RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Jimmy Higgins]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Oh? Governor Rick Snyder was charged with criminal corruption for his role in saving a few dollars and allowing the tap water of Flint Michigan to poison tens of thousands of Flint's children via illegal lead levels. Are you sure he'd have still done this if Flint were not majority-black?

That isn't exactly what happened. GOP bean counters were the inspiration for the madness though. GLWC (or is it GLWA) was getting too pricey for water. Flint was poor. The state had a great idea! Let's just do it ourselves and save money while we wait for an alternative water source to get constructed. They decided to get the old plant up and running and use the local river water. And they did so in record time. Which meant there was going to possibly be problems. Treating drinking water takes skill. It is usually a moving target (see Toledo).

In Flint, the logistics were different and the right things weren't being considered. In this case, a question wasn't asked regarding the higher corrosivity water. The GOP bean counters asked 'is the water safe to drink'. The answer was 'yes'.

What wasn't asked was, 'Will the corrosive water lead to lead leaching in local building pipes?' The answer to that would have been... 'Shoot! We need to look into that.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Yes and no.

Overall, Black children had an adjusted +0.83 µg/dL blood Pb (95% CI 0.65 to 1.00, p < 0.001) and a 2.8 times higher odds of having an EBLL ≥5 µg/dL (95% CI 1.9 to 3.9, p < 0.001). When stratified by risk factor group, Black children had an adjusted 0.73 to 1.41 µg/dL more blood Pb (p < 0.001 respectively) and a 1.8 to 5.6 times higher odds of having an EBLL ≥5 µg/dL (p ≤ 0.05 respectively) for every selected risk factor that was tested. For Black children nationwide, one in four residing in pre-1950 housing and one in six living in poverty presented with an EBLL ≥5 µg/dL. In conclusion, significant nationwide racial disparity in blood Pb outcomes persist for predominantly African-American Black children even after correcting for risk factors and other variables. This racial disparity further persists within housing, socio-economic, and age-related risk factors of blood Pb outcomes that are much more severe for Black children.

So yes, it isn't just black children, but they are at a much higher statistical risk of it. When I first saw the charts showing lead levels in children in Flint and how it varied with the time of the year, that was particularly disturbing.

Regarding "free society", lead abatement can be made a priority if we make it a priority. How many apartment homes could we remove lead from for the cost of one fighter jet?

 

[Gospel]

I can understand why some might think it was deliberate. Given this country's long history of intentionally disadvantaging Black people, it's not an unreasonable assumption.

 

[Toni]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Oh? Governor Rick Snyder was charged with criminal corruption for his role in saving a few dollars and allowing the tap water of Flint Michigan to poison tens of thousands of Flint's children via illegal lead levels. Are you sure he'd have still done this if Flint were not majority-black?

That isn't exactly what happened. GOP bean counters were the inspiration for the madness though. GLWC (or is it GLWA) was getting too pricey for water. Flint was poor. The state had a great idea! Let's just do it ourselves and save money while we wait for an alternative water source to get constructed. They decided to get the old plant up and running and use the local river water. And they did so in record time. Which meant there was going to possibly be problems. Treating drinking water takes skill. It is usually a moving target (see Toledo).

In Flint, the logistics were different and the right things weren't being considered. In this case, a question wasn't asked regarding the higher corrosivity water. The GOP bean counters asked 'is the water safe to drink'. The answer was 'yes'.

What wasn't asked was, 'Will the corrosive water lead to lead leaching in local building pipes?' The answer to that would have been... 'Shoot! We need to look into that.'

Which is always easier if it isn't you or anyone you know or care about who is affected.

People do not put themselves in other people's shoes nearly often enough. Largely, because we do a lot of self-segregating and seek to live where people look and think and act just like we do.
This is not to ignore or belittle the fact that segregation has been policy for hundreds of years, in various forms, including but not limited to redlining and design of neighborhoods around workplaces, schools, doctors, shopping, etc.

 

[Gospel]

Just think about it—I was born only 5 years after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Some people seem to think the African American experience dates all the way back to the time the Egyptian pyramids were being constructed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.

That isn't exactly what happened. GOP bean counters were the inspiration for the madness though. GLWC (or is it GLWA) was getting too pricey for water. Flint was poor. The state had a great idea! Let's just do it ourselves and save money while we wait for an alternative water source to get constructed. They decided to get the old plant up and running and use the local river water. And they did so in record time. Which meant there was going to possibly be problems. Treating drinking water takes skill. It is usually a moving target (see Toledo).

In Flint, the logistics were different and the right things weren't being considered. In this case, a question wasn't asked regarding the higher corrosivity water. The GOP bean counters asked 'is the water safe to drink'. The answer was 'yes'.

What wasn't asked was, 'Will the corrosive water lead to lead leaching in local building pipes?' The answer to that would have been... 'Shoot! We need to look into that.'

Which is always easier if it isn't you or anyone you know or care about who is affected.
People do not put themselves in other people's shoes nearly often enough. Largely, because we do a lot of self-segregating and seek to live where people look and think and act just like we do.
This is not to ignore or belittle the fact that segregation has been policy for hundreds of years, in various forms, including but not limited to redlining and design of neighborhoods around workplaces, schools, doctors, shopping, etc.

Less that, more they had no clue what they were doing and should never have inserted themselves into the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

AFIAK low down mortgages didn't exist at the time you're talking about.

As far as I know, loans for property improvement, new homes, and even refinancing were all available during the era of redlining. We’re still talking about that, right? You haven’t stepped through a portal to an alternate reality where we’re having a completely different conversation, correct? All of these financial opportunities were systematically denied to Black people.

The exclusion of loans on old houses was long ago. In the old days 80/20 was it, low down wasn't relevant.

In the more recent flap locally there was a complete correspondence between "discrimination" and "likely to be underwater a few years down the road". Occam's Razor. If you say it's discrimination you are left with explaining why they only discriminate about low down loans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Seems reasonable. But what about ill gotten gains that originate from a previous generation? Like if you're grandfather was a drug dealer and he passed his wealth to your dad, who then wants to pass it on to you? How far back to we go?

As far back as the statute of limitations permits.

Statute of limitations is typically 7 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, it’s too late to hold individuals accountable for gains made from slavery. Even if it weren’t too late, you'd need to consider whether those gains were made while slavery was still legal or after it was abolished. Since there’s no legal remedy for the crime of slavery itself (given that it was once legal), the only remaining option is compensation from the government, which essentially admitted its wrongdoing through constitutional amendments. But I'll be honest—that’s a pipe dream.

I would favor stripping every dollar from every slaver and giving them to their slaves.

But note that there are no legal slavers, nor any legal slaves still alive. And almost all estates from back then have long since dissipated even if you went after them (and I disagree with going after them--the beneficiaries did nothing wrong.)

We do on occasion bust slavers. It can be extremely hard to prosecute (because the victims are controlled by threats against their relatives) but if they are convicted strip them of every penny. (But note that claims of sexual slavery far exceed reality. Most such arrests are simple prostitution with no slavery involved.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe Affirmative Action and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts should be abolished, and instead, racism should be criminalized—not just in cases of violent crimes, but in any acts of racism that violate someone's rights or deny them opportunities that others in similar circumstances have access to. All hate crimes should be met with serious consequences, including incarceration, rather than the current approach of coddling these individuals with Affirmative Action and DEI initiatives. Those who engage in racism would soon regret their actions and reminisce about the "good old days" of Affirmative Action and DEI, wishing for a time when America was more accommodating to their racist views, and would listen to them bitch and moan about helping black people.

The problem with prosecuting is that it can be very hard to prove.

Let's wind the clock back something like 20 years ago, an ancestor of this board. I made a moderation decision that one side called very biased. On it's face it was--I locked a thread that under typical conditions would not have been locked. What they couldn't know is that I was looking when the next person capable of taking action might see it--and the gap was much larger than normal. Thus a heavier hand on deciding what to act on rather than watch.

Or look at recent "redlining" flap. Discrimination, or looking at whether they would be underwater? The government decreed it discrimination without apparently making any effort to dismiss the confounder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, it’s too late to hold individuals accountable for gains made from slavery. Even if it weren’t too late, you'd need to consider whether those gains were made while slavery was still legal or after it was abolished. Since there’s no legal remedy for the crime of slavery itself (given that it was once legal), the only remaining option is compensation from the government, which essentially admitted its wrongdoing through constitutional amendments. But I'll be honest—that’s a pipe dream.

Right now, I'd settle for just getting the lead out of the paint.

