Monday, January 26, 2015

But The Bell Curve Is Racist....

The Economist has an article entitled: "Education and class America’s new aristocracy" in which they say:
As the importance of intellectual capital grows, privilege has become increasingly heritable
Which anyone who read the Bell Curve recognizes as a major theme. If the Bell Curve is racist nonsense then why is the apparently "reputable" Economist running with the same claims?
Intellectual capital drives the knowledge economy, so those who have lots of it get a fat slice of the pie. And it is increasingly heritable. Far more than in previous generations, clever, successful men marry clever, successful women. Such “assortative mating” increases inequality by 25%, by one estimate, since two-degree households typically enjoy two large incomes. Power couples conceive bright children and bring them up in stable homes—only 9% of college-educated mothers who give birth each year are unmarried, compared with 61% of high-school dropouts. They stimulate them relentlessly: children of professionals hear 32m more words by the age of four than those of parents on welfare. They move to pricey neighbourhoods with good schools, spend a packet on flute lessons and pull strings to get junior into a top-notch college.
This could have easily been lifted from The Bell Curve. You'd recognize it if you read it.
Nurseries, not tumbrils The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents. The moment to start is in early childhood, when the brain is most malleable and the right kind of stimulation has the largest effect. There is no substitute for parents who talk and read to their babies, but good nurseries can help, especially for the most struggling families; and America scores poorly by international standards (see article). Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely. [my underlines]
Did this person write what I thought they wrote? This person does understand that children do not "pick" their parents right? Secondly, as shown in The Bell Curve, the data does not support long term effects of early child care on intellectual capabilities. What DOES actually help is parents talking to and reading to their children rather than plopping them down in front of televisions.
Finally, America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy. Only a handful, such as Caltech, admit applicants solely on academic merit. All should.
At which point the "minority" groups will see their numbers drop at the more selective schools because going simply by merit (cummulative academic performance up to application to college) would reduce the number of eligible students (as we saw when Affirmative Action programs were dropped in California). Also why we see so few black and hispanic students at NY City's top high schools.

One other thing when it comes to the school reform ideas. There is often a claim of how many students at such and such charter school went to college. What we actually need to know is what happened after enrollment. What percentage graduated at all? How many graduated with their original major? How many who had STEM majors made it all the way through? I've seen a lot of school brag about "record enrollment" in the fall semester only to see most of that "record enrollment" fail out and the numbers return to "normal".

Point being that getting into college does not guarantee graduating from college or graduating with a useful (ie: money making) degree.

Generational Disciplinary Issues

From Chicago:
Debbie Wilson, 45, of the 6900 block of South Racine Avenue, and her daughter, also named Debbie Wilson, 26, of the 5600 block of South Wood Street, were both charged with aggravated battery to a school employee.
You don't say. What pray tell were these two doing at the school?
The Wilsons went to Carrie Jacobs Bond Elementary School, 7050 S. May St., on Tuesday to pick up a relative for a disciplinary issue when they saw the girl walking with a school administrator and a verbal altercation broke out, said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Reginald Newton.

At one point during the altercation, the younger Wilson pulled out a 4-inch knife, and the school administrator, 39, was stabbed in the back, while a security guard, 50, was stabbed in the forearm. A 13-year-old minor who got involved was also cut with the knife.

Meanwhile, the elder Wilson beat the school staff with her hands and fists, Newton said.[my underlines]

So the adults, picking up a child for disciplinary issues, argues with and stabs a school employee. I wonder where the child's discipline problems came from?

Probably caused by some white [super agency] man somewhere.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

German Quandary of How to Deal With Anti-Immigration Movement

From the NY Times:
DRESDEN, Germany — German leaders are struggling with how, and how much, to engage with supporters of a protest movement formed around fears of an “Islamization” of their country.

Local leaders have started reaching out to supporters of the group known by its German acronym, Pegida, or the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West, to listen to their complaints and try to forestall the movement. Although still largely confined to Dresden, it has found sympathizers in other cities across Germany...

But concerns about Pegida’s roots, as well as its support from neo-Nazis and extremists, have tainted the group’s motives and created a split among elected officials over how seriously they should take some of the group’s grievances about the country’s immigration and social fabric.

