Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Plantation Mentalities

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Black people believe in White Supremacy more than any other racial group out there. Black people are apparently unable to help themselves and so need the Democratic party to "help them". I think Barkley has it all wrong. Black people need to get off THEIR ASSES and help themselves.

When I decided I wanted to seriously build wealth, I did not ask the Democratic party for help. I cut my cable. I turned off as many lights as possible. I got myself on a very restrictive budget. I paid off all my debt. I made a calendar of all spending for the year that I could foresee. I didn't go out. At all. I had no vacations. I traded in my car for a beater and got off the car payment treadmill.

I don't buy expensive clothes. I buy store brand food unless there is a significant difference in taste or quality. I have an old computer and buy them second hand as to not get hit with depreciation.

Nothing I did requires or required the help of Democrats. Nor did it require some change to the tax code. What I did was practice discipline. You do what you have to to do what you want to. But to many people want to do whatever they want to and then get mad when they don't get the results they expected and then want other people to bail them out of the consequences of their bad decisions.

6 years from now Black Alabama will be in the same state that they are in today. Mark those words.

An Important Warning From Alabama

And so Roy Moore's aspirations to become a senator are doused. Many are celebrating. I'm not going to comment on the politicking of the event. Whether one agrees with the platforms or Moore or Jones is not of vital interest to me since I see both parties as being owned by the same elites who are not really interested in the welfare of the citizenry. What is concerning to me is the roll that accusations of what is legally child molestation played in this election.

It should bother every and anybody who is concerned about "justice" and fairness, when anyone can decide, 40 years after the fact to raise accusations of serious legal implications. This is especially true with Moore because those same persons had multiple opportunities to make their claims when Moore was a judge and was in the Alabama and national public eye. It was only after having defeated the party preferred candidate did these accusations become public. To say that this was somehow coincidental is to believe the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.

But politics is politics. We expect mud slinging. Fine. But what was really at stake here was the inherited idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That it is entirely unfair to a person to have accusations leveled against them decades after the alleged event. It is without a doubt that had this ambush not occurred that Moore would now be senator elect of Alabama if for no other reason than that decent people do not like persons who are child molesters. But the thing is, there is no evidence that Moore is or ever was one.

The accusation leveled against Moore was of an event that occurred some 40 years ago. What court can go and find evidence of this event from 40 years ago? What witness is going to be reliable 40 years later? What is worse in this case is that we have an actual forged document. Now lets' be clear about forgery, since if this piece is shared on Facebook, they might flag it as "fake". If a document is modified from it's original form then it is forged. So for example, if I write a check for $100 and fail to sign it and someone signs my signature as if I had done so and passed that off to a bank to cash it, they have forged a document. The entire document doesn't have to be made up from scratch. ANY modification of the document that is presented as if it was the original IS forgery. When the yearbook was presented to the public, the signature of Moore including the "D.A" and commentary was presented as written by Moore. This turns out to be not true. This was admitted to by the accuser 1 week prior to the election. Had this been presented in a trial, the evidence would be thrown out and the jury instructed to disregard. Hence legally there is no grounds to convict Moore. Moore, had he been given his day in court would have been acquitted of any and all charges. However; Moore did not get his day in court and may never get his day in court. Now that he has been defeated at the ballot box, there is no need for his accusers to continue. I expect that they will become silent and the event memory holed at least until Jones is seated. Moore will be permanently stained. And so will the nation.

Why? Because now we have ample evidence that we can accuse people of things and ruin their lives without consequence. The accused, if innocent, will unlikely be able to "prove" their innocence, which itself is a profound shift in American culture, because they will unlike have any evidence. How do you prove you didn't grab a booty? How do you prove you didn't go for that kiss? How do you defend against an "off color" joke that you thought was OK because you thought you had a relationship that allowed for that? What if you DID have a relationship that allowed for that kind of joke but some HR policy (or God forbid actual legislation) allows for someone else to be offended on behalf of the person they think to be the victim to make the accusation? Good luck. Of course businesses keen on reducing their liability for the sake of reputation and insurance premiums, not to mention the EEOC and whatever other 3 and 4 letter organizations that are ready to pounce, will quickly sever ties to the now untouchable.

So whether Jones is best for Alabama is for Alabamans to figure out. They have 6 years to deal with that decision. But the new standard of how to lose jobs and other opportunities is going to be felt by everybody. Because now all of us are officially on notice that a single accusation of something "inflammatory" enough in the minds of HR (if one is subject to an HR) can be the end of one's financial life. If it happens to you and you didn't object, on principle, the way Moore has been treated by the press on the issue, then you got what you didn't care about and have no one to blame but yourself.

PS: Since Alabamans are so against the 30 year old chatting up teenagers, I hope they are consistent and pass legislation that modifies their age of consent laws to address that. Failure to do so will only show just how hypocritical the entire situation is.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

The Rot Runs Deep

The Feces in the FBI stinks so bad that even CNN cannot ignore the stench:
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

This is actual obstruction of justice. Clear cut.

This is also an example of why the US needs to designate English as the official language. It is clear from this report that simple words, which a lay person may not pick up on, can be the difference between jail and not jail. I knew that Comey was full of shit when he made that speech about "extreme carelessness" but to see that it was more than Comey shows a conspiracy to protect Clinton which morphed into a conspiracy to "get" Trump. This entire investigation should be stopped immediately as the entire process has been shown to be compromised and a clear political head hunt.

CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia.
So in the space of one week we have seen the extent to which the state policing apparatus has been hijacked by liberals/Democrats for political ends. It has been revealed that lib/Dem officials in Charlottesville purposely mishandled the Unite The Right demonstration with the police chief specifically wanting to have potentially fatal violence occur even though weeks prior the same agency provided proper police protection to an actual Klan rally.

We have an 5x deported and convicted felon get away with killing a citizen in San Francisco which was the direct result of "sanctuary" policies enacted by the city and approved by the state.

And now we have this.

I repeat my call for citizens on juries where a citizen is charged with anything short of anything resulting in bodily harm *against another citizen or legal resident* to exercise their right of nullification and decline to convict unless or until this situation is addressed. We may be forced to pay taxes and feed the system but we certainly do not have to cooperate with allowing the govt to selectively enforce laws against our fellow citizens when they fail to enforce the law against those who are not supposed to be here or against liberals of all stripes.

Peddling "Stay Broke" Mentalities

Not long ago I posted on a recent Pew report on different politically leaning groups. I noted that there was a class of perpetually aggrieved Liberals who are Democrats by a large margin who simultaneously believe that:
Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents
Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people
. A recent article in RT contained the following image:

More peddling of "stay broke" mentalities. If you are dumb enough to think that "The rich" got that way only because they either popped out the womb to money or simply managed to exploit everyone around them (which of course requires no effort, planning or "can do" attitude to pull off), then what you are saying is that it is impossible for the not rich to every become wealthy.

Look. Stop listening to these fucking losers. Below is a guy who is what one would consider "rich". Listen to how he did it.

He clearly wasn't born "rich". He didn't exploit people. So how exactly did he do it?

And yeah, Grassley is largely right. Broke/poor people often stay poor because they spend money (and time) on stuff of little to no value beyond a momentary feeling of satisfaction. And no, it's not an either your poor or you're a multi-millionaire. There's a whole lot of middle ground where many would be very comfortable.

See when you realize that the above happens, then you realize that these people pushing the whole "the rich get rich by exploiting the poor" is largely bull. Now lets be clear that there are in fact people getting rich off of exploitation. But these people are a small proportion of "the rich" (who themselves are a small proportion of the wealthy).

Friday, December 01, 2017

Kathryn Steinle: Victim of Liberal/Democratic Policies

I pondered some time back during the campaign for president whether we should ask Liberals or Democrats how many citizens they were willing to have killed in order to protect foreigners. In essence it was a question of whether these folk are traitors in the very real sense of the word. You see, if any candidate for office was OK with allowing foreigners to kill citizens they are not only unfit for office, but should be seen and treated as the traitors that they are. Of course such a question was never put directly to any of the candidates but we do know that not only is the question relevant, but it has been answered, many times, including yesterday.
An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump.

The man, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, who was also found not guilty of assault with a firearm, was convicted only of being a felon in possession of a firearm. …

Now admittedly, I had not followed the case as I have had other things in my life to do and trust me on this, following such cases and writing blog entries on them is very time consuming. Just see my series on Sean Bell or Trayvon Martin. The reason I make this note is because I was unaware that the defense was claiming that the defendant had been trying to shoot a seal and the bullet hit the ground and then struck Steinle.
Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms. Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident.

Evidence was presented in court that the bullet had ricocheted before striking Ms. Steinle.

If we take this story at face value and assume it to be true, then we cannot be surprised that there was a not guilty verdict for anything that required criminal intent. I've posted this many times before but we cannot assume that homicide=murder. Murder is a charge of mens rea. Lacking that you can only rise to criminally negligent homicide, sometimes called manslaughter. This is important because Zarate is on record having admitted to firing the gun in a public space. Generally speaking one cannot discharge a weapon in a public space for reasons other than self-defense and not be charged with a minimum of reckless endangerment. Since Zarete had already confessed to discharging the weapon, we know that he was being reckless.

My understanding is that the defense lawyers, probably seeing that this argument would get their client convicted made a new argument that Zarate had accidentally discharged the weapon because the weapon had a "hair trigger". I have seen persons more familiar with guns that I am say that such an argument is weak at best because there is supposed to be some kind of drop test for such arms and that the weighting of the trigger on that model does not fit with the defense claims. I cannot say either way about this because I am unfamiliar with firearms. Therefore I will stay with the "I tried to shoot a seal" statement and base the rest of the post on that.

So having discharged a weapon in a public space in blatant disregard for the safety and lives of others, Zarate should have been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. Period. For the jury to not have returned such a verdict means that we have an epic case of jury nullification. Mind you am I NOT OPPOSED to jury nullification. As a matter of fact, I think that as a consequence of this verdict (among other things) that until the states and federal government gets it's act together, that citizens refuse to convict other citizens of any crime or tort brought by the state or non-citizens short of murder. If "our" government refuses to properly enforce the law, then so will we. Jury nullification is legal and it can cut both ways.

Having said that, I think that the larger issue is not whether the jury gave the Steinle family the finger in an apparent attempt to "resist Trump", it is the fact that her killing could and should have been prevented. We know that his convicted felon had been deported no less than 5 times. We know that the agencies charged with enforcing the laws of the land acted to protect a known felon and illegal migrant from further deportation. We know that the state of California and the city of San Fransisco conspired to protect this felon. THIS is the real problem.

As I have written before:

I'm going to focus on Sessions here. Since the campaign we have seen unprecedented levels of political violence mostly by leftist groups. We have seen a level of lawlessness, where governors and mayors have openly violated immigration law or stated their intent (which is what is needed for criminal prosecution) to violate immigration law. Various govt. officials have brazenly told police under their watch to allow persons designated "nazis" to be beaten and to have their constitutional rights violated. All of this has happened with mice level peeps from Sessions. This is unacceptable. Where there is a lack of law, lawlessness escalates.
Where are the RICO charges? Why are these cities and states still getting federal money? It's easy to point at the jury. It's even easy to point to the officials in the city and state but ultimately it is the failure of the big dogs in Washington, you know, the ones who put troops on the ground to get desegregation done, to put the smack down on these cities and states that is the real problem. And I'm not letting Trump off the hook here. The AG reports to and serves at the pleasure of the president. If I read the 1789 law establishing the position of AG The executive can direct the justice department to drop the hammer on California. He hasn't done so. Why not?

