Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to rstybeach11's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes has been fired after allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by former Fox host Gretchen Carlson and several other women, according to media reports. Just Tuesday, Fox host Megyn Kelly said she was sexually harassed by Ailes 10 years ago. The Drudge Report claims that Ailes will receive a $40 million buyout.

Developing... read more

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee raised nearly $51 million for his presidential campaign in June, his organization announced Wednesday, a dramatic increase over the paltry $3 million raised in May. In June, Hillary Clinton raised $68.5 million, including $40 million for her campaign and $28 million for the Democratic National Committee and state victory funds. Trump got off to a slow start in fundraising, funding much of his primary campaign with personal loans of $50 million. He announced last month he would forgive the loans to his campaign, intending to signal potential donors that he would not use their funds to repay himself.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Businesses that ask a job applicant about his or her criminal history during the hiring process could be fined and forced to pay the applicant up to $500 under a new law being considered by Los Angeles. A Los Angeles City Council committee backed a plan Tuesday to penalize businesses that weed out applicants based on criminal convictions. The rules are part of a law under consideration by the council aimed at giving former convicts a better shot at obtaining employment. The Ban the Box ordinance, approved in concept last year by the council, bans private employers with 10 or more workers from asking questions related to an applicant's criminal history before a conditional offer of employment has been made. read more

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

CNBC: California is now the sixth largest economy in the world, surpassing France thanks to a robust state economy and the strength of the U.S. dollar. California was the world's eighth-largest economy as of last year, according to Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance. "California did exceptionally well in 2015," said Asmundson. "Lots of sectors did well." read more


#61 - so the solution is to do nothing?

In what way is my post an indication that apathy is the answer? I don't understand your response or that of BANNER's to this regard.

That's insane!

It's also something I never suggested!!! (GASP!!!)

Removing too many felons from a society is BAD for the society?

What kind of felon? Like pedophile felon? Or carrying 500 mg of crack felon? Because employers with job applications questioning arrest backgrounds do not discriminate between the two. Been arrested? Chances are your application will not be considered at all just because you marked that little box "yes." The system is set up against even those who have never been convicted, let alone being released from prison or county. Hell, even without an arrest, chances are you won't be considered for a job just because you're home address contains a notoriously "ghetto" zip code.

Your author suggests that re-entry into society all happens at the same time, it does not.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate.

There is lots of literature regarding the positive effect work has on recitivism.

This I know. I've read a lot of it (MS in criminology) and currently work with at-risk youth exiting confinement. I know what the research says and I've seen the data with my own two eyes.

Over the past two weeks our PD had been inundated with gifts and cards from the general public voicing their thanks for the job we do and their support.

Glad to hear it as the vast majority of you (and I'm sure it's safe to say you are a member of that majority) unequivocally deserve such positive recognition.

This does not, however, mitigate my point regarding mass incarceration, its deleterious effects on poor neighborhoods, and Bill Clinton's tie to it.

Better to not harm minority criminals than protect minority victims?

You're not paying attention, are you.
From #56:
"There were other methods to help alleviate the criminal element of black communities and heightened incarceration rates/sentence length did not have to be one of them."

Get it? Do yourself a favor and end your ignorance:

Understandably, most of us would expect that removing criminals -- those who would victimize others -- from a community would be welcomed by the populace, and that both residents and their property would be better off as a result. For most places, that is likely true. Removing a person who has hurt others or who does not respect the property of others is tantamount to removing a thorn from a tender foot. But there is a growing body of evidence that suggest that this may not always be the case, because of the effects that time in prison has on individuals and their home communities. There are collateral consequences that accrue to imprisoned people even after their sentences are completed, and some criminologists believe that when the number of felons removed from a community is "too high," it may actually harm the places where they use to live. And, since most people who are incarcerated return to the same neighborhoods, or very similar places as those they were removed from, their presence in large numbers, when they go home, adds a substantial burden there, too. ...

More ominously, evidence indicates that these patterns likely have a vicious intergenerational cycle. Children of individuals who have been imprisoned have reduced educational attainment, which obviously bodes ill for their future economic competitiveness. This means that in places with high levels of incarceration, this practice is contributing to another generation that has a heightened likelihood of living in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, researchers have found that judges are more likely to sentence children who come before the juvenile court more harshly if they come from disadvantaged neighborhoods than from more stable communities -- yet again continuing the cycle of people moving from disadvantaged places to prison, which makes those neighborhoods more marginalized, which then increases the likelihood of the state removing more people, both juveniles and adults, into the corrections system.


If I'm reading this correctly....
#59 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-07-22 04:18 PM

Not exactly a safe assumption.


Why do you think black leaders all over the country applauded this legislation? You obviosly weren't there, and you can't apply 2016 thinking and statistics to a 1992 problem.