There is no quandary. As I said in my post about the New Left Crow, the reason the Neo-Nazis are able to capitalize on the issue is because the Left has made it impossible for "regular folks" to air their concerns in public without being labelled. And it is also the idea that certain ideas are inherently "racist" or "xenophobic" rather than legitimate concerns about national identity and the obligations government has to its citizens FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Stop vilifying the people and their concerns and the neo-nazis get little support because they can no longer own the issues.

It's that easy.

The Muskogee, Oklahoma Shooting.

So watched the video and there are a couple of things that one has to look at:

The Turn

First mistake here is the turn to run. Apparently whatever the reason the officer was called for included something that had him believe he could handcuff someone. Understand that once you decide that you're going resist and run, you are considered a threat to the life of not only the officer but to the public at large.

The Run

Now if the officer had intended to simply shoot this person in the back (just because he's black right?) he had plenty of opportunities to do so.

The Pick Up:

Ohh mistake number 3. Anyone with a clue would know that if you resist arrest while being handcuffs, then run, drop something that cannot be clearly identified, stop to grab it while facing the direction of the officer you should EXPECT that officer to believe that is a gun. Why not? Why are you running for in the first place?

The Shot

The shot. Now if you are of the opinion that a police officer should be shot at before shooting at a running suspect who dropped and picked up something while running away (who you previously attempted to handcuff in a rather nice (for a police officer) manner) then I'm sure you're upset by now.

If however you value your life and think that if you were in a similar situation you would deal with that potential threat to your life first, then this entire event is only disturbing in the fact that[yet another] black man has lost his life after making very questionable choices in dealing with an armed person. You'll also notice that the shots occured when the suspect was still, not when he was running. The suspect had the option to lay down on the ground. He could have put his hands up (though his cuffing at that point would have been unlikely to be as "kind" as the last attempt). And of course, the "thing" he was picking up turned out to be a gun. One in the chamber.

The gun is found and thrown into grass.

Gun is recovered.

You want body cams. There you go. Don't be mad when they don't show what you want them to.

I'll go out on a limb and think that NDAA2012 doesn't do police work.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Then What Is Fox News Latino?

The headline read:
NBC Launches SEGREGATED NEWS SITE Just For Black People
Strange and deep dissatisfaction with America’s long, arduous period of racial desegregation has pretty obviously beset NBC News.
My immediate thought is:

Fox News Latino
Huffington Post Latino Voices

And that Republican SOTU response in Spanish that had different content than the one in English. How about we have that discussion and stop picking on things black people may be doing.

Friday, January 23, 2015

On That Bridgeton NJ Shooting

When I saw the report of the man shot in Bridgeton NJ I thought something was odd about it.

“I’m gonna shoot you!” and “You’re gonna be fucking dead!” Days is shown saying repeatedly, as Reid tells the officer he is not “reaching” for the gun. Days shoots Reid as he exits the car. Reid appears to have his hands up. Days uses Reid’s name during the incident, despite not obtaining any identifying information from the passenger. Local reports state that Days had arrested Reid in the summer of 2014.
When I first saw this report, I saw a transcript of the video. Then I saw the video and somehow, honestly I think this was a hit. The thing is...if the DRIVER ran the stop sign, then the conversation should be with the DRIVER not the passenger. The "backup" officer may cover the passenger, but the conversation is had with the driver. Now I've seen instances where police go on the passenger side (someone explain why) but in this case it seems that the passenger was the target here.

Then the whole "I know your name" thing. Then there's the constant "he's reaching for something" yelling, that to me sounds like a setup for the camera that he knows is running. Having set the stage for the killing, all he needed was for the victim to make any kind of move. That was covered when Reid decides on his own to open the car door and get out (big ass mistake). Day's will claim that because he "saw the gun in the glove compartment" (but never saw anyone lay hands on it), and that Reid pushed the door open on him (a threatening move meant to cause Days to lose his balance), he thought his life was in danger.

Now what is going to sink his story is that the camera clearly shows Reid with his hands up.