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Current Year America

Examining a piece in the Washington Post we see that current year America is a joke of a nation.
But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago.
Policy changes? Ok. That sounds interesting. Lets see what they are:
From his crackdown on illegal immigration to his reversal of Obama administration policies on criminal justice and policing, Sessions is methodically reshaping the Justice Department to reflect his nationalist ideology and hard-line views — moves drawing comparatively less public scrutiny than the ongoing investigations into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin. [My underlines]
So enforcing the law is now "hard line"? Really? Shall I accuse the police officer who tickets me for speeding as being "a nationalist with 'hard line views'" or is he actually just "doing his job"? By the way. Why is it a "policy change" to be "nationalistic"? Shouldn't the people in government, that, you know, is supposed to be by and for 'the people", supposed to be "nationalistic"?
Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties.
Wait? So "minorities" are supposed to have different punishments than other people in America? How does that square with the constitution? It's almost like the Post thinks that minorities (in which it means, non asian minorities") shouldn't be held to account for their behavior.
He has defended the president’s travel ban and tried to strip funding from cities with policies he considers too friendly toward undocumented immigrants.
He defended a law passed by congress that gives the president discretionary powers on determining who may and may not enter the country. This is news?

It's almost like the Post thinks that illegal immigrants. Say it with me: Illegal. Immigrants have trespass rights in America. Like the law(s) don't apply to them.

Sessions has even adjusted the department’s legal stances in cases involving voting rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in a way that advocates warn might disenfranchise poor minorities and give certain religious people a license to discriminate.
It's almost like the Post is unable to look up the constitution on the internet, nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act that expressly:

1) Says the government cannot abridge the freedom of religion or exercise thereof.

2) Says that religious institutions and private clubs are exempt from laws in the 1964 CRA.

While critics lambaste what they consider misguided changes that take the department back in time, supporters say Sessions has restored a by-the-book interpretation of federal law and taken an aggressive stance toward enforcing it.
It's as if Sessions thinks that the department should do it's job: enforcing the law. Shocking policy change!
Prosecutors have brought several such cases since he became attorney general and recently sent an attorney to Iowa to help the state prosecute a man who was charged with killing a gender-fluid 16-year-old high school student last year. The man was convicted of first-degree murder.

But while civil rights leaders praised his action in that case, Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the national Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that it “stands in stark contrast to his overall efforts” to roll back protections for transgender people.

I don't know what "rights" Kristen thinks "transgender" people have that are different from those of every other citizen, but I do know that murder is illegal, period. What's the problem?
Critics say, though, that his record shows otherwise. “We are seeing a federal government that is pulling back from protecting vulnerable communities in every respect,” Clarke said. “That appears to be the pattern that we are seeing with this administration — an unwillingness to use their enforcement powers in ways that can come to the defense of groups who are otherwise powerless and voiceless.”
No, what we have, finally, is a justice dept. and administration that is not making up "rights" via executive fiat (or court decision). This is a good thing. You don't get "rights" because you are a minority, poor or confused about your body.

Diverse = "Not White"

A common understanding in dissident right circles is that diversity is a code word for "not white" in it's less malicious usage. Of course, in left circles this claim is used as evidence of "white supremacy" and paranoia among whites who see any threat to their "central status" in America as evidence of "reverse discrimination". Of course, now that the mask has completely fallen off the left and outright bigotry against whites, at levels unseen since perhaps the Jim Crow era and quickly getting to lynch level absurdity we get reporting that to any sane person confirms the dissident right's position. Today's evidence comes from The Verge:
The 2018 Grammy Award nominations were released this morning, and certain categories looked markedly more diverse in their selections. “Despacito” became the first Spanish-language song to be nominated for Record of the Year and Song of the Year, every lead artist nominated for Record of the Year was a person of color, and the list for best Album of the Year did not contain a single white male artist for the first time in Grammy history. (Sorry, Ed Sheeran.) In short, the nominations are incredibly diverse.
Not a single white male is "incredibly diverse".
It was relatively easy for older executives and producers to vote in the previous system, but not so for someone like me. Now, the people actually contributing to cultural change the most — touring musicians, new producers and songwriters, etc. — have access to participate in ways that were never there before. This year’s list is a direct reflection of that. When you make a system easier for everyone to use, everyone wins. ■

White men are non persons.

Look, you don't have to be enamored with white people (or men in particular) to see this for what it is. It is direct evidence that the claims of so called "nazis" about being replaced is not a conspiracy theory. It is a real phenomenon. I said it years ago and I'll say it again: this will not end well.

The end of discrimination will not come about by blatant discrimination.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Zimbabwe, The ANC And The Dead End of Revenge Politics

So Mugabe has resigned. Zimbabwe and Mugabe stand as lessons against Black power or Black Nationalist ideologies that rely on revenge as a long term policy.

I have no problem admitting that in my younger days (some of which includes days far far away from what we'd call "youth") I had little problem with the idea of offing the settler and returning the land. Seriously. Matter of fact, I would be highly suspect of any black person who took the issues of colonialism seriously to not have had an agreement with such policies because I think any people, deprived of their land and liberty should have a reflexive human reaction to want to exact revenge and retribution.

Where I and many of my contemporaries part ways is that I took, and take, nationalism seriously. Nationalism, Garveyite Pan-Africanism in particular to me were not a mere means of establishing self esteem at the cost of "white devils" and the like. I wanted, and want Africans to run their own ship and I want them to do it successfully. This meant that I took a great deal of time to think through issues. For example, What would be the national language of a Pan-African government? What do you do with groups who don't want to partake? What would be the qualifications for citizenship? Would it extend to black countries in the Caribbean? If so how do we integrate the economies? What of African-Americans who are culturally pretty far removed from continental Africans? What would the role of Islam be in such a country? Christianity? What economic system would be put in place? Since Africa is so huge would it be better to have regional governors? Would a "grand council" be better than single executive? Etc. etc. etc. I was concerned with governance, not with "where da white farmers at"?

Unfortunately too many people in power in Africa, particularly directly after colonialism hadn't really through through the long term issue of actual governance. Instead they acted on their (understandable) wish to get back at those who had excluded them (and worse). But that doesn't run a country. That is not economic policy.

To be fair to Mugabe and Zimbabwe, England had a part in the death spiral of Zimbabwe. It had agreed to land transfers where England would compensate the farmers. It reneged on that agreement and that was wrong. Period. Then came Zidera Which hurt the citizens of Mugabe rather than Mugabe himself who, along with his wife, continued to fly to Europe and spend massive amounts of money. Mugabe perhaps only rivaled by Mobutu.

In the end though, it was the failure to actually govern. To establish rule of law. To smartly deal with the inflamed passions of the people that brought down Zimbabwe. The same is happening in South Africa under the ANC. Here again we see the killing of white farmers which brings absolutely no benefits whatsoever to South Africa or even to those who do the killings other than the emotional release of having gotten revenge. The ANC is literally running on policies that cuts off the hand it wishes to use to eat.

In all of this, a new colonial master has moved in. Their attitude is currently "do whatever you want, just make sure we get our shit." Currently the focus on Europeans have blinded Africans to this new colonialism. The Chinese may have to worry about what happens when there are no more Europeans around for Zimbabweans to blame for their problems. But that's a whole other blog post.

So in the end we see that revenge politics is a dead end. Whether that be in Zimbabwe or in America. Revenge politics does nothing to address the internal issues that hold back black communities and once the target of the revenge politics are removed even the temporary esteem boost that revenge politics fueled will give way to feelings of inadequacy and more violence and problems as new "oppressors" and "oppressions" are made of classes within black communities are created to distract from the mis-leadership.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Mash It Up In A Zimbabwe

From AlJazeera:
Following my verbal communication with the Speaker of the National Assembly, Advocate Jacob Mudenda at 13:53 hours, 21st November, 2017 intimating my intention to resign as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, I, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, in terms of Section 96, Sub-Section 1 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, hereby formally tender my resignation as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with immediate effect.

More On The "Little Crimes"

So having discussed LaVar Ball and the ghost of Stingley, lets look at one from the Washington Post on fare evasion:

At a recent public hearing on a proposal to decriminalize fare evasion on Metro, D.C. Council member Charles Allen made a shocking admission.

Allen, chairman of the panel’s judiciary committee, is a repeat offender.

This is a setup. Watch the hands....
I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve tapped my card and it gave me the beep that said my balance had dropped below what the fare was,” said Allen (D-Ward 6), a daily bus rider. “And the driver just said, ‘Just fill it up when you get to the station.’ ”

“I’ve never once thought, ‘I’m going to actually get a citation or have a criminal record for riding the bus,’ ” he said.

This is not fare evasion. I repeat: This is not fare evasion. He didn't try to not pay his fare (assuming he didn't purposely leave his card with a low balance with the intent to beating the fare. He merely discovered that his balance was low and the driver allowed him on the bus anyway. This is an example of the driver using his discretion.

Fare beating is knowing you don't have enough money and deciding to jump the turnstile or bypass whatever mechanism on purpose. Now watch the trick:

The D.C. Council’s move mirrors a trend in cities across the country based on a growing awareness among lawmakers of how issues such as legacy policing practices, unconscious bias and systemic racism can unfairly target communities based on race or age — even in the seemingly mundane case of fare jumping. [My underlines]
So laws against theft of services (fare beating) is racist because black people (and supposedly the young) are inherently incapable of not stealing services. You cannot come to any other conclusion from this statement.

I mean shit, it's "ONLY" fare jumping. What's there to be upset about. All those people who dutifully save their money in order to pay their fares, day in and day out to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars are just law abiding suckers. You know, if you're going to decriminalize fare beating then please do offer a refund to all the people who did the right thing.

Fat chance at that happening.

Matter of fact, why not just make public transport free to board. No fares for ANYBODY.

Some legislators are questioning whether fare evasion should be a crime at all, arguing that targeted enforcement campaigns are bound to ensnare poor and low-income people who don’t have the money to pay their fares — let alone fines.
This reminds me of stories my mother told me about when the money ran out the day before pay day and she didn't have enough bus fare money to get home. Do you know what she did?

Wait for it.

She walked home.

There's a story about a man in Detroit who I believe walked many miles to and from work (or at least to a transport spot). Yeah, tell me again how the poor get ensnared again.

You know what I see almost daily? People riding little kids bicycles to and from work. Some on regular mountain bikes. You can get one second hand for next to nothing. It's honest transportation.

“Absolutely there’s been a raised consciousness on this that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago,” said Nassim Moshiree, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia. “Activism like the Movement for Black Lives has had a positive impact on raising awareness that policing — and the explicit and implicit bias in policing — means that certain communities are impacted in unfair ways. Even when it comes to something like fare evasion.”
BLM thinks there are no "white man laws" that blacks need to respect. That's the new "raised consciousness" that has appeared in the last 20-30 years. So now it's "bias" to expect black people to do little things like pay their fare like everyone else is expected to.
Metro is in the midst of a crackdown on fare evasion, spurred partly by financial pressure and partly in response to heightened concerns about crime in the system. Nearly a quarter of assaults on bus operators, for example, result from disputes over fares.
Next we'll be told that it's racism that causes black people (and the young) to beat up bus drivers who ask that they not steal services from the public. I mean the nerve of these bus drivers to expect black folks to PAY for a bus ride. Don't they know we are owed reparations and shit?
Metro Transit Police Chief Ronald A. Pavlik Jr. estimated that the agency loses up to $25 million a year in unpaid fares — a hefty sum for an agency that just announced that it will seek a $29 million increase in the operating subsidies from the jurisdictions that fund it.
That's a lot of money.

he also thinks that people across demographic boundaries feel a sense of injustice that some people flout the rules and ride free, while others dig deep to pay their fares.

“It’s a fairness issue, across the entire community,” Wiedefeld said. “You have people in those same communities that they’re concerned about being targeted, who are paying their fares. And I think it’s right that everybody pay their fare.”

Joke's on us man. It's not about "fair".
Lawmakers nationwide have become increasingly aware of how citations or arrests for fare jumping can have disparate impacts on low-income riders and communities of color. For some groups, a simple citation or misdemeanor arrest can affect their job, parole or immigration status.
Simple solution. Ready: Don't try to fare beat and there will be no citation or arrest. I know this is hard, but try to follow. If you don't fare beat, they cannot give a citation or arrest you. Then you don't have to worry about your job or parole. Oh and if you are worried about your immigration status...wellll..
That proposal gained traction last month when a New York advocacy group, the Community Service Society, released a report concluding that fare-evasion arrests happen more frequently at stations that abut low-income neighborhoods. In addition, the report said that half of all fare-evasion arrests in Brooklyn involve black men between the ages of 16 and 36, but they represent only 13.1 percent of poor adults. [my underlines]
There are 3 other major racial groups in NY and one major ethnic group, why not tell us about the rest of the demographics?

In the end this is yet another example of liberal white folks aligning with grumpy black folks to lower the expectations that black people be expected to live up the same standards that everyone else is expected to follow. And all this does is lead to resentment by non-blacks, rightfully so, when they are held to account while blacks are allowed to publicly and openly flaunt the rules. You cannot have equality and exceptionalism in the same law (generally speaking). Either we are all expected to pay our fares or we are all allowed to ride for "free" (only tax payer based funding via taxes). That is the only real fair option.

If these kinds of policies continue then the quote at the head of this post cannot be considered a "myth" but a reality.

Monday, November 20, 2017

LaVar Ball's Commentary is Not Uncommon

LaVar Ball decidedly ungrateful response to Trump's intercession on his son's behalf underscores an unfortunately not uncommon attitude towards crime in too many black communities:
"As long as my boy's back here, I'm fine," LaVar Ball told ESPN. "I'm happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, 'They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.' I'm from L.A. I've seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses. My son has built up enough character that one bad decision doesn't define him. Now if you can go back and say when he was 12 years old he was shoplifting and stealing cars and going wild, then that's a different thing.[my underlines]
This "i've seen much worse" attitude is exactly why so many black communities have unacceptably high crime rates. While I'll agree that I think 10 years in prison is over the top for sunglasses, I don't think one should downplay the fact that someone thought it was OK to steal. Period.

This reminded me of the case of Cory Stingley (2). Corey's father reached out to me after finding my blog entries and was upset that Corey was responsible for his own demise. He said that it should be expected that young (presumably black) men to steal shit at some point in their life. When I read that, I completely understood why it was that Cory thought it was OK to steal. For the record I have never shoplifted, attempted to shoplift of even thought about shoplifting. Period. And I find it insulting that a person would think that taking any of my property, regardless of it's value is something I should overlook.

Many Black people claim to be Christians so let me put it to them like this. In the Bible there is a parable about talents. Three people were given talents. Two did stuff with them and one buried his. End of the parable was that the two who had invested their talents were rewarded with even more while the one who buried his was scolded as being lazy, etc. The lessons being that those who are faithful in small things get rewarded with bigger thing. That is, if I can trust you to NOT steal some $5 sunglasses, then I can trust you around things of far higher value.

When we fail to teach our children and hold our children to account for the small things, then we set them up to FAIL when bigger things are placed in their care. LaVar Ball's attitude about "seeing worse" is the same as the servant who buried his talent. LaVar failed his son and for those who understand what I speak of, he has shown himself to be an embarrassment. But the Trump hatred knows no bounds and no ends, that folks will even defend a thief and theft.