Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Total Distraction

At a historic moment when the United States is encountering more and more local hostility that makes it dangerous for Americans to be on the ground in many places, our expanding reliance on remote, some say cowardly, killing is the real issue responsible and courageous Americans should be focusing on. The fact women can now pull the trigger and die next to men is a distraction.
Total distraction.

Specious Correlation

I'm not sure why I keep volunteering to receive mail from Diversity Inc. but I do. Today's award for "specious correlation" goes to the linked report that Segregated Blacks More Likely to Die of Lung Cancer
Blacks more likely to die of lung cancer than whites. Researchers have found that Black patients living in segregated counties have a lung cancer mortality rate about 10 percentage points higher than those living in diverse neighborhoods. When looking at specific counties, the researchers found that the mortality rate of white lung-cancer patients remained steady between diverse and predominantly white counties—between about 50 percent and 53 percent. Rates were comparable for Black patients living in diverse counties. But Black patients living in highly segregated counties had a mortality rate of about 63 percent. Black patients living in moderately segregated areas had a mortality rate of 57 percent.
It must be the "segregation". Oh wait, Segregation, as in legally enforced "you must live here or else" has been illegal for many decades now. And yes, I do strenuously object to referring to any neighborhood in which folks choose to live with other folks who look like them (or whatever other category one wishes to use) as "segregated".

"Separated"? Fine? "Segregated"? Please pass me with that. I live where I please. And if I choose to live among other black folks that's my choice, my business and not "segregation".

Even the summary shows this bias. "Predominately white neighborhoods' verses "highly segregated" black neighborhoods. Why not call the "Predominately white" neighborhoods "highly segregated"? Hmmm?? Why not? Why have "segregated" only attached to blackness? Anyway, first back to the report.

Now the reason I said all of that is because the report makes one believe that lung cancer is somehow "caused" by segregation without actually coming out and saying it. There are a lot of reports like that.

If one wants to see how silly it is to even mention "segregation" one has only to look at Beijing China. Millions and Billions of Chinese suffering under air pollution and the directly associated effects and "segregation" has nothing at all to do with it. We wouldn't even bother to ask whether these Chinese are "segregated" because it has NOTHING to do with what causes the lung problems they have. Instead we would ask about factories, vehicle density and other things that are direct contributors to disease. Clearly discussing who each Chinese person lives next to has nothing to do with lung disease mortality.

Going to the Reuters report we find:

He told Reuters Health that by comparing different counties, a person would find one has resources the other does not, such as hospitals and doctors.
So it's not segregation it's where hospital and other healthcare resources are located and whether residents can reach those resources. Clearly one can have a so called "segregated" neighborhood full of hospitals and doctors no? of course, because the "segregated" white neighborhoods apparently have lower incidences of lung cancer mortality. So since they are just as "segregated" why even bother pointing to so called "segregation"?

Politics, that's why.

StateHealthFacts.org has a nice chart of Percent of Adults who Smoke by Race/Ethnicity, 2011

Blacks are shown to have a higher percentage of smokers than whites nearly across the board and Native Americans beat out everyone else wherever the data is available.

Guess what happens when you belong to a group that smokes the most? Higher lung cancer incidences and deaths.
Shocking! I know.

o_0

Let's take the data for Washington DC, a pretty "segregated" city. Blacks are reported to have a smoker rate of 31%. The white rate is 9%. Guess who's going to have a higher incidence of lung cancer deaths? Even my cat can figure this one out. I don't need to even discuss "segregation" when such blatant differences in smoking rates exist.

This is the same old 1954 "if they aren't in proximity to white folks then they are damaged goods" argument that Diversity Inc. is trying to push (again).

What does the JAMA article conclude:

Lung cancer mortality is higher in blacks and highest in blacks living in the most segregated counties, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Oh really? I think I just posted that. Oh so the issue isn't actually "segregation" but a combination of blacks smoking more and a "lack of resources". Well, DUH.

Look, This is about culture. It is about generally black folks avoiding doctors and hospitals and "sucking it up" rather than getting medical attention.

A couple of things need to be done immediately for studies like this. If a researcher want to make "segregation" claims they should first have to "prove" segregation. They should need to prove that folks in the area were forced to live there and prevented by law (or by accepted illegal business practice) to live anyplace else.

Secondly, they should need to study other so called "segregated" groups. For example they need to go to "Chinatowns" and "Little Italies' and the like and perform the same studies. This is the only way to prove show that "segregation" is the issue. If they do not then any claim of "segregation" as a factor should immediately void the research project from publication.