The officer that shot Reid in the back is unlikely to be charged with anything because he was given the impression that his partner was under attack by the language used by Days. Also unlike the Sean Bell shooting, that officer did not indiscriminately shoot into the vehicle.

Days on the other hand will have some explaining to do. Why didn't he allow his partner to remove the driver if he thought the person he was dealing with was dangerous? And he DID know that person and his previous record. And you'll note that the driver was extremely cooperative. Days seemed particularly agitated about this particular person. That the driver survived the encounter he will be in a position to tell us what exactly happened in the vehicle.

Monday, January 19, 2015

The New Left Crow

The name Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s. How did the name become associated with these "Black Codes" which took away many of the rights which had been granted to blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?
-Ferris State University
“The New Left Crow offers a devastating account of a legal [social and growing economic] system doing its job perfectly well. We [are] simply replac[ing] one caste system (Jim Crow) for another one (economic destruction, social pariah making, mass censorship of ideas and a growing body of laws) that keeps the majority of minorities [and women] in a permanent state of [entitlement]. [The author] looks in detail at what [MSM] usually misses, namely the entire legal structure of the courts, parole, probation and laws that effectively turn a perpetrator of [no] crime into a moral outlaw who is unworthy of rehabilitation [that he often does not need]. . . [The Author] does a fine job of truth-telling, pointing the finger where it rightly should be pointed: at all of us, liberal and conservative, white and black.” —Forbes [lifted and reworded from here. Forbes did not and does not endorse this entry.
For the purposes of this piece we focus on the "laws, rules and customs" as it applies to the rights of persons legally residing in or are citizens of the United States.

I suppose it's fate that I finally get to write this particular post on the day set aside to recognize Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Who wished for all people to have equal access to liberties established by the founding documents. That persons would be judged by the content of their character rather than simply by the color of their skin.

Since at least 2008 there has been a mood and a movement arising from the left that are in blatant violation of these principles and resemble that which we have known as Jim Crow. Lets look at some events.

Last summer in Ferguson a white cop was deemed a racist killer simply for being white. Lets be clear. I have written enough about it, with plenty of quotes to know this to be the case. To make matters worse there were people openly asking for a lynching of officer Brown. How do a people who have been the subject if lynching then call for one?

On the one hand black folks rightly proclaim that they should not be seen or assumed to be criminals because they are black. They have rightly proclaimed that they should receive fair justice when accused of crimes. Black folks have rightly proclaimed that extra judicial "justice" is unacceptable. And yet, when faced with a real test of those convictions, black folks as a group failed miserably in applying these very principles which today they are tasked with observing in the person of MLK Jr.

Anyone that brought up the relevant facts of the case, including Brown's just attempted strong arm robbery was branded as a racist on the level of Bull Conner. How has it become the case that the truth and the facts are not relevant?

How did the case of Mike Brown overshadow the far stronger case of Eric Garner who was, for all intents and purposes arrested and killed for selling loose cigarettes which NY State had already gotten sales taxes on when he bought the original pack (assuming said cigarettes originated in NYS)?

So after all that, the usual suspects start talking about changing the grand jury process. Why? Because the outcome they desired did not occur. That's a poor reason for changing an entire process and certainly NOT was being fought for by MLK Jr.

Moving on from Mike Brown and Eric Garner we had the UVA Rolling Stone article that slandered the reputation of a fraternity and a university. Rather than defend the concept of due process and do what is commonly referred to an impartial investigation, the head of the university enacted group punishment on all Greek letter organizations. Once again, anyone who asked serious (and obvious) questions about the story as reported and pointed out the journalistic errors (not confirming the existence of the accused and other characters), were branded sexist rape apologists.

Of course the "sexist, rape apologists" were correct in their critique of the story. What happened? No punishment for the liars. Further scrutiny of greek letter organizations who had done nothing wrong.

This in a current atmosphere where it's NOT OK to mention that some women falsely claim rape because they regret the sexual activities they engaged in but it IS OK to get on a program and make the inference that all men are rapists until taught otherwise. It is where a father tells his 5 year old son that he is a rapist.

