• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racial disparity: All active ethics probes focus on black lawmakers

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Racial disparity: All active ethics probes focus on black lawmakers - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.

Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006, and some have argued that race plays a role in the ongoing efforts to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from his chairmanship of that committee.
Click to expand...

A document leaked to The Washington Post last week showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members.

The OCE has also been a particular target of ire for the Congressional Black Caucus. Black lawmakers, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), met with OCE officials earlier this year to raise their concerns. Spokesmen for Lee and the OCE both declined to comment.

A number of CBC members opposed the resolution establishing the OCE, arguing that it was the wrong response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which helped Democrats seize control of the House in 2006.
Click to expand...

I don't presume to have an explanation for this disparity, but it's certainly startling regardless of how you look at it.
 
Maybe we have seven black crooks in Congress.
 
American said:
Maybe we have seven black crooks in Congress.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that we do, but I also find it hard to believe that we don't have a single white crook.

Just in terms of statistics, this is a pretty improbable situation.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't doubt that we do, but I also find it hard to believe that we don't have a single white crook.

Just in terms of statistics, this is a pretty improbable situation.
Click to expand...
Maybe Obama didn't like being told he wasn't black enough.
 
liblady said:
well, i don't know the particulars, but i doubt it's racism.
Click to expand...
Liberals are running the place, so don't jump to conclusions. :lol:
 
liblady said:
well, i don't know the particulars, but i doubt it's racism.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's necessarily racism either, but assuming anything even remotely resembling an even distribution of corruption, this is pretty close to statistically impossible unless there are other factors at play.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not saying it's necessarily racism either, but assuming anything even remotely resembling an even distribution of corruption, this is pretty close to statistically impossible unless there are other factors at play.
Click to expand...


Who says the corruption has to be distributed evenly? And who says that this is even close to statistically impossible?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Who says the corruption has to be distributed evenly?
Click to expand...

It's obviously not a given, but if you want to argue that black people are more likely to be corrupt than white people by some significant factor, feel free to take the stage.

And who says that this is even close to statistically impossible?
Click to expand...

Math says it.

I don't feel like doing the numbers out right now, but try to calculate the probability that 8 people selected from a group of 435 would all be part of a 41 member subset of that group of 435.

Unless there is some other factor at play, such as black officials being 20 times more corrupt than white officials or the OCE pursuing black officials for some other reason, this is incredibly unlikely.

edit: Assuming an even distribution, the odds are 1 in 160,562,159.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
It's obviously not a given, but if you want to argue that black people are more likely to be corrupt than white people by some significant factor, feel free to take the stage.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say that. But we are supposed to be in a "post racial period" are we not? So if we look at what they under investigation for individually, then would you agree that it is possible that they are just corrupt? Or does it have to be linked to some larger excuse like racism?


Math says it.

I don't feel like doing the numbers out right now, but try to calculate the probability that 8 people selected from a group of 435 would all be part of a 41 member subset of that group of 435.

Unless there is some other factor at play, such as black officials being 20 times more corrupt than white officials or the OCE pursuing black officials for some other reason, this is incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...


Stats most likely, and often do lie. They can be twisted to show anything. This is like William Jefferson (D-La.) caught red handed with $90K in his freezer, of all things, and claiming that it was race that was behind investigating him.....absurd.


j-mac
 
Ethereal said:
It's probably just a statistical anomaly; it's not terribly unlikely. What is terribly unlikely, I think, is that the ethics committee is systematically investigating people on the basis on their race.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. It would be unfortunate to adopt the "libertarian" socially progressive position when there's PC thuggery to be stamped out. ;)
 
RightinNYC said:
It's obviously not a given, but if you want to argue that black people are more likely to be corrupt than white people by some significant factor, feel free to take the stage.



Math says it.

I don't feel like doing the numbers out right now, but try to calculate the probability that 8 people selected from a group of 435 would all be part of a 41 member subset of that group of 435.

Unless there is some other factor at play, such as black officials being 20 times more corrupt than white officials or the OCE pursuing black officials for some other reason, this is incredibly unlikely.

edit: Assuming an even distribution, the odds are 1 in 160,562,159.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, that's if they're randomly selected from the population and ceteris paribus is assumed.
 
So when was the last time we had all whites under investigation? Was it in the news?
 
American said:
So when was the last time we had all whites under investigation? Was it in the news?
Click to expand...

Would it be as statistically improbable for seven of them to be under investigation, given their extreme congressional majority? Moreover, is there an active history of discrimination there, considering who constitutes the racial majority? I'm not black, but it's a bit dubious to insinuate comparisons of affirmative action and segregation policy as though there's some equivalence there.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
No, I didn't say that. But we are supposed to be in a "post racial period" are we not? So if we look at what they under investigation for individually, then would you agree that it is possible that they are just corrupt? Or does it have to be linked to some larger excuse like racism?

Stats most likely, and often do lie. They can be twisted to show anything. This is like William Jefferson (D-La.) caught red handed with $90K in his freezer, of all things, and claiming that it was race that was behind investigating him.....absurd.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly like statistics.

Ethereal said:
It's probably just a statistical anomaly; it's not terribly unlikely. What is terribly unlikely, I think, is that the ethics committee is systematically investigating people on the basis on their race.
Click to expand...

Ethereal said:
Well, to be fair, that's if they're randomly selected from the population and ceteris paribus is assumed.
Click to expand...

And I agree that there are obviously other factors that come into play. However, even with those, I don't see an explanation.

MrVicchio said:
As long as the investigations are on merits, only racist will read into the skin color. I don't care what color you are, if you are breaking the law, oyu need to be taken down.

So these 7 happen to be black... and?
Click to expand...

And that's interesting because of how incredibly unlikely it is. Do you think that of the ~370 white Congresspeople we have, not one is worthy of investigation?

American said:
So when was the last time we had all whites under investigation? Was it in the news?
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be in the news, because the odds of that happening (using the above, admittedly flawed equation) are roughly one in four. Not exactly front page material.
 
Agnapostate said:
Would it be as statistically improbable for seven of them to be under investigation, given their extreme congressional majority?
Click to expand...


Are you actually making the argument that they shouldn't be investigated because of their skin color?


j-mac
 
Agnapostate said:
Would it be as statistically improbable for seven of them to be under investigation, given their extreme congressional majority? Moreover, is there an active history of discrimination there, considering who constitutes the racial majority? I'm not black, but it's a bit dubious to insinuate comparisons of affirmative action and segregation policy as though there's some equivalence there.
Click to expand...
Well if you want to connect the dots of an Democratic-controlled Congress with a black Democrat President, investigating black members of Congress......as racially motivated....please proceed. It's like black on black crime, isn't it.
 
American said:
Well if you want to connect the dots of an Democratic-controlled Congress with a black Democrat President, investigating black members of Congress......as racially motivated....please proceed. It's like black on black crime, isn't it.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me that the reference was to reporting, that someone was "sending names to the ethics commitee" with disproportionate focus on the CBC. There can only be speculation at this point, but we can't put such an action past a disgruntled and perhaps otherwise powerless opponent of the current administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom