Part1 -July 10, 2025. Increases in Police Funding Leads to Shorter Lifespans for Black Americans

Part 1 of today's podcast , Ramses and Q discuss  a new study that connects increases in Police funding with shorter lifespans for Black Americans. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Broadcasting from the Civic Cycer Studios. Welcome to the QR code,
where we share perspective, is seek understanding and shape outcomes
the man on the microphone who is a magnificent father
to two beautiful children, a son and a daughter, and
I love watching him flourish in his fatherhood. He goes
by the name of Qward.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
So if you listen to this show often you'll hear
what Ramsay just did, very intentionally because he understood that
he was describing himself, so then he slid in. He
thought he was being slick that I had a daughter,
so he could try to make it about me, but
he was still describing himself. He is your host, ram
this Jah, I'm Qward and I just work here.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Listen.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
That's my guy though, either way, and we need you
to stick around because we have a great show in
store for you. A little later on in the show,
we're going to be talking about whether or not policing
levels lead to health outcomes for black people. There's a
study that has been undertaken and you'd be surprised at

(01:07):
the implications. We're also going to be talking about whether
or not the Texas flooding tragedy is connected to the
DOGE cuts. I don't think you need any hints, but
stay tuned because we're going to get into those weeds.
We're going to call out evangelicals who are surprisingly quiet
after Trump pulls aid to AIDS programs. Historically, evangelicals have

(01:32):
really championed those efforts because it's in alignment with their faith,
and all of a sudden, not so more. We're going
to take some time to talk about a viral Walmart
Karen who falsely accused a black teen of stealing from her,
and just kind of have a look at ourselves as
a country. And then, last, but not least, we're going

(01:52):
to talk about the NHL drafting a ton of black
players this year. So all that and so much more
to stick around for. But as always, we like to
start off with a feel good feature, and this one
made me feel good. So this is from USA today.
You no longer need to take your shoes off at
airport security. How about that? The Transportation Security Administration announced

(02:16):
in a news conference July eighth that the long standing
policy requiring most passengers to remove their shoes at TSA
checkpoints is no longer in effect. TSA officials had said
that the agency regularly adjusted screening procedures based on a
real time threat assessment, technologies available at each checkpoint, and
other considerations. The shoe removal policy was initially put into

(02:37):
place in two thousand and six in response to an
attempt by an airline passenger to conceal a bomb in
a shoe in December two thousand and one. Since two
thousand and six, most travelers at airport checkpoints in the
United States have had to remove their shoes as part
of the standard security screening, but there were a number
of exceptions. One of the major perks of the TSA's
pre check Trusted Traveler program is keeping your shoes on

(02:59):
at checkpoints. And you know, this is an idea that
time has come. Basically, the country had enough of the
right type of equipment at all of the airports to
where this was no longer necessary. So a welcome change. Q.
You're a lot more familiar with airports than I am,
and I travel probably more than most folks, But got

(03:20):
to get your thoughts here.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
I'm hoping that this is something that's not just convenient
but actually safe. As we try to see you know,
those who are in charge shape different policies and different
procedures for all of our federal agencies. I'm hoping that
this is not one that is being taken lightly. And then,

(03:44):
like they mentioned that it's because of better technology and
a lower threat level that we're seeing something that can
kind of sound or feel like it's just for convenience sake.
I hope this is a sign that we are a
much safer country.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
Yeah, he's hoping, because you're right, it is the framework
present in today's society certainly allows some people to just
do away with inconveniences because they simply don't like them
and they think they're doing everybody a favor, and conceivably
it can make things a lot less safe. Thought, all right,

(04:20):
So policing, you know, we haven't really talked a lot
about policing on this show, but over the years we've definitely,
you know, been as critical of the way policing is
done as you know two people might be, because we
believe that police it could be done better. We don't

(04:40):
hate police, we're not anti police. We're just pro improvement
for everyone, ourselves included. But there's a study that came
out from Rutgers and it's up on their website Rutgers
dot Edu. I'm gonna read. It's going to be long,
so buckle up, but I'm not going to be able
to get through all of it. I want you to
go check out the full article, okay, and I'll share,

(05:02):
and then we'll get into the weeds. But here we
go again, Rutgers dot Edu. Amid calls to increase policing
levels in the US cities, new Rutgers research suggests spending
on social services may be a healthier alternative. A groundbreaking
Rutgers study finds that increased police spending correlates with more
suicides and police related deaths among black Americans, while greater

(05:24):
investment in housing may help reduce those risks. We already
knew this, but I'm glad that another reputable institution is
kind of backing the research. All right, I'll continue. The
research is among the first ever to investigate the association
between state and local police expenditures and suicide and police
perpetuated killing among black and white residents. Quote. Our results

(05:47):
suggest that funding housing and community development rather than more
money for police, may reduce the rates of black suicide
and police perpetuated killing unquote, said Devin English and assistant
professor in the Department of Urban Global Public Health at
the Rutger School of Public Health and lead author of
the study published in the healthcare journal The Millbank Quarterly.