It is where men, exclusively men can be discriminated in public spaces, in this case an airplane, by being seated away from a child passenger he is not related to, because of fears of molestation. Never mind that such things rarely happen and that most child abuse occurs between children and women (typically a close relative including and mostly the mothers).

Can you imagine what would happen if a black man was told he couldn't sit next to white women because black men, statistically speaking, rape and sexually assault white women more often than they do any other group of women? Or how about since some white people aren't comfortable with black people for whatever reason they ask to not have one seated next to them?

We do not and should not treat black people like they are all criminals yet for some reason it is deemed OK by certain airlines to treat all male customers as if they are child molesters. This is a knew and recent phenomenon brought to you by the New Left Crow where fear of a statistically rare event is cause for deep concern and anyone who points out how rare the event is and therefore how overblown the response is is deemed to be an enabler of criminal activities if not an outright supporter of said activity.

A principled business response to such women making such requests would be that they should buy themselves a ticket and fly with their child or kindly fuck off with their business because they do not treat their paying customers as criminals. And then back that statement up when the social media chatter starts.

Before the UVA case we had the events of Ray Rice and his wife (then engaged). We had black talking heads in the sports commentary world who were calling for Rice's head (and any other dude merely accused of anything). Once again I had to wonder how those who belong to a group of people who had been subject of lynchings on the say so of any random white person could even have two brains cells spark up the idea of assumed guilt.

Currently we have NYS governor Cuomo who ran the last few weeks of his campaign as the women's governor has proposed a new NYS law based on the one in California.

Calling campus sexual assault a national epidemic, the governor said: “This is Harvard and Yale and Princeton, Albany and Buffalo and Oswego. It is not SUNY’s problem by origination. I would suggest it should be SUNY’s problem to solve and SUNY’s place to lead.”
I don't know what qualifies as an "epidemic" but of all crimes rape is one of the least prevalent in Western nations. Since most leading rape prevention organizations have debunked the 1 in 5 stat as well as dismissed the whole "rape culture" theory. Why is it that the head of state, responsible for upholding the US and NY State constitutions is proposing laws that further erode the concept of due process?
“Consent is clear, knowing and voluntary,” the SUNY rules will say. “Consent is active, not passive.

“Silence, in and of itself, cannot be interpreted as consent.”

Consent need not be verbal, but it must be unambiguous and mutual.

So which is it? Not silent or silent? That no one even bothered to question this man on such a contradictory statement is evidence of the New Left Crow. That there are even laws on the books now trying to regulate the details in intimate human interactions is even more evidence of the totalitarian nature of the New Left Crow.
The proposed changes also include a Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights, a simple and widely distributed document to inform victims of their right to go to the police, as well as campus security, with complaints;
What crime victim does not know they have the "right" to go to the police or security? Serious question. These are people who successfully graduated from High School right? Here's a suggestion: If the prospective student does not know that they should go to the police after being a victim of a crime, do not admit them to your campus.

a promise of immunity for students who report sexual assault but who might have been violating laws or campus rules, like the prohibition on under-age drinking;
Special rules for alleged victims. Lets understand this in the context of Eric Garner. If a woman, no girl, goes to a party and has alcohol, which she legally cannot consume because the law exists to protect her from the exact situation which might happen due to her poor judgment, she cannot be held responsible for her actions. Meanwhile Eric Garner lies dead because he had to face the consequences of selling a loose cigarette on the street.

I wonder, would such rules apply to a student who has been wrongly accused? Would the university say, oh by the way we know you were drinking under age and supplying a minor with alcohol in blatant violation of the school rules, but since you were wrongly accused and all, we'll let that slide. In my experience in witnessing what happens to people accused of breaking "school rules" where it involves a female, the school WILL usually stoop to punishing him (and it's usually him) with whatever incidental rules broken.

It all leads reasonable people to ask whether women and girls are in fact considered fully human adults capable of being responsible for themselves or if they actually require supervised environments to live in. Of course such a question is "sexist" under the Left Crow regardless to how much evidence points to this being the case.

Some people are clearly more equal under the law than others....just like the old Jim Crow.

