This is exactly the type of crap that Salon has brought on itself. I guess it's okay to slander Nathan now but you better not say anything about other letter writers that TPTB doesn't like or your letter is going to get deleted out of this section.

In NYC the following happened:

At the height of the crack craze period in 1990 there were 2,262 murders and 527,257 (yes, you're reading that right) total crimes.

In 2005, there were 540 murders (the lowest number reported since 1963) and 133,722 total crimes.

Now, I bet if you did a comparison of those two periods and applied it to all other cities where there is a large inner-city black population, you'd probably get similar results across the board. There might be a couple of exceptions but I doubt it.

So, I guess I'm supposed to be nostalgic for those 2,262 murders because the admittedly empty bling is "soul snatching" materialism, and as such, trumps 400+% greater number.

Apparently, the bling ain't all that powerful. Well, at least not more powerful than crack. It seems some folks spent more time chasing record deal and Bentley fantasies rather than shooting each other over petty drug deals. Hmmnnn, maybe Jay Z should order more Dom for his wedding.

No, violent crime is spiking in some areas not all and I never said the author compares the rates in general between then and now. But, I was pointing out that if the author is going to engage in "downright nostalgia" for that period he better look at the reality of it rather than use it as tired rhetorical device against folks now. Since he claimed to live it he should know better. Also, while I disagree with it's premise, the article did have some good bits. Although not as much as some are hyping.

Oops, sorry. Had a Bill Walton moment there. Andre, do I need your permission to post now, eh? Just joking. The problem you're having is that you're trying to argue against objective fact. That's why you keep going back to your qualitative argument. It is a fact that I'm safer in NYC now as opposed to the time frame the author uses as his nostalgia period. That's not open to debate. In fact, even with the spkies, I would be safer in any part of the country now as opposed to then. Again, that's not open to debate. I don't know how to make 540 equal 2262 for you and randomness certainly ain't gonna get you there either.

The weird thing about your random "Fear Factor" argument is that it unfortunately sounds strikingly similar to arguments that white bigots used to explain why they still were in mortal terror of "crime"...err, I mean black crime...when in fact the crime rate continued to drop and drop and drop. Their version was "street crime (which of course is black crime...uh huh) is random so therefore I don't feel safer eventhough I am".

In this case, the author felt safer in a period when he wasn't safer because now? inner-city crimes is more random....

As an aside, I find the notion that, for lack of better term, bling crime, is more random than crime then to be somewhat dubious. IIRC, during the "crack period" stray hits on innocent victims were so common they had a term for it - I think the victims were called mushrooms. I could swear it was a video game reference but I'm not sure about it.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the back and forth. Take care.

It creeped me out a bit BUT on the merits of the argumnet, Eichenwald absolutely got his tail kicked by the pedophile "Thomas". Strange stuff.

Eichenwald's comments about Nathan though were unprofessional, strident and disgraceful. It makes me even more po'd that Salon bowed down to such a putz. I don't care if the NY Times was behind him.

But it's okay you went to prison because somewhere else some kid was being violated by someone else. So, although you did nothing wrong, it's okay you made the sacrifice for the greater good.

"Reading the statements from the hospital policies that are not based on an real life data, is sickening - almost as sickening as the real predators."

Aren't those policy statements something else? Actually, the idea behind such policies has little to do with guiding the general public and much more to do with covering their asses in case of lawsuits.

I suspected that it was outside pressure because the legal disagreement angle simply doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what Eichenwald's beef is. Nathan never said either he or the NY Times broke the law. She said he looked at kiddie-porn websites as part of his research for his article. What was false or misleading? I noticed he never really points that out despite labeling Nathan's comment false and misleading. All he said was the standard weasel wording that he and the NY Times complied with the law.

So, either he looked at the sites under, for example, the "limited affirmative defense" conditions, and as such, is fine with the law, but, that wouldn't make Nathan's statement either false or misleading. Or, he didn't look at the sites. Now that would might make Nathan's statement that he did false and misleading, but, it would raise the bigger question about how, or even if, or how well, he researched his article.

Either way, his complaint seems weak and his petty bitching about her makes it even worse.

Nobody has ever been subject to a suspect child porn prosecution. I know because a former prosecutor told me so.