(06:09):
In the US, police are often frontline responders from mental
health related calls, including in suicide response, but the practice
has come under scrutiny amid and uptick and violent outcomes.
Suicide has been increasing among black youth, and in one
national study, twenty three percent of people killed by police
displayed signs of mental illness during the interaction. To assess
the structural drivers of these trends, English and as co

(06:31):
authors compared money spent on police and social services in
all fifty states and the District of Columbia with data
on suicides and police killings between twenty ten and twenty twenty.
Budget information was retrieved from the Urban Institute's Database on
Government Budgets, which tracks spinning spinning using US Census Bureau figures.
Non homicide violent death statistics were drawn from the US

(06:53):
Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Web based Injury Statistics
query and reporting system. Results were measured against years of
potential life lost, a benchmark used to study death prior
to a typical life expectancy. For this study, the researchers
set age seventy five as the average life span, which
coincides with black life expectancy in the US, So for

(07:15):
someone who died by suicide at sixty, the researchers recorded
this as fifteen years of potential life loss. By controlling
for other potential influences on suicide and police perpetuated killing,
such as state firearm policies, political representation, racial segregation, and
overall expenditures, English and his co authors were able to
isolate the effects of police spending on violent debts from
other political, social, and economic impacts. The researchers examined both

(07:39):
short and longer term effects of expenditure changes by testing
their impact on suicide and police perpetuated killing rates one
and five years later. The results showed associations between suicide
and police perpetuated killing for blackett residents. For example, for
every one hundred dollars increase in per capita police expenditures,
there were thirty five years of life lost to suicide
and seven years of life life lost to police perpetuated

(08:01):
killing per one hundred thousand Black residents. A year later, Therefore,
for the forty one point one million black residents in
the US, these annual increases in police spending accounted for
fourteen thousand, three hundred and eighty five fewer years of
life because of suicide and two eight hundred and seventy
seven fewer years of life because of police related violence.

(08:21):
By contrast, per capita police spending had no impact on
years of potential life lost for white residents, said English. Okay,
so first thing I want to say is that the
premise of defund the police, the idea behind it for

(08:47):
people that never got into the weeds, was that you
would reallocate police resources. Q famously established this in my
mind in hindsight, of course, is twenty twenty. I think
he was right that the police, or sorry, defund the
police wasn't really the best way to market the idea

(09:08):
and reallocate police fiscal resources probably didn't roll off the
tongue in the same way. So maybe that should have
been workshopped. I think that's something that you've actually said,
c It should have workshopped the title, But the premise
again was sound, and again that the evidence bears that
out right, spending more money on police results in fewer

(09:29):
years of life lived by black residents. It has no
impact on white residents. Spending more money on social programs,
spending more money on after school program spending money on housing,
those sorts of things leads to an increase in life
lived by black residents. And I would imagine by extension

(09:49):
by all people, you know, because this is more a
poverty thing, that is as black thing, right. Black people
have an extra burden to bear, of course, because of
historical prejudices and fears and whatever. I know. Fear is
doing a lot of heavy lifting in this conversation right now.
And I'm sure you're going to jump in and help
me out, but I wanted to make sure that I

(10:09):
said that before I forgot to say it, because I
think that that's really important. This basically proves that the
basic premise of defunding the police, or rather reallocating police
resources that would help shape communities of color and ultimately
all communities for the better because that drives out crime,

(10:30):
and spending money on more police doesn't. And this is
not the only study that you and I have read.
We've read tons of them, all right. It was my
two cents, Q yours.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
I always appreciate that you give the benefit of the
doubt and just the idea that people would have had
to get into the weeds to learn that very obvious
information that you just shared, Like, that's not something that
they would have had to do a deep dive for.
The data that supports the position is readily available and
known by really ever everybody that's kind of intelligent, right,

(11:03):
So we have people who intentionally ignore the data so
they can continue to justify spending the money that they
spend to continue to disenfranchise people of color and poor
people and put a lot of money into the pockets
of people that support law enforcement as a paramilitary force
and not just a serve and protect concept. All the

(11:23):
things that we discussed with regards to defund the police.
I remember the first time we heard that, we both
kind of looked at each other, like, Okay, this is
going to be tough, not because of its lack of
merit or lack of very very justifiable data, but because
it gave those who opposed it a very easy target
to shoot down. They knew that they could use that

(11:44):
language to manipulate those who would not do any research
at all. And that's why I kind of push back
against like somebody having to get into the weeds. Nope,
you wouldn't have had to get into the weeds. Read
one paragraph on one area and it'll start to make
a lot of sense to you. So it's interesting seeing
this be supported at the dot edu level, because once again,

(12:08):
this was something that you and I kind of readily
understood just from growing up where we grew up. The
unfortunate thing is we're in a moment in history that's
I'm shaking my head as I say this out loud,
has poked holes in academicia and scholastics and science in

(12:29):
a way that's really really discouraging. Right, So, once upon
a time that dot edu would have done a lot
of very important lifting for us, like being able to
source in that way would have really spoke to a
lot of people who are looking to be either taught
or just reaffirmed in what they thought and believed. And
now you know, you have an entire segment of the

(12:50):
population that feels like the science and academic communities are
and on the conspiracy. I guess I don't really know
the basis of the position that they've adopted.

Speaker 3 (13:04):
But.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
This does it makes it easier for us to have
conversations with people who can be swayed. You and I
kind of laughed in a very cringey way at a
back and forth that I had to have with, you know,
a supporter of capitalism recently. I was using too much
in the way of data, statistics and facts, and she

(13:27):
just ultimately told me, you know, it's not about data,
it's not about facts. It's about essentially vibes. And that's
not the word that she used, but she said, it's
not about data in facts, it's about rhetoric and narrative.
She was right, because speaking to that side, that's really
all you need. But that just kind of boils down

(13:48):
to it's just about vibes. How they feel what's actually
true doesn't matter as much.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yeah, you know, it's a trip because you're right. When
they erode trust in like institutions, like academic institutions and
so forth, we're one step further to kind of regressing
to the dark ages where science doesn't matter and vibes
rules all and things can get pretty pretty tough. So yeah,

(14:19):
all right, moving on. The Texas flooding tragedy is connected
with doge cuts because we're gonna offer our opinions. Let's
start this from the Black Information Network. As Texans real
from the deadly flooding that hit the Guadalupe River, experts
are raising concerns over how mass layoffs at federal weather
agencies have put communities at risk. Per News One, According

(14:42):
to reports, flooding in central Texas has left at least
one hundred people one hundred and nine people dead, including
twenty seven children, and many others missing. The deadly flooding
has put a spotlight on sweeping staff cuts at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the NAA, which were
implemented earlier this year by the Department and of Government
Efficiency DOGE. More than eight hundred and EIGHTYAA and National

(15:04):
Weather Service employees were laid off in two rounds of cuts,
a move that several meteorologists and climate researchers have said
has compromised the response to extreme weather. Ahead of July
fourth flooding, the new Bronzefeld's National Weather Service, or the
NWS office, faced a twenty two percent staff reduction due
to budget cuts. The Trump administration maintained that forecast watches

(15:26):
and warnings were issued promptly despite the mass cuts. However,
doctor Richard Spinrad, a former NOAA administrator, noted that the
position for Warning Coordination Meteorologist, a key liaison between forecasters
and local emergency managers that ensures weather messages are received
and acted upon, was vacant at the time of the flooding.

(15:48):
NOAA's proposed budget for the coming year is expected to
reduce its workforce from over twelve thousand employees to ten thousand.
The budget also included sorry It includes cuts to several
research life including the National Severe Storms Lab or the NSSL,
and Norman Oklahoma, where the Flash System, a tool that
improves the accuracy and timing of flash flood warnings, was created.

(16:09):
The department also previously developed the Multi Radar Multisensor System,
which was designed to enhance decision making during severe weather events.
Eliminating the NSSL and other research labs could severely limit
the ability to advance warning technologies that help save lives
during extreme weather events. Alan Gerard, a former researcher and
analyst withaa's NSSL, said, all right, it's a long article,

(16:34):
but I want to get this one in additionally, Okay,
just to so that you understand how this affects vulnerable people.
We recognize that it affects all of us, but vulnerable
people are just that vulnerable. And one of the things
that we try to talk about as much as we can.
We're not experts on it, but environmental racism, you know,

