” (One’s mind boggles at how the police are able to detect that two Hispanics are “posing” as a couple as they zip by at 60 miles per hour.)
The undated document also teaches troopers how to use supposed traffic violations, such as “speeding” and “failure to drive within a single lane”, as a pretext to pull over suspected drug couriers.
How Asset Forfeiture Fuels Profiling
In the 1980s, state legislatures and Congress were frustrated with their inability to arrest and convict “drug kingpins.” So they passed laws that gave police the power to seize the property of suspected dealers. The dubious rationale: The “pushers’” property had been purchased through ill-gotten gains and hence didn’t rightly belong to them. (Questions about establishing actual guilt were brushed aside as counterproductive.) The federalComprehensive Crime Act of 1984 was the most important of these measures, as it allowed local police agencies that cooperated in a drug investigation to keep the vast majority of the assets seized. The U.S. Department of Justice reports: “Collectively, local police departments received $490 million worth of cash, goods, and property from drug asset forfeiture programs during fiscal 1997. Sheriffs’ departments had total receipts of $158 million.”
This kind of money adds a major incentive to police efforts to discover drug crimes.However, if they can identify a minority group that is somewhat more likely to commit a particular drug crime — and if they know that members of that group are not politically powerful — then the police can focus on those people in order to enhance their departmental revenue.
The usual supposition, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, has been explicitly reversed in asset forfeiture cases. The authorities are not required to prove that a crime, involving the goods in question, has been committed. Instead, they must merely have “probable cause” for the seizure; the burden of proof is on the defendant trying to recover his property.
The Schaffer Library of Drug Policy (druglibrary.org/schaffer) has found that 80 percent of those who have had assets seized are never charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. Federal law provides for up to five years in prison for attempting to prevent one’s own property from being grabbed. ..the implication is clear.The possibility of rich pickings through asset forfeiture, combined with the higher propensity for black motorists to carry drugs, provides police departments with a tremendous incentive to engage in racial profiling. It is hardly surprising, then, that police take the bait, even at the cost of racial bias accusations and investigations. Of course, if the police begin harassing all motorists in a particular locale, support for their activities will soon evaporate.
(Tabacco: This strongly suggests that the lawmakers deliberately and with malice aforethought created the legal conditions required for the ‘Black Bermuda Triangle’ to become effective.)
This Is Your Law Enforcement on Drugs
If we really wish to end the scourge of racial profiling, we must address its roots: drug laws that encourage police to consider members of broad groups as probable criminals. It should be obvious that there’s something nutty about a legal system that assumes suspects in murder, robbery, and rape cases are innocent until a trial proves otherwise, but assumes that a landscaper carrying some cash is guilty of drug trafficking.
(Edited: for complete Article, go to site below)
Why Racial Profiling Works by V.S. Herrell
The Jewish media has generated a lot of attention for the police practice of “racial profiling,” even though “racial profiling” doesn’t exist as an actual police policy anywhere in the United States. But the Jews and blacks are using the idea of racial profiling as an excuse for why so many non-whites are arrested and imprisoned. So while the whole debate is a little ridiculous since no law enforcement agency in the country has such a policy, a look at the actual facts make for a convincing argument that an active policy of racial profiling by police agencies would help bring in more criminals and solve more crimes. It is true that blacks are 5 to 6 times more likely to be arrested than whites, and Hispanics are about 3 times as likely, but these numbers do not indicate that police are arresting blacks at too high a rate, but in fact, as astonishing as it may seem, it shows that whites are arrested at too high a rate. The truth is stranger than any fiction being seen in Jewish movies in month after month of the Jewish lies about how unfair the white racist police are to poor, black dope fiends and murderers.
The exact opposite is the truth. That ought to make every intelligent person in America angry, including decent blacks.
Tabacco Speaks Again: The 2 paragraphs, immediately preceding my thoughts, are the first two in a ridiculous article, which gives credence to that old saw, ‘There are lies, damn lies and statistics’. If you want to read the rest of V. S. Herrell’s propaganda, you will have to go to his website: http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0105/rp.htm
But as you read it, think to yourself, ‘Would Bill O’Reilly, Bob Novak, Susan Coulter or Rush Limbaugh quote from a liberal source, even with a disclaimer, that directly contradicts that editorialist’s views?’ That’s the real difference between the conservatives and the liberals – the conservatives don’t want you to hear or read anyone’s opinions that contradict their own, unless those opinions or that person can be immediately rebuked and ridiculed. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about V. S. Herrell.
Other Relevant Websites:
http://www.claremont.org/writings/030101johnson.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/racial_profiling/ http://crpr.icaap.org/issues/issue1/wortley-tanner.html http://www.scpronet.com/point/0104/p04.html http://web.cwoc.ufl.edu/owl/archives/2004_05_01/messages/2322.html http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.htm http://www.aele.org/NJprofil.html http://www.aele.org/losrace2000.html http://www.neonjoint.com/your_rights/facts/racial-profiling-stats.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/jan-june01/profiling_3-13.htm http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/jurisdictions.php?state=RI http://www.lwvny.org/League_Study/Arrest%20to%20Sentencing/reading_materials.htm http://november.org/razorwire/rzold/13/1308.html http://www.reason.com/0108/fe.gc.the.shtml http://www.freep.com/news/metro/qprof27.htm http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17351/article_detail.aspc http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/profiling02.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/s98oday.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_5_71/ai_86876516 http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/e4/dkt219.shtml http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=126 http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial_profiling/traditional.html http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=254 http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/ChampionArticles/99sep04?OpenDocument http://www.queensjournal.ca/article.php?point=vol132/issue30/features/lead2 http://www.circlealpha.com/library/rootsofracialprofiling.html
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People