SUNY encompasses almost a half-million students, at two-year community institutions and colleges with bachelor’s and graduate programs. Excluding the community colleges, the university reported 238 sexual assault complaints among 219,000 students during the 2013-14 academic year.
238 out of 219,000 students in the represented group of institutions?

That's 0.108675799087% of the total population that has reported a sexual assault. There would have to be two orders of magnitude increase in reporting to get anywhere near the 1 in 5 number that has been claimed by various parties. What kind of epidemic is this? And those are "reports" not even proven cases.

But this is the New Left Crow. Using fake stats to further demonize a population and then enact laws that either puts unconstitutional burdens on them, like the recent proposal that those accused of rape must prove they had consent, effectively shifting the burden of proof off the state to the defendant.

That is just like the literacy tests imposed on black folks (as shown in the movie Selma). It was wrong and unconstitutional then and such moves are wrong and unconstitutional now. Simply because the target is a formerly "super enfranchised" group now does not make any of it OK. Another sign of the New Left Crow is David Agema's censure by the RNC.

David Agema, a Michigan national committeeman who has come under fire for recently re-posting an article from a white supremacist magazine on his Facebook page.
Seriously? Posting a link to a page from a source gets you 'under fire"? Under fire from whom? Why? I've read the article in question and regularly follow the website in question. In fact anyone interested in issues of race ought to be following that and other sites. They are certainly following black websites. Quite carefully I might add. Does that make me a white supremacist? Does it mean I endorse the website and its ideology? Or does such assumption or not, only come with certain skin tones and ancestry?

If a post on said White Supremacist site is a review of an article from say the NY Times or some peer reviewed journal like Nature, does that make the NYT or Nature a disreputable source of info since it is "supportive" of or "referenced by" a white supremacist?

Is 2+2=4 only true if it appears on The Atlantic?

Per the article that David Agema posted to Facebook. I too have posted it (and others) to my G+ page (only social media I participate in). Is it OK for me to do so because I am black? Is it OK if such a piece was referenced in say Slate, Huff Post, etc. because those sites are "legitimate"? What if I were to act like I didn't find the material on said sites and went to their source information and pass it off as if I found it myself? Does that now make the material more legitimate? And what happens when I see "mainstream" and "legitimate" publications writing the same material, particularly in such a way that it is clear as day that they sourced the information and ideas from said "illegitimate" sources. Should they be called out? Is their writing illegitimate?

What are these rules under the New Left Crow that determine who and under what circumstances on may post a link to a writing by any group? And why aren't people in a political party under the US polity defending the fundamental freedom of speech of it's members? Why is the RNC afraid of the New Left Crow?

As for the linked article, I found it interesting because of it's implications for black people entering the criminal justice system. If so called "liberal" lawyers actually view their clients in such a way as described in that linked piece shouldn't the public know it? I know for a FACT that at least one other such lawyer thinks as the lawyer in that piece does because I know someone who dealt with such a lawyer, who was did not believe that his client was in fact Ivy League educated and thought that his "proper speech" was some kind of game.

The book that the AmRen posting references also discusses the experiences of a teacher and MTA employee. Again, with those stories I knew of events and experiences of current teachers and MTA employees that confirm those kinds of events. So is it racist to mention it? Or is it only racist when certain people mention it? And if one decides that censorship is how you deal with information one doesn't like doesn't that make said information, which is not only factual but observable by any seeing person, migrate to those entities who are not afraid of the New Left Crow but are also economically independent of those institutions that are beholden to the New Left Crow.

That would also mean that the public at large is less informed because more and more information is hidden from view lest one of the special groups are offended.

Then we have the "anti-gay" link entitled :Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals which included:

Consider this dubious bullet-point from the essay: “The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8)."
What makes it dubious? I've never looked into the media age of death of lesbians. Though since I know that median means the middle number of a given set of data. I know that half of the deaths were before that, indicating highly probable suicides and half are after that, indicating deaths from other causes. Given the history of homosexuality in the US shouldn't it be obvious that "out groups" like lesbians would be subject to more suicides, therefore bringing the median age of death down relative to heterosexual women who do not experience such ostracizing? But the author of the article doesn't even bother to look into that and present counter statistics. Declare the stat "dubious" and move on.