(16:54):
both of our programs we really do try to shine
a light on this air of study. Right, And I
want to add this additionally, and then Q, you have
the rest of the floor if you want you if
want needed all right. Additionally, concerns about the future of
weather forecasting and response are exacerbated in lower income and
black communities. A twenty twenty three Congressional Budget Office study

(17:17):
determined that black communities, particularly along the Gulf and Atlantic Coast,
will face at least a twenty percent increase in flood
risk by twenty fifty. A twenty twenty study led by
the University of Arizona found that Black and Hispanic communities,
along with individuals with low incomes, are more likely to
live in areas at high risk of flooding from natural
disasters compared to white and Asian populations. As flood risks

(17:38):
are disproportionally impacting Black communities, mass layoffs at federal weather
agencies will likely hinder the ability to predict and prepare
for these types of weather disasters. Okay, so again that
is not Rams's and Q's opinion. This is based on
research and so forth. But Q, you know, talk to
me man.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
You know, Rao, Conversations like this are really difficult to have.
You and I were talking the last time that Donald
Trump became the president about this reality that we have
to share now where we start conversations in good faith

(18:21):
with people and we learn, you know, really really early
in those conversations that what we perceive as factual truth
is different. So it makes any further dialogue very difficult
to have. And we've reached this point in identity politics

(18:41):
where in order to hold up my guy, I am
willing to bend on my beliefs, on my principles, on
my morals, I'm willing to practice cognitive dissonance in a
way that you know, I saw a post today and
there was a social media postal you know, forgive the

(19:03):
lack of journalistic, credible research done on this topic, but
it was a kind of peek into the mindset of
MAGA and their view on all the things that are
happening in the country. A supporter was challenged to the
idea with the kind of magician erasure of the Epstein files,

(19:31):
say those things that are in that reporter, that are
rumored to be in that report are true about the president.
And say that one of those young ladies that's fourteen
or fifteen years old, per the stories being told, was
your daughter, how would you feel about the president? And
that person's response was, Jesus would want me to forgive him,

(19:54):
and he's the strongest and best person to be the
president of this country. Wow, if he raped that man's daughter,
that man said Jesus would want him to forgive him,
and he would still be the best person to be
the president of our country. That seems like an unrelated story,

(20:16):
except when you get to this very very obvious and
straightforward story that we're talking about now. Of course, if
you cut the budget to air controllers, air safety controllers,
you're going to have more accidents with airplanes if you

(20:38):
if you cut the budgets to air traffic controllers, I mean,
if you cut the budgets of the National Weather Service,
you're going to have catastrophic outcomes with regards to natural
disasters when you don't have the technology or the resources
or the people power to respond to not just respond,

(21:01):
but to prevent, to warn, to forecast, to predict. And
it's like, yeah, and just like last time, right, they
fired air traffic controllers, they cut you know, funding two
federal programs in that space, and then when something goes
wrong they blame DEI. They're running the same play again.

(21:26):
Charlie Kirk on his massive platform one day this week
floated that same idea. These people died in Texas because
of DEI and they understand that they have not just
a zealot like base, but we got to call it
what it is, a very racist base. When you can
just blame something bad on the colored people, they'll stand

(21:50):
up and applau that no matter what.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
Speaking like these well speaking of colored people, you know,
right now is the time in this country where there's
an attack on let's be frank, Mexican people, right, and
Mexico you sent this article to me. Mexico was actually
willing to support the people in Texas. You know more

(22:14):
about it than I have, But I just thought that
was so interesting and we live in that frame.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Where it's crazy, Well, yeah, man, this not just Mexican
Americans being attacked but the way that you know, the
administration treats Mexico, a country that's a neighbor of ours,
that should be a ready ally, we've somehow turned into
an adversary. And it just proves that we are starting

(22:44):
to carve out this niche or this niche as being
the most I'm trying to think of the right word.
I was gonna say evil or mean, or calloused or
unkind or bullylike or antagonistic country in the world. This

(23:06):
country that we're treating like the country and its people
are beneath us, and that they're the reasons for all
of our problems. When we're struggling, when we're suffering, when
people are losing their lives, that same country, in spite
of it all shows up for us, and we still
won't even recognize it in real time. We still won't

(23:26):
stop and acknowledge. We still won't stop and say thank you.
We'll still find a way to the governor down there
found a way to thank everybody but Mexico. And it's
like we've reached that point where we are positioning ourselves
as the worst of us. And when I say of us,

(23:47):
I mean humans. The United States of America and it's
you know, a couple allies voting against basic human rights
at the UN, you know, guaranteeing food as a human right,
United States and in Israel vote against that. Like, these
are the positions that we're taking. And you have Mexico,
who we've villainized and made you know, the bad guy