Are you going to decree that all the existing paint must be stripped? Who pays? It's a job for the hazmat guys, not remotely DIY. A lot of places with lead paint would probably be junked rather than cleaned up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Exactly. It's one of these problems where the "cure" very well might be worse than the problem.

Lead paint removal is a hazmat thing. And when "hazmat" enters the scene the price tag goes through the roof.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In other words, it’s too late to hold individuals accountable for gains made from slavery. Even if it weren’t too late, you'd need to consider whether those gains were made while slavery was still legal or after it was abolished. Since there’s no legal remedy for the crime of slavery itself (given that it was once legal), the only remaining option is compensation from the government, which essentially admitted its wrongdoing through constitutional amendments. But I'll be honest—that’s a pipe dream.

Right now, I'd settle for just getting the lead out of the paint.

Are you going to decree that all the existing paint must be stripped? Who pays?

Yes! I think taking lead out of the paint should have been done decades ago. The US Government can pay or we could get SW and PPG to pay. But we need to stop poisoning children even if it "would cost money".

It's a job for the hazmat guys, not remotely DIY.

No way? I thought we could just pay illegals $2 an hour and they could make things all better. Are you suggesting that chemical related remediation would require.... skills and training and certification? Mind is just blown here.

A lot of places with lead paint would probably be junked rather than cleaned up.

You are coming up with numerous excuses for continuing to poison children. Why in the fuck would you support that? Or is this one of those 'in a perfect world we wouldn't poison children with lead, but... it'd cost money... so... hopes and prayers.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And still... today..., black youth are being poisoned by lead paint dust.

You say this as though it's only black kids. Or it's deliberate.

It's not. It's a poverty issue that affects all kids living in old places with poor maintenance.

The government tackled environmental lead poisoning, about as well as they could, decades ago. The two biggest problems were indoor paint and leaded fuel. Those issues got hammered. But there's only so much the government can do, in a free society.
Tom

Exactly. It's one of these problems where the "cure" very well might be worse than the problem.

Okay, deciding to stop poisoning children isn't a cure... it is stopping a gross act of negligence.

Lead paint removal is a hazmat thing. And when "hazmat" enters the scene the price tag goes through the roof.

While lead removal is hazmat, it isn't HAZMAT hazmat. But I am sorry that your grasp on your wallet is stronger than any sense of human empathy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That isn't exactly what happened. GOP bean counters were the inspiration for the madness though. GLWC (or is it GLWA) was getting too pricey for water. Flint was poor. The state had a great idea! Let's just do it ourselves and save money while we wait for an alternative water source to get constructed. They decided to get the old plant up and running and use the local river water. And they did so in record time. Which meant there was going to possibly be problems. Treating drinking water takes skill. It is usually a moving target (see Toledo).

In Flint, the logistics were different and the right things weren't being considered. In this case, a question wasn't asked regarding the higher corrosivity water. The GOP bean counters asked 'is the water safe to drink'. The answer was 'yes'.

What wasn't asked was, 'Will the corrosive water lead to lead leaching in local building pipes?' The answer to that would have been... 'Shoot! We need to look into that.'

And note that there wasn't lead in the water leaving the treatment plant. The lead problem came from the pipes in the ground. There's lead down there, it was stable. That is, until the "new" water plant delivered water of a different pH.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That isn't exactly what happened. GOP bean counters were the inspiration for the madness though. GLWC (or is it GLWA) was getting too pricey for water. Flint was poor. The state had a great idea! Let's just do it ourselves and save money while we wait for an alternative water source to get constructed. They decided to get the old plant up and running and use the local river water. And they did so in record time. Which meant there was going to possibly be problems. Treating drinking water takes skill. It is usually a moving target (see Toledo).

In Flint, the logistics were different and the right things weren't being considered. In this case, a question wasn't asked regarding the higher corrosivity water. The GOP bean counters asked 'is the water safe to drink'. The answer was 'yes'.

What wasn't asked was, 'Will the corrosive water lead to lead leaching in local building pipes?' The answer to that would have been... 'Shoot! We need to look into that.'

And note that there wasn't lead in the water leaving the treatment plant. The lead problem came from the pipes in the ground. There's lead down there, it was stable. That is, until the "new" water plant delivered water of a different pH.

Yes, thanks for repeating me.