This is the New Left Crow. They dismiss that which they do not like and name call the person. But they rarely engage in the data.

Then there is this:

The Fields facts used in the essay reposted by Agema (and written by Joseph) are all similarly outrageous: “37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism,” “60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses,” “Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered,” etc...
I don't know whether the statement is true. I don't spend my time researching the sexual practices and fetishes of homosexuals. Nor have I looked into how often they are murdered relative to the heterosexual population. But again, there is no rebuttal of the statements with any data. I would suppose that given what I've seen on the news, and read, that homosexuals are a targeted group, usually by heterosexual men who somehow think that proving that they are "better" than homosexuals is done by beating on homosexuals rather than by, I don't know..fucking women and raising their kids. Therefore homosexuals would be murdered at a higher rate than heterosexuals if homosexuality is one of the reasons one might be murdered for.

I do know that early in the AIDS epidemic one of the things that was cited for the quick spread within the NY homosexual community was the fact that they were engaging in sex in bath houses and whatnot (Chicago Tribune, NY Times). This was stated in public many times. So exactly what is the problem with pointing out what is likely a fact?

Ahh the New Left Crow, where you cannot point out facts about a group that can show that group in a negative light. Then of course comes The Smear(tm):

“Edward Fields has been active in white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups since he was a teenager in the late 1940s ... Fields was a significant force in the racist world ...”
Ahh this guy is not to be believed because not only is he a non-practicing Chiropractor, like you can only know about your particular field of employment, but he's racist to boot. Of course when asked whether 2+2=4 even if it is written by a racist, the answer completely guts the "and he's a racist" argument.

This the essence of the New Left Crow. Nowhere does the article actually deals with the actual claims of the offending articles in question. Rather we are brow beaten into believing the articles are "bad", "racist" and "homophobic" simply because "we" are not supposed to agree with the kinds of people making the statement. And even worse, the statement is verboten!

See Watson, of famous Watson and Crick, made some statements regarding the intellectual capacity of Africans (and various other races of people including admixtures thereof) and he's a pariah. Good luck teaching about genetics without mentioning him. I recently finished reading The Bell Curve, because I finally decided I wasn't going to let other people tell me what subject matter was "racist" without actually reading the material myself.

The book is not racist. Having read it I can honestly say that whoever is calling it racist has either not read the book, did not understand the subject matter, or understood the subject matter and decided to label it racist anyway because they were deeply disturbed by the implications of what was presented.

While reading the book I took a Raven Progressive Matrices test. I did so because I didn't want to take the author's or the reviewers word on how "biased" the test would be. It is not biased. Well no, that's not true. It is biased against blind people. If you can recognize patterns you can take the test. The only way to say that it is biased against black people is if you honestly believe black people are incapable of recognizing patterns. THAT would be racist.

And the thing that stood out to me the MOST with the discussion of IQ in that book (and of other studies I've read) is that for a concept that is allegedly biased against "People Of Color", Asians seem to do quite well. Quite well indeed. Why would a people who believe themselves to be The Master Race go out of their way to create a test in which they perform worse than those "yellow chink bastards"? No one ever seems to have an answer for that question. And that's the New Left Crow. They don't have to answer the question. They get to point and call names. Unless Asians aren't people of color....

Also,no one ever asks teachers, the ones who see the students every day. What do THEY see? Do they not see that when they give an exam that a subset of students tend to finish first with high scores, a bulk finishes later with average scores and then there is a trailing end of students who finish last (or do not finish) and do very poorly?

Is that not prima facie proof that there is intelligence and it varies?

Has anyone asked the teachers who have mixed racial composition in their classes about which groups fall mostly into each categories of finishers?

Don't many schools have advanced placement classes for students of exceptional (above average) ability? Isn't it the POINT of those classes to give those students so gifted the kinds of intellectual challenges that they do not get when having to deal with students of lesser ability? Do we know the proportion of students of each race that make it into those programs? Yes we do. And the data closely reflects what is written in The Bell Curve.

And what is worse for the Left Crow is that because there is a standardized test (which yours truly barely remembers taking...and not liking one bit) the low enrollment cannot be blamed on bias in admissions by admissions officers. It is strictly merit. You either are qualified or you are not. You spend time watching TV and playing video games, you're unlikely to make the cut. And as The Bell Curve has laid out in great detail, test prep only does so much (I also know this from my own pre and post test prep SAT exam scores).

Offending data No.1

Offending data No.2

Once you understand the data presented above you understand why so few black students attend the merit based elite high schools in NYC (and elsewhere). I think the reason that many people dismissed The Bell Curve is because they are at the far left of the curve and do not come into contact with those on the other side of the median (as suggested by the authors). I know from my own experiences in web forums and attending higher education that ranges from Ivy League to HBCU, I can say I was PAINFULLY aware when I was in the company of persons not simply more informed that I was but who were much more intelligent (in terms of grasping complex concepts (particularly math) than I was.

It is the case that in everyday life most people do not interact with people who are much brighter than they are (it would usually be a quite aggravating experience for both parties) or much richer (or poorer) than they are. Therefore what they consider "average" is highly skewed by their experiences. So when people do research of large swatches of people and those researchers come to the same conclusions, your average person thinks there is something wrong.

In addition to that the New Left Crow has an entitlement complex. Just as Jim Crow operated to keep the undesirables in line, the Left Crow increasingly leverages the law to enforce it's on privileges. No longer is it the case that you should leave those one dislikes or disagrees with alone. One must also endorse that which they do.If you do not you are to be sanctioned. Do you own a store that happens to make wedding cakes. If you don't make one for a gay wedding you get to have a day in court and possibly get run out of business. Is it because you told the gay couple to get out your store?


Is it because you would sell them a muffin, coffee, birthday cake, retirement cake or any other cake? Nope?

That doesn't matter. Because all that matters is the wedding cake. And the courts amazingly allow these suites to not only go forward but for the plaintiffs to win. It never occurs to these judges that all one has to do is put the shoe on the other foot and have a business, say a black or jewish singing group provide services to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Suddenly they would understand you don't make people provide services for group events one does not wish endorse. That businesses have a legitimate reason to decline services in such a way that is not legally discrimination. A business may not be allowed to decline a person of service because of that person but a business can decline to provide service to behavior they do not wish to be associated with.

Of course what is also entirely different here is that none of the Knights of the KKK would bother to BOTHER such a group to begin with. But not for these folks. The Left Crow says it's OK to purposely invade other peoples spaces and force themselves on them.

Similarly folks on the left thought they could force a business to pay for women's contraception simply because the employee is a woman. These self-centered people feel entirely entitled to other people's money to support their own lifestyle choices. They think this to be a fundamental right trumping the enumerated rights of those person's who object. And what do they call those who object? Sexist!

Used to be that the objective was to get the government out of the reproductive decisions of individuals. Now The New Left Crow is all about using the levers of government to get into the reproductive decisions of individuals.

These are but a few examples of this new era that is upon us. Hopefully this little piece helps to restore, better yet, create a balance where the adults are in control and the emotional cripples are kept in check. Some may object to my comparison to Jim Crow. That's fine. The important thing is to recognize the patterns of behavior and the purposes of those behaviors. They are more similar than it seems.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Dear Stupid People: White People From Spain Are White Regardless of Name.

*We went with the very broadest interpretation and included actors like Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz as "non-white," due to their Hispanic ancestry, despite the fact that many Hispanics may identify racially as white.
Huffington Post Since I know some geography, I know that Spain is a part of Europe. So how the hell did simply having a Spanish surname or "ancestry" make one non-white?

That's some bullshit. This is why I deal less and less with left leaning publications.

Let Me Help The Pope Understand His Own Christ

The Pope on the Hebdo cartoons
Gesturing towards Alberto Gasparri, a Vatican official who organises pontifical trips and who was standing next to him on board the plane, he said: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch in the nose.”

Throwing a pretend punch, the Pope said: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

This Pope is once again showing he clearly does not understand the faith which he is supposed to be leading and he ought to be removed from his position immediately.

Matthew 5:39 (KJV):

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:29 (KJV):
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Matthew 6:15 (KJV):
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The Pope in no way condoned the attack on Charlie Hebdo, insisting that violence carried out in God’s name was “an aberration.”

“One cannot make war [or] kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God.” But those who ridiculed another religion should expect some sort of reaction, he said.

Never mind that by stating he would punch a person out, he just contradicting himself. One person's mother is another person's Mohammed. This is why we DO NOT allow sensitive mofos to make the rules. And the reaction that CIVILIZED people do is a big "fuck you" and disassociate with those persons who have been offensive.

And with that; Fuck you Pope Francis.

Fuck you.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Nigel Duara Has Lost His Mind

The one thing these cartoon and movie events are good for is to see who exactly understands the total concept of "free speech" and those who do not. Nigel Duara is one of the latter
Nazi Julius Streicher never pulled a trigger in the Second World War. He never ordered anyone to die. He was a soldier in the First World War, not the second. But Nuremberg judges found him guilty of crimes against humanity and saw fit to sentence him to death for what he had written during the war. American soldiers carried out his execution in 1946.
And it should never have happened. In fact, that he was sentenced to death and it was carried out underscores exactly why emotional cripples and those with impulse control issues ought never be allowed to decide what speech is allowable and protected.

There are remedies in law for libel and slander as there should be but I wouldn't vote to convict anyone who wrote something I disagreed with with a crime against humanity.

Western society expressed universal horror this week over the extrajudicial killings of those involved in the publication and dissemination of an irreverent, left-leaning satirical weekly in Paris. [my italics]
Extra what? This idiot seems to be of the opinion that cartoons, offensive to some, even many, constitutes something worthy of indicting of a crime. His implied statement is that the killings would be justified had there been some sort of trial.


But the largely forgotten execution of Streicher serves as a reminder that Western society also has set limits on what is deemed acceptable speech.
Libel, slander, speech exhorting immediate violence against persons or property. Speech that would cause a normal person to fear for their physical wellbeing and act in a manner that if done in a group setting could cause many deaths (the shouting fire in an auditorium). That is all.

Now some politicians and certain left bending people also try to define "hate speech" all of which under the US Constitution at least is unconstitutional. France has such "hate speech" laws and I say it is highly hypocritical for them to have such laws on the books. But that is all.

Few would suggest that there is moral equivalence between the terrorist mass killing of cartoonists for purported blasphemy and the judicially sanctioned execution of a Nazi war criminal.
Actually I think this author just did. His only "quibble" with the execution is that it didn't have "judicial sanction". As far as this idiot is concerned drawing [very] unflattering pictures of someone's prophet is as actionable as crimes against humanity like Jew burning.
Los Angeles intellectual property attorney Donald Zachary said. "What we should learn from it is we should never make that mistake again. We should be happy we advanced to the point where we do not kill people for speech, but it wasn't always so."
Actually Donald, In recent history it is only Muslims who are moved to kill over "blasphemy". The so called "western world" moved on from that bullshit some time ago.
In the case of Streicher, the tribunal acknowledged in his indictment that he was never involved in the planning of war crimes, nor was he involved with policies that led to war. For this, he was acquitted of crimes against peace, one of the two charges against him.
Which is why he ought never have been on trial in the first place.
But the judges found that he was guilty of crimes against humanity. "Week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism and incited the German people to active persecution," the indictment said.

Streicher published Der Sturmer, a font of virulent anti-Semitism in print and cartoons. Many of the modern tropes of anti-Semitism found a place in the horrific depictions of Jews as rapists, murderers and worse; some entries relegated them to subhuman, monstrous status and called for their extermination.

You know what? There are cartoons about Mike Brown that are just like that too. There are cartoons out there about black people in general like that too. I wouldn't vote to convict not a single one of the authors over that.

What's more is that such a conviction completely lets the public off the hook for their own ability to reason. No matter what kind of unfactual information is presented, it is by making sure that everyone can speak (and write) that we allow voices of fact and reason to counter the propaganda of others. But people like to put blame on other people for their own failure to think and act. And so Streicher was really the stand in for the collective failure of the German people.

Nigel should be out of a writing job. That would be justice.