(24:11):
for all of our problems, all of our crime, you know,
all of our jobs being taken away, all these hordes
of Mexican criminals coming in, invading our borders. And as
soon as we need help, the first one is to
show up, not just in this instance, but with the
wildfires as well.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
Sure, yeah, well, moving on things is gonna make us
feel any better. But evangelicals are surprisingly quiet after Trump
pulls the AIDS program. So I make sure a bit
from the Atlantic. Evangelicals, who have so often taken public stands,

(24:50):
have been unusually quiet since Donald Trump gutted a program
to combat AIDS in Africa. Peter Wiener rights. The President's
Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, or PEPFAR, was first authorized
by George W. Bush in two thousand and three. It
received bipartisan support and strong backing from evangelical groups who
quote understood their faith to call them to care for

(25:12):
the sick and the poor unquote Wiener rights. PEPFAR is
credited with saving twenty six million lives and enabling almost
eight million babies to be born without HIV. Quote. Then
came Donald Trump winner rights. His administration dissolved us AID
or USAID, the primary implementing agency for pepfar. More than

(25:34):
seven or seventy five thousand adults and children are now
estimated to have died because of his Because of this action,
why have so many evangelicals remained silent? Some ministers Wiener
spoke to said they fear the issue seems distant to
churchgoers who don't know anyone who has AIDS. Ministers also
cited an aversion to becoming involved in politics, especially issues

(25:57):
that might royal a congregation. Quote. Even masters whose moral
conscious might make them inclined to speak out against the
decimation of PEPFAR think twice about doing so because they
don't want to become the target of attacks by members
of their own congregation unquote Wiener rights. A minister in
Memphis told Wiener it's important to also quote recall that
most evangelicals also originally viewed the HIV slash age issue

(26:21):
as a result of sexual promiscuity and gay promiscuity, especially
so I suspect too many of them regard the HIV
slash age crisis as a self inflicted condagion quote. Some
of the reasons are more understandable than others. Wiener continues
to go on further in the article. But it's still

(26:41):
hard to ignore that white evangelicals voted in overwhelming numbers
to put into office a president who has for now
decimated one of the most humanitarian acts in history, writes quote.
And a religious movement that proudly advertised itself as pro
life has, with rare exceptions, said nothing about it.

Speaker 3 (26:58):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
I don't know you want to jump on this first QEO. Well,
it's not surprising. You said it was surprising, or the
articles said that they were surprisingly quiet. Yeah, that's not surprising.
You have to be quiet when you and gross numbers
show up in support of a person that is anti
everything you teach, you have to just shut up or

(27:25):
bold face lot of people. And I guess they've gotten
to the point now where they can do that too, right,
there's not much in a way of pushback. They find
a way to twist their morals and their beliefs into
a pretzel so that they can continue to support this
man and all the decisions that he makes. So yeah,

(27:45):
I'm not surprised at all by them being silent, because
the alternative would be to get up into your pullpits
in front of microphones and cameras and straightforwardly teach the
opposite of what the Bible teaches with regards to immigrant,
with regards to the poor, with regards to the rich.
You know, it's more likely that a camel can go

(28:08):
through the eye of a needle than a rich man to.

Speaker 3 (28:09):
Make it to the kingdom. You know what's funny to me,
They don't seem to make to believe that anymore. Yeah,
that's exactly where I was going with this. So for
them to be so quiet right now, and you know
this is this segment is you know, for people that
better do better, so they can do better. But for

(28:31):
them to be so quiet, I think the surprising part
is that they were so loud in their support of Trump, right,
like louder than ever before. Like, you know, Christian evangelicals
typically lean right. That's all well and good, but.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
These folks were almost like not almost like these so literally,
like God sent this man, this adjudicated rapist, this you
know that he has very little, very few in the
way of redeeming qualities insofar as a religion of faith
is concerned. Right, a deeply immoral person. He's not a

(29:12):
fair business man's history littered with people whose lives he
ruined just because he just doesn't do square business. People
whose lives he ruined because he's an adjudicated sexual predator.
You know, the list goes on. And they were so
loud and their support of this one guy. So now

(29:32):
that he's doing something, they're rewriting the rules. Oh yeah,
AIDS is something that God sent Aids to punish gay
people or whatever, and ignoring the fact that this is
taking place in Africa. Right, Not everybody in Africa is gay,
otherwise there'd be no more Africans after a generation. Right,
So the cognitive dissonance is astounding, and like I said,

(29:57):
y'all better do better.