From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: New Generations of Conservatism-WLefare Myths
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:00:21 GMT

In article <cbc1.712443447@Ra.MsState.Edu> cbc1@Ra.MsState.Edu  
(christopher b carey) writes:
> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Jul29.181338.13048@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
> >(Michael Friedman) writes:
> >
> >> Where do the assumptions about race come in?  This si the first I've
> >> heard of them.
> >> 
> >     Read Fred's original posting (<92208.014141FKR@psuvm.psu.edu>), in  
> >particular the sentence: "This same representative [Robert Flick  
> >R-Chester] feels that projects and other low income areas are where the  
> >drug problems are, and this bill will help clean up the problem." I  
> >imagine that the vast majority of housing projects are in urban, not  
> >rural, Pennsylvania (just like they are here in Wisconsin). As for  
"race",   
> >it's pretty clear to me that Fred's statement "The bill's advocates are  
> >assuming that Blacks and Puerto Ricans are the only one (in urban  
areas)  
> >using drugs and on welfare" implies that many of the residents of urban  
> >Pennsylvania housing projects are black or Puerto Rican.
> 
> Ok, assuming that I buy the argument for rural vs. urban, I still don't
> see a mention of race.
> 
> So the urban areas have more blacks and puerto ricans, that was neither
> stated nor implied by his origianal post.  
> 
> I still don't get his editorial comments.  His original post doesn't 
> support his arguments.

     Fred is arguing two points here:

(1) That the author of the Pa bill assumes that the drug problems in Pa.  
are an urban, not a rural, phenomenon, and cites Rep. Flick's feelings on  
the matter (which I quoted from his original posting  
<92208.014141FKR@psuvm.psu.edu>). He then explains in his posting  
<92210.043814.FKR@psuvm.psu.edu> why that is not the case (see his second  
reason for opposing the bill). The "reason" is in his third posting, while  
the "proof" is in the first posting. Clear?

(2) That the author of the Pa. bill assumes that the vast (perhaps  
overwhelming) majority of illegal drug users are either black or puerto  
rican. Here the "proof" is based on two things, Rep. Flick's feeling that  
Pennsylvania's drug problems are in urban housing projects, and the ethnic  
composition of those housing projects. In writing that "many" of the  
project residents are black or puerto rican, I misled you. Having never  
visited any Pa. housing projects, I have no formal proof (in the sense of  
photographs) of who lives there, but Fred's postings on this make it  
pretty clear to me that the ethnic composition of these projects consists  
mainly (perhaps overwhelmingly) of blacks and puerto ricans. Again, the  
"reason" is in his third posting, while the "proof" is in both his first  
and third postings, and requires a modicum of thought to see the  
connection between the postings.

     So, putting this in the form of classical logic:

P1: Rep. Flick feels that Pennsylvania's drug problems are in the housing  
projects.

P2: The vast majority of housing projects in Pennsylvania are in urban  
areas.

P3: The vast majority of housing project residents in Pennsylvania are  
either black or puerto rican.

C1: Rep. Flick believes that the vast majority of Pennsylvania's drug  
problems are an urban phenomenon (via P1 and P2).

C2: Rep. Flick believes that the vast majority of Pennsylvania's drug  
users are either black or puerto rican (via P1, P2, and P3).

     Follow?
     
> 
> Chris Carey
> --
> Got those wishing I was out of school so I could see my girl on
> a regular basis blues.

Arthur Johnson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Chemistry
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american