Even though I was there, I didn't HAVE to be there. And I don't need to apply 2016 statistics to the 1992 "problem," 1980s statistics apply appropriately. This bill was the continuation of a misguided trend in politics that provided a message centered around the notion that the criminal justice system was the answer to most of the nation's problems. This is part of the problem with politics: misguided approaches and methods to address issues are packaged up into neat little sound bites for politicians to throw around. The public gobbles them up and puts a lot of trust and faith into the message. Only problem is the public does not read the small print. Leaders in Congress do not read the fine print; they put faith in the message and the POTUS. State leaders and academic scholars read the fine print and gave warning to everyone of how the bill would negatively affect the country. Did anyone listen? Nope. Especially not the black communities. It's this type of politicking that got us into the War on Drugs. Tough on Crime policies were meant to address people's fears; not to address the country's problems.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy 15 years after the fact.

HAHA! Was still Sunday when State leaders lobbied against the truth in sentencing portions of the bill. So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

A lot of young black people have had a chance to grow up thanks to a piece of legislation that quelled the rampant violent crime and gangs in their neighborhoods.

Naivete thy name is GUNSLINGER. You can't ignore the effects levied by heightened incarceration upon the exact same neighborhoods you claim the bill helped "quell the rampan violent crime and gangs in their neighborhoods." Look at the data: crime in all neighborhoods was trending down when Billy's crime bill was written and implemented. Don't you get it? CJS institutional racism already exhisted. Billy's crime bill exacerbated the institutional racism by a lot! You think that had a positive effect on the black neighborhoods? Sorry bud, you got something else coming to you.

Except that you would have to include the vast majority in Congress, from both parties, in your hate speech. You'd also have to include the vast majority of the American people including the black population at the time.

I do and did in my post above.

Good luck with that.

Thanks, but I don't need it.

All I really get from most of your posts is a pile of hatred. You're a little sick, take your meds.

Local and state governments were against major portions of the crime bill in fear that it would dramatically increase the prison population.

"The Clinton administration knew that the criminal justice system was deeply unfair and biased against African Americans, and chose to expand that system."

The above was supported by the black communities? It was supported by the population in general? I highly doubt that. They listened to Billy Boy's claims that Tough on Crime measures was good for our society. It was a political move, nothing more. And Billy Boy used the fears of the black communities as leverage. There were other methods to help alleviate the criminal element of black communities and heightened incarceration rates/sentence length did not have to be one of them. A crime bill was a knee jerk reaction to a "rising crime rate" that was only a few years in the making. The overall trend was headed downward anyways...it had been since the early 1980s. Any "crime wave" that was taking place should not have been addressed by sweeping CJS reform:

Mr Clinton said at one point the 1994 crime bill caused "a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in the murder rate". That is probably not true, though the causes of the drop in crime have puzzled academics for years.

By the time the crime bill was passed, violent crime had begun its decline in the US. It would continue to plummet throughout the 1990s before levelling out in the early 2000s. Crediting a single piece of federal legislation is a stretch, says Mauer, and furthermore, the White House should have taken the decrease in crime rates that was already happening into consideration when it drafted the bill.

"We couldn't know then how much [the crime rate] would go down, but there should have at least been some recognition of that before jumping on this 'tough on crime' bandwagon," he says.


See that? Some recognition; it wasn't even considered. Billy Boy was hoping to look Tough on Crime to combat Republicans' similarly misguided approach in dealing with our nation's problems. No, both Bill and Hillary deserve nothing more than chastisement for pushing through such disastrous policy.



So we are to believe that the answer to the black man's plight is ending illegal immigration. Great, but how? By building a wall? And making Mexico pay for it? How and HOW?! Nothing but recondite thinking lacking any concrete method explaining policy development or implementation. And why only focus on the illegal immigrants themselves? Why not go after the businesses ILLEGALLY hiring them? Welp, nope, we can't expect that to happen under Trump (or Hillary for that matter).

FTA: "This implies that a serious attempt to end illegal immigration would benefit not only wages and employment rates for black men, but even crime rates. And there is just one candidate with a policy platform of ending illegal immigration: Donald Trump."

Great, but HOW?!

"Then there's globalization. The first types of jobs to be sent overseas are the jobs likely to be done by black workers: factory jobs and other types of unskilled labor. Certainly, job skills, training, and education are a part of the solution and policymakers should pursue them. But if Trump can reduce the regulatory and tax cost of doing business in the United States to make it more attractive for our companies to come back home, it should have a positive effect on black workers by making more jobs available over the long term."

GREAT! BUT HOW!??!?!??!He's not running to be king. The power of the purse is held in Congress. Please explain how he plans on accomplishing this? And even more so, is this even one of Trump's ideas? Or is the author planting ideas as hopes of what Trump should do?

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable