The Perfect Storm 2

So last weekend 37 people were shot. 9 died. Stop. Last weekend. 9 dead 37 shot. And folks are worried about Michelle Obama's head on a historical painting? Anyway, in 2010 I wrote a piece entitled A Perfect Storm of Pathologies about a rape that occurred in Chicago in which I noted one disturbing aspect of that crime:

That leads to my final issue. The mother of the male who was too impatient to get his rape on, who, like those "grown" men involved should have known better. Backed up her son's outrageous claim of the victim's consent. Clearly we have a failure on the part of the parent. If you are a parent and your son thinks that it's OK to engage in intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, you have failed.

Turns out that this is not an isolated situation. In the recent report on the mass shootings in Chicago I saw the following:

Last year a Chicago mother was arrested after she allegedly drove her son and an accomplice to shoot a person they believed was a snitch.

From the original article:

Cicero Police Chief Bernard Harrison said the mother likely thought the person who allegedly told police about a drug-related incident was in Cicero when she drove her son and a friend to shoot the person. "But they ended up shooting someone else," Harrison said in an issued statement.

Again what we have here is not only a perfect storm of pathologies but a clear example of intergenerational socialization into criminal behavior. I'm going to leave it at that.

Michelle Obama + Bare Titty = Black Rage

Black folks are a sensitive bunch. While the history of black folks in the US can explain much of it some of it is plain, well, dumb. One thing that I do not like about black folks is that a segment of black folks think they are above critique. You can't say anything "negative" about black folks regardless of how factual it is without someone complaining about how we're "blaming the victim" or otherwise repeating racist material.

The other set of black folks that I find quite annoying are the ones who deem that anything they deem "offensive" must be so. furthermore, they are arbiters of what is and is not "racist". You cannot argue with them. You cannot point out that there are other more likely explanations for a given situation. If these folks declare something racist, then by God it is 'racist". And you who disagree must be racist yourself (if you're not black) or you are someone "lacking consciousness".

The latest exhibit is the now famous "Michelle Obama as Slave" magazine cover.

Original:

When I first saw the picture I recognized Michelle Obama, but did not recognize that the portrait was taken from a specific slave portrait. When I saw on Twitter that it was supposedly a slave portrait I said to myself:

Oh the artist [who I did not know was not black at the time] must be making a point about how Michelle Obama being a descendant of slaves in America is now the wife of the most powerful man in the US. Clearly this is a commentary on how far African people in America have come.

Of course this rather obvious explanation was lost on a good number of so called "conscious Negroes". What did the "conscious Negroes" see? Well they saw Michelle Obama and a titty and went nuts. We know how Americans are when it comes to Titties: If it's not in porn, it needs to be covered. I suppose the conscious negroes would have been less mad had the artist further altered the original and covered up the titty.

Anyway, last night I finally read the explanation of the piece, as printed on the magazine cover. It was exactly what I thought it was. shocking!

Here’s a roughly translated description of the article “Michelle Tataranieta De Esclava, Dueña De América” (Michelle, Granddaughter Of A Slave. Lady Of America): “…(The phrase) Behind every great man there is a great woman describes the Obama marriage. In the shadow of the U.S. President is a person whose popularity ratings exceed those of Barack’s own. This person is none other than his wife Michelle.”

Now there is a time and a place for black folks to be up in arms. The Black Woman Cake was one such moment. Folks engaging in mock cannibalism of a "Black body" while the artist screams along with the gross "black face like" characteristics, while the white guests laugh and socialize was certainly wrong on many levels. But this piece here, in my opinion is actually very good art. It should only offend those who are or wish to forget about the real circumstances that Michelle Obama came to be who she is and where she is. It is an important piece of artwork and done with fidelity to the original and with taste.

Complaining Negroes need to have a seat.

Sometimes....

Sometimes you just read headlines and wonder "WTF?"

Legitimate Analysis

Analyzing the Aikin comment without the politics Legitimate: 1) According to law. 2) in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Rape: 1) the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2) any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. Legitimate Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress.

In all the hoopla surrounding Akins commentary about "legitimate rape" I lost sight of my purpose as a writer concerned with fact, which is to be fair and look at all the angles before jumping to conclusions. In this politicized environment jumping to conclusions and public shows of outrage particularly when it concerns a group one does not care much if anything for, is easy to do. Knowing that most of the US population does not read much above high school level (if that) it is understandable how most of the population would have lost their mind at the idea of "legitimate rape". However; upon further examination the term is actually not offensive in the least bit.

The reason for this is because the term"legitimate" has been confused with "actual" or "real". The latter two terms used by those who attempt to distinguish between things such as "date rape" or "acquaintance rape", which is the most common form of rape and forcible "stranger jump out of the bush rape" which is in the statistical minority. Many, particularly those on the "right" have been attempting to use these qualifiers in order to make an attack on abortion. I'm not addressing this particular angle here. This piece is only in regards to the actual statement and the actual facts

So then having seen how the term "legitimate rape" can, in fact be used without any nefarious intent we have to ask the next question: if there is such a thing as "legitimate rape" then what exactly is an "illegitimate rape"? Taken from the above definition of legitimate we could assume that illegitimate rape would be a sexual act that falls outside the legal definition of rape. for example, in some states rape requires that a penis actually enter a vagina. In such a case anal intercourse may not be legally considered rape. Rather it would be considered sexual assault or Sodomy. Another example would be if in said state a person was a victim where a broom handle was inserted into their vagina. That may also be considered "Sodomy" or "sexual assault" but not a rape.

Therefore it is clear that one must be careful when discussing rape because persons, usually emotional about the subject, will be put off when one says "actual rape" meaning "by the book".

But that still presents a problem. If rape is definitively an "illegitimate" act, then how can we even define an "illegitimate rape"? My position would be that the proper phrase, given the definition of legitimate, would be an illegitimate *accusation* of rape. Note the difference. I'm asserting that a *claim* of rape may be found to be illegitimate (which happens more frequently than people believe). That is, someone may claim to be raped but the evidence shows that such a claim is illegitimate ie "not in accordance to law" because either the alleged victim lied about the encounter or the person he or she fingered did not actually commit the crime in question.

This brings me to another point. I have had many discussions with women who are of the opinion that any and every rape claim should be taken as truth. I could see those persons not living in America or unaware of American history to make such a mistake but I do not see how any person who lives in a country where a person is presumed innocent under the law, to take such a position. I also cannot fathom how black women (and men) could be of such an opinion given the history of false rape claims that have ended up with black men hanging from various trees and being parted with certain body parts.

With that little commentary out of the way let me move on to the other part of the Akins comment. Akins made the claim that " "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy".

Yet through all the hoopla surrounding the comment, I saw very little in the way of "fact checking". Yesterday while suffering through Bourne Legacy, I stumbled across the following piece on Google which stated:

A previous study found that five percent of rape incidents result in a pregnancy among women of reproductive age and estimated that rape causes more than 32,000 pregnancies in the United States every year.

So 95% of rape incidences do not result in pregnancy. So let's return to Akins comment along with the above definition of "legitimate rape":

5% of those persons subject any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress, have a pregnancy as a result.

Therefore Akin's comment in regards to the frequency of pregnancy via rape is actually correct. So where did he go wrong? The erroneous part of Akins statement was the whole "the woman's body can shut things down" in response to being raped. Certainly those 5% are certainly not going to want to be told that their so called "anti-rape" biological defense mechanism failed to kick in. And certainly no one should be telling any victim of rape such a thing. That is indeed offensive. However that does not change the fact that under stressful conditions the human female body will have problems conceiving and carrying to term, a child. There certainly is not an on/off switch as Akins claimed there was, but rather a set of responses that may be triggered after a rape (or any traumatic event). But let's not take my word for it. Let's look at the literature on the subject. Here's the NCBLI (National Center for Biotechnology Information ) on the subject: Stress reduces conception probabilities across the fertile window: evidence in support of relaxation

CONCLUSION(S): Stress significantly reduced the probability of conception each day during the fertile window, possibly exerting its effect through the sympathetic medullar pathway

Another article Stress and other environmental factors affecting fertility in men and women: overview says:

A close association between stress and eating disorders is frequently found in female patients presenting with anovulation and amenorrhea. This is not surprising since both conditions lead to a slow-down of the LHRH pulse generator and consequently, of gonadotropin secretion and gonadal function.

Another article from the journal Human Reproduction (subscription required) :Should fertilization treatment start with reducing stress? tells us:

There is substantial initial evidence that the psychological disposition of the parents-to-be influences their fertility and thus the outcome of fertilization techniques.

There is ample evidence that lower stress levels mean better female and male natural fertility, though there is as yet no conclusive experimental evidence that lower stress levels result in better fertility treatment outcome. However, first reducing stress may diminish the number of treatment cycles needed before pregnancy is obtained, may prepare the couple for an initial failure of treatment or even make the more invasive techniques unnecessary.

the follicular levels of glucocorticoid hormones, especially lower follicular cortisone and a higher cortisol/cortisone ratio have shown to have a significant effect on pregnancy rates in IVF.

The female reproductive tract contains catecholamine receptors (Moran, 1975); thus, catecholamines—which are related to stress, see Table I—may affect fertility, for example, by interfering with the transport of gametes through the Fallopian tube or by altering uterine blood flow (Schenker et al., 1992). A substantial number of studies found that anticipatory anxiety and high anticipatory cortisol levels prior to oocyte retrieval (OR) and embryo transfer (ET) result in lower pregnancy rates, as do depression, high active coping, high avoidance and high expression of emotion

I would humbly suggest that the act of being raped is stressful. I would suggest that the aftermath: worrying about life ending diseases, court dates that can go on for months, possibly facing the perpetrator, or not having the perp caught and at large, are all long term stressors that would qualify as things that could have an adverse effect on possible ovulation or carrying to term of a fertilized egg.

Given the report above that the vast majority of rape incidents do not result in pregnancy (32,000 is less than .01% of the total US population) it is clear that a variety of factors, known to many couples who have had a hard time conceiving, can and probably do act to prevent conception or the carrying to term of a human child.

So given this and far more information available, it is flat out wrong for certain "news" outlets to claim that Akins was presenting "junk science" nor were the claims of the "rarity" of pregnancy resulting from rape statistically incorrect. Akins may not have understood the science. But the science is not "junk".

So Akins actual faulty language was the suggestion that women somehow have an on/off switch that they can/do/must activate in order to prevent pregnancy. That is offensive and deserves to be pointed out as such. However; he rest of the statement, on it's face is actually accurate. However to see that we must take off our political blinders and our ideological glasses and turn off our "immediate outrage" switch.

The Root Cause?

So I am currently reading The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. In a nutshell this is a book that wishes to explain that today's world, particularly the "western world" is far less violent than the world of antiquity (including the old "West") or even the recent past. While I will reserve commentary on the overall summary until I've finished reading the entire 1007 page tome, I will take the time to comment on one aspect that I've noticed from the first 200 pages.

Pinker generally asserts that as humanity moved from "nature" to settled civilizations with stable governments which featured a monopoly on violence, the levels of violence in those societies (measured in the book by the rates of homicide expressed as x per 100,000 persons) decreased. His data shows that Western Europe enjoys the lowest levels of violence (less that 1/100,000) and America, while relatively safe is at a "shocking" 10/100,000 or thereabouts.

When we look closer at the American data presented we are shown that in early American history violence by European-Americans and African-Americans (blacks) were about equal but as you moved through time the levels of violence among African-Americans increased (or failed to decrease) while that of European-Americans declined. Of note was that both Southern blacks and whites were and are both more violent than their northern counterparts but that is not the focus of this entry. So what is the focus? If Pinker's data is correct then the violence seen by the African in America cannot be explained by culture or lack thereof. Nor can it be explained by "inherent" predispositions on the part of the African. Clearly the "fact" that Europeans and Africans of America's early history exhibited the same level of violence means something else is at fault. We are forced to ask why Black violence in America is so high. Pinker, prior to disclosing the data explains that the success of the Leviathan lies in the ability of the state to not only foster an environment where people can conduct profitable business but where the state is trusted to mete out fair justice to all parties. The ability to provide justice (and protection) would be the means by which interpersonal violence is prevented in a society. Any somewhat bright person would see that in the case of the African in America the state totally failed on both grounds.

While we can agree that the American state became very efficient at creating a safe environment for it's white subjects, It is clear that it did not do so for it's African ones. While the state encouraged business creation and ownership among it's European citizenry as well as providing "justice" and "safety"; when it was not making it's black subjects into property, it was allowing African persons to be killed with impunity and stripping them of so called "god given rights of man".

If Pinker is correct that the reduction in violence among white citizens of the United States was a result of a more effective and "fair" state apparatus, then it can also be argued that the 500+ years of a state apparatus that acted to dispossess the African and clearly disfavor him in the courts is directly responsible for the levels of violence seen in African-American communities.

If we cannot make this argument then Pinker's entire thesis is worthless, no?

I, Robot Revisited

Back in 2004 I wrote a piece that was inspired by my viewing of the movie "I, Robot" (one of my top sci-fi movies in terms of futurism). I wrote then:

Specifically I was struck by the displacement of humans in many jobs. I, robot takes place in 2035, when yours truly will be in his 60's. at that time it appears that robots are rubbish collectors, babysitters, cooks, janitors even bartenders. My question was, what happened to the people who usually do these jobs? It is presumed that those persons are enjoying life, free from the mundane work of life and can go about their business. The problem with that assumption is that the movie clearly shows that there are classes of people. Smith's character rides in an Audi. The CEO of USR is clearly well off and Smith's character, Audi notwithstanding seems to live in a less than upscale apartment relative to the female lead. It is quite clear that some people made more than others and lived different lives. Therefore there still must be some means of making money. As we know, all throughout human history, where there is class there are those who are deprived. Clearly, everyone cannot be an accountant or a programmer and clearly even if they could, there would not be enough jobs to go around. So where are these people in this 2035 Chicago? Is there some huge welfare state going on?

Today I read in the NY Times about the push to automate factories in both the US, China and elsewhere:

Yet in the state-of-the-art plant, where the assembly line runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are robots everywhere and few human workers. All of the heavy lifting and almost all of the precise work is done by robots that string together solar cells and seal them under glass. The human workers do things like trimming excess material, threading wires and screwing a handful of fasteners into a simple frame for each panel.

China already has a problem in which it graduates a huge number of college graduates but does not have the capacity to employ them. Many of these persons go to work in factories. As these factories are increasingly automated this critical pressure relief valve will no longer be available and unemployment will be rampant along with the social issues that follow.

On the other side, businesses without customers cannot long stay in business. People must have currency in order to purchase goods (and services). Clearly the top dollars are not being paid to those connecting fasteners and screwing in screws. As I suggested in 2004, unless there is a massive welfare state in which citizens are paid to "pursue happiness" rather than "employment" the automation of the workplace will lead to a lot of problems.

50 Shades of Nazism

From the NY Times

The winds of isolation and narrowness are blowing through Israel. Rude and arrogant power brokers, some of whom hold senior positions in government, exclude non-Jews from Israeli public spaces. Graffiti in the streets demonstrates their hidden dreams: a pure Israel with “no Arabs” and “no gentiles.” They do not notice what their exclusionary ideas are doing to Israel, to Judaism and to Jews in the diaspora. In the absence of a binding constitution, Israel has no real protection for its minorities or for their freedom of worship and expression.

We can see that the "leadership" of Israel has indeed learned much from Fuhrer. Did not the Nazis believe that Germany was an "Aryan" state where "lesser" humans (if considered that) were to be excluded and were eventually excluded?

Did not the Nazis decide that they could kill off those who were "not German"?

Did not the Nazis decide that going to war with it's neighbors was a proper means for protecting the fatherland and purging Europe of the "vermin"?

Of course there will be those reading this that will say "oh he goes too far". I say to let history speak.