Thirdly, if researchers want to study blacks in various social situations then they should do so and state so. For example this study should have said blacks who live in neighborhoods with "ready access to medical facilities" and those who do not. It should include data such as health consciousness and activities since these issues will confound any results.

It should simply no longer be acceptable to simply point "segregation" at black folks. Scientific publications should use terms such as "highly homogenous neighborhoods" or "heterogenous neighborhoods" to describe areas that are predominated by one population or a plurality of populations respectively.

Black folk need to stop using the term "segregated" to describe neighborhoods and schools in which they predominate. It is negative. No wonder so many black neighborhoods, particularly those that are poor.

But so long as certain groups and organizations can get paid and get recognition by misusing the term "segregation" it will continue to be misused. I'm certain I'll get another mailing from Diversity Inc. about "segregation" in the near future. I just love it when non-black people tell me about "segregation".

Monday, January 28, 2013

Iceland Wins Major Case Over Failed Bank

More than four years after its banking system collapsed, Iceland won a landmark court case on Monday over its refusal to cover the losses of British and Dutch depositors who lost money in Icesave, a failed Icelandic bank...

The court ruling on Monday represents a major victory for Iceland. Unlike Ireland, which also experienced a catastrophic bank failure, Iceland declined to use taxpayer money to bail out foreign bondholders and depositors. This set off a bitter dispute with Britain, which used antiterrorism rules to take control of assets held in Britain by Icesave’s parent, Landsbanki.
When people see me "conspirorize" (not even a word but I'll use it anyway) about the potential abuse of so called "terrorism" laws by government, I know they don't know a damn thing about institutional power. Many laws are passed with the simple intent of expanding government power and limiting the power of the people. This is usually accomplished via claims of "safety" and "stability". I'm sure the British were using the "stability" argument.

Nice to see people with a backbone to stand up to folks looking to be vampires on their wallets for their personal gain.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Unlearned History Repeats Itself

Readers of the Blog may be wondering why, with all the events going on in Mali has there not been a post on the subject. The short answer is because I'm pretty tired of seeing history repeat itself. The long answer requires a look back at history.

So let's recap what is happening in Mali. There are a group (or groups) of "Islamic" rebels who wish to overthrow the "legitimate" government and establish an Islamic state. The events are displacing people and diverting energy (arms,human resources, lives, etc) to warfare. Finally Europeans are involved. Anyone familiar with history would immediately recognize this scenario. Let me point the reader to an old post here on Garvey's Ghost: Afrocentricity and Islam

But lets look at Walter Rodney's writing. It is easy to read a title "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" which we here at Garvey's Ghost recommend, but we also know that Walter Rodney produced another text entitled A History of the Upper Guinea Coast 1545-1800:

In the population movements south and south-west of the Futa Djalon, the Mande people who played the most significant role were not the Mandingas but the Susus. Living on the Faleme, they were part of the Empire of Ghana when the Almoravids invaded. They subsiquently took up the struggle against the Berbers and the Islamicized Saracoles, and achieved power in the Susu (Sosso) empire in the twelfth century. It was in 1233 that they suffered defeat at the hands of the Mandingas, and numbers of Sussus fled to the west.

later her states:

when attempts at Islamicization were made, population dislocations resulted.

Thus we have a clear case of:
A) the foreigness of Islam to Africa
B) The disruption Islam had on the populations of West Africa.

...

Yet firearms were slow in penetrating into the hinterland. The great Jihad or Holy War of the Futa Djalon was evidently begun in 1726 with weapons of local manufacture; and the first clear-cut instance of European arms being sought in a determined manner by groups in the interior occured in 1757, when a Muslim chief cut his way to the coast at the Scarcies estuary, selling all who came into his hands for powder and guns.

Further, discussing what is now northern Nigeria:

Furthermore, Muslim Fulas must have arrived in Futa Djalon long before 1694, and had been indulging in peaceful proselytization, especially among their Fula brethren. Thus, by 1726, when the Holy War was proclaimed, peaceful penetration had proceeded long and successfully enough to allow the struggle to advance to a new level, that of military combat.

A considerable number of Djalonkes were displaced, many taking refuge among their cousins, the Susus. Susus of the Pongo recall that 'there arrived from the Futa Jallon district people whome the Peuhls [Fulas] call Yalunkas...They told them that the yellow Peuhls of Futa Jallon had made war on them and that they had wanted to convert them to their feitsh called "Allah."


And lastly:

No one challenged the fact that Jihad was the greatest recruiter of slaves in the latter part of the eighteenth century. The only point at issue was the light in which the connection was projected. John Matthews, as spokesman for Liverpool interests, stressed that captives who were purchased by European ships were mainly the result of Muslim wars of religion. Beyond this superficial observation he was not prepared to go, because it was orthodoz pro-slavery propaganda that captives were victims of African wars whose origins and development were quite connected with the slave trade. However, not long after Matthews wrote, Thomas Watt penetrated to Timbo and reported that he was told by the Almami's deputy 'with a shocking degree of openess, that the sole objects of their wars was to procure slaves, as they could not obtain European goods without slaves, and they could not get slaves without fighting for them.' Watt added that 'their religion affords them an apology for this horrible injustice, by permitting them to destroy all infidels, a term which seems to include all their neighbours'. A close analysis of the activities of the Fulas and their cohorts leaves no doubt that Watt was accurate both in reporting his information and in his conclusions.[my underline emphasis]

If there was ever more damning evidence that the apparent need to prosyletise Islam in Africa by Arabs first and Blacks after, lead not only to the destruction of African societies but also to the direct involvement in the Christian Atlantic slave trade.
So what bothers me about the entire current situation in Mali is that it is the same shit from the 1700's being played out in 2013 minus the slave ships. Instead of slave ships, Africans trek across the desert and try to get to Europe (Greece, Italy, France and Spain being the major import ports). It is a sad situation particularly to anyone familiar with history. This time, like the last time. The "Islamic rebels" get help in the form of people and arms from their "Islamic brethren" and the states under siege gets "help" from Europeans. Let's just call it neocolonialism 2.0 History not learned is history repeated.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

That Pesky and Totally Unnecessary Bill Of Rights

The Australians are apparently very happy with the idea that the government can tell them what rights they have and don't have. A nice example of what it's like to live under such a regime:
For months now, the French-language twittersphere has lit up with a rash of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic tweets using the hashtags #UnBonJuif (a good Jew), #SiMonFilsEstGay (if my son is gay), and #SiMaFilleRamèneUnNoir (if my daughter brings home a black guy).

Last fall, under pressure from French advocacy group Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), Twitter agreed to remove some offensive tweets. In October 2012, at Berlin’s request, Twitter also suspended a German neo-Nazi account based in the city of Hanover, the first time the company had responded to such a government request.
Speech you don't care for? Get the government to make it illegal and jail the speakers. After all WHO wouldn't want racists to be silenced and punished?
On Thursday, the Grand Instance Court in Paris ordered Twitter to identify the authors of anti-semitic tweets by creating a mechanism (Google Translate) to alert French authorities to “illegal content,” on its French site “in a visible and easily-accessible [way].”
Yes. Please make it so that companies have to disclose the identity of those who "speak" material that offends someone. Please. My poor eyes and ears cannot take it. I mean really. People in France apparently feel that the people cannot even be trusted to view racist speech.
On Thursday, Sarkozy used a televised address to propose a new set of laws that criminalize the use of websites affiliated with terrorist sympathizers and hate groups. "From now on, any person who habitually consults Web sites that advocate terrorism or that call for hatred and violence will be criminally punished," he said.
I have regularly visited websites deemed racist, sexist, homophobic (whatever that is) because:

a) I want to.
b) I'm interested in what the latest commentary is.
c) I sometimes get a kick out of how dumb the people are.
d) I sometimes am surprised at how well thought out and factually supported the comments are. You never know. Really.

Why should I be restricted from visiting a site 'habitually" if I want to? Who exactly is harmed by that?

I guess having the government randomly decide what speech is legal and what you may or may not observe with your own eyes is far better than having a pesky Bill of Rights.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A (Brief) People’s History of Gun Control

A good, brief primer on how "gun control" has really been about population control.
Under the slaveocracy of the American south, firearm ownership was prohibited by Black Codes that regulated free blacks. And after Emancipation, whenever the old landed gentry managed to successfully assert its power against the Reconstruction regime, former slaves were disarmed by house-to-house patrols, either under the Black Codes or by such irregular bodies as the Klan...

Speaking of the Black Panthers, no discussion of the origins of modern American gun control would be complete without recognizing their role in inspiring the modern right-wing gun control agenda. Foreshadowing current groups like Copwatch and Cop Block, the Panthers in 1966 organized armed patrols of Oakland streets with rifles and shotguns, stopping to witness police interactions with local residents and provide information and offers of legal assistance when necessary.

Today's Idiot

Binoy Kampmark has a piece that appears in Counterpunch in which he states the following:
embers of Congress shirk their obligations to protect the public in the name of constitutional freedoms and local legislatures look the other way.
I would forgive Binoy if his piece wasn't given such a high profile spot in a "left" website, but perhaps it should be noted that the members of Congress's actual job, as stated in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution is as follows:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
You will note that nowhere does it state that their job is to "protect the public". Nor is a representative who observes their oath to uphold the constitution "shirking" their obligations.

But this idiot is from Melbourne. We already know how Australians feel about the "Bill of Rights".

The Institutionalization of Tyranny

This weekend I wrote that Americans are undeserving of their "freedoms" due to the apparent approval of various actions taken without much opposition. Apparently Paul Craig Roberts is of a similar mind:
It turns one’s stomach to listen to conservatives bemoan the destruction of liberty by compassion while they institutionalize torture, indefinite detention in violation of habeas corpus, murder of citizens on suspicion and unproven accusation alone, complete and total violation of privacy, interference with the right to travel by unaccountable “no-fly” lists and highway check points, the brutalization of citizens and those exercising their right to protest by police, frame-ups of critics, and narrow the bounds of free speech.
And understand that even though so-called "liberals" have issues with this, they, particularly the black ones, have remained quite silent on these issues particularly as it regards the Federal government for no other reason than the ancestry of the holder of the office of president.

Mr. Roberts also speaks upon the issue of Bradley Manning:

And now the judge, Col. Denise Lind, who comes across as a member of the prosecution rather than an impartial judge, has ruled that Manning cannot use as evidence the government’s own reports that the leaked information did not harm national security. Lind has also thrown out the legal principle of mens rea by ruling that Manning’s motive for leaking information about US war crimes cannot be presented as evidence in his trial.

Mens rea says that a crime requires criminal intent. By discarding this legal principle, Lind has prevented Manning from showing that his motive was to do his duty under the military code and reveal evidence of war crimes. This allows prosecutors to turn a dutiful act into the crime of aiding the enemy by revealing classified information.

Couple the ability of removing "intent" from a crime, with the idea that certain speech and thought is "criminal" and you have a recipe for certain judicial disaster.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Control

Driving to Miami, I was struck by a couple of differences between the northeastern states and the southern ones:

1) Readily available fireworks. You can't possess these in NY, for your own protection of course. In Florida certain types are not legal but not the wholesale ban.

2) Soft Drinks larger than 16 oz. Not that I approve of it, but my personal eating habits should not be foisted on anyone else. If it costs more to care for the obese, then charge them more for service.

3) Higher speed limits. Clearly speed does not kill. Speed limits in some places are 20-25 MPH faster than the top speed limit in NY. In NY however, you get a steep ticket, points on your license, insurance goodies and possible jail time.

4) Guns for sale (of course). The second amendment is alive and well in these red states.

Of course there are significant problems with these red states (southern). Pockets of pretty steep poverty (completely unrelated to the above) and the overt racism.

But I'm going to be honest, I was less worried about the police while out of the northeast than I am in the northeast, I finally felt I could drive in peace at a decent clip. That was quite a feeling of freedom.

One notable exception: Virginia. Signs threatening jail for moving violations is simply oppressive. Seriously. I don't know what the law makers on VA are smoking but to think that it's a good idea to have signs all along the interstate(s) threatening people with jail is just over the top.

5-Year-Old Suspended, Labeled a ‘Terrorist Threat’

As I was saying about the general emotional instability of Americans:
A 5-year-old girl from Pennsylvania has been suspended after telling a friend she was going to shoot her with a pink toy gun that spits out bubbles, the Associated Press reports.

The kindergartener was waiting for the bus at the time, and did not have the fake gun with her.

PennLive.com has all the unbelievable details:

Elementary school officials learned of the conversation and questioned the girls the next day, Fickler said. He said the girl did not have a parent present during the 30 minutes of questioning.

The result, he said, was that the student was labeled a “terrorist threat” and suspended for 10 days, Ficker said. The school also required her to be evaluated by a psychologist, [attorney Robin Ficker] said.

“This little girl is the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania,” he said. [Emphasis added]

The family’s attorney helped reduce the punishment from ten days to two, but the school is keeping the incident on the girl’s record. It has apparently been modified, however, to say she intended to harm another student.

Ficker told The Daily Item that school employees have become “hysterical” since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, and while we need to address genuine issues, there’s certainly a line to be drawn.

Really folks? Really?

Unhinged?

WASHINGTON — As the uprising closed in around him, the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi warned that if he fell, chaos and holy war would overtake North Africa. “Bin Laden’s people would come to impose ransoms by land and sea,” he told reporters. “We will go back to the time of Redbeard, of pirates, of Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats.”

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2009. His warnings before his 2011 ouster and death sounded melodramatic, but proved prescient as the area has become easier for jihadists to operate in. In recent days, that unhinged prophecy has acquired a grim new currency. In Mali, French paratroopers arrived this month to battle an advancing force of jihadi fighters who already control an area twice the size of Germany.

If one makes a prediction, no matter how far fetched and it comes true, how can you call it "unhinged"? This is rank White Supremacy at work. The necessity of vilifying African leadership that does not "play ball" is clearly at work.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Americans Don't Deserve their "Freedoms"

The Newton school shooting and the recent flu outbreak has only underscored a position I have come to: Americans don't deserve their so called "freedoms".

I recall sometime back during George Bush's presidency reading a comment that A majority of polled Americans (meaning a majority of the 500 -1000 people called at random) felt that that Americans have "too many rights". I was pretty shocked to read that but there it was in black and white. It was probably close to the time that the NSA warrantless wiretapping came to public attention. People's attitude was "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about."

I'm pretty certain that revolutionary America did not hold such views. I'm pretty certain the the English had such an attitude towards the colonists. After all who needs Habeus Corpus? Who needs "probable cause"? Who needs the state to have the burden of proof? After all if you are "innocent" and done nothing "wrong" then the state wouldn't have an interest in you. Right?

What has apparently been lost on a good number of American citizens is the fact that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is intended to curtail the power of government and to enshrine that the power of government comes from the people rather than the other way around that exists on other countries like Australia.

So taking the Australia example where Johnny boy lauds the power of the legislature to determine what freedoms and rights the people have, The US system is one where the people are presumed to have the right to something until they via their direct vote or via their representatives decide to give that particular right up.

In the case of the Second Amendment it is (and has been) the case that the citizen has the fundamental right to have a firearm (or firearms). There is and never was an intent to have citizens "defend" or "explain" why they have a particular firearm. They have a right to have it. Period.

Now the same citizen has private property rights. He or she can state that on their particular private property they do not allow persons to carry a weapon. However; that same citizen has no rights to tell another citizen whether they can possess a firearm off their private property. If you look at much of the commentary surrounding gun control in the US, the latter argument is exactly what has been made. People are saying that since they don't "feel comfortable" with guns, no one should be allowed to possess one. It is an entirely "un-American" argument.

The point of this post is not to simply focus on gun safety, but the overall trend in America becoming "less free".

Exhibit 1:Bradley Manning denied chance to make whistleblower defence

he judge presiding over Manning's prosecution by the US government for allegedly transmitting confidential material to WikiLeaks ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Manning will largely be barred from presenting evidence about his motives in leaking the documents and videos. In an earlier hearing, Manning's lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that his motive was key to proving that he had no intention to harm US interests or to pass information to the enemy.
This has become a common theme in the US justice system. Judges deciding that a defendant cannot make a particular defense. Why is the state dictating what the accused (and presumed innocent) person's defense can or cannot be? The jury (or judge) is supposed to weigh the evidence, not determine what a defendant can say in their defense. If a defendant makes an absurd or weak defense that is his or her business. The "ridiculousness" of the argument will be seen at trial and will no doubt aide in their conviction.

In terms of Bradley Manning, whistleblowing is an action entirely dependent on intent. The primary difference between being a "spy"(illegal) and someone who is exposing potentially or actual illegal activity by the government (legal) is "intent". Essentially by pre-empting Private Manning's only real means of defense the Judge has already determined the outcome of the trial.

Whether one agrees with Private Manning's actions or not, one should be disturbed by the actions of the government in regards to his handling and prosecution.

Exhibit 2: Mandatory flu shots opposed by some health care workers

Out more than 1,000 workers filed a petition to oppose the directive. The episode highlights strains that have developed in the midst of one of the strongest flu seasons in years. Though the government recommends that health care facilities increase the number of workers who get vaccinated, nurses and other workers in some communities have put their jobs on the line by saying no. Their argument: They have medical or religious reasons or doubt the effectiveness of the vaccine. The employers' response: They have a responsibility to protect the health of patients and co-workers who need to stay healthy.

If Rhode Island health care workers skip the vaccine, they are required to wear a surgical mask on the job.

The American Nurses Association and National Nurses United, which represent about 300,000 of the nation's nurses, have not tracked how many workers have been suspended or fired for refusing to get a shot. Both groups recommend the vaccination, but say it shouldn't be mandated and workers shouldn't be fired.

Let's get something clear here. Take New York as an example. There have been a reported 20k cases of flu in NY with 20 deaths as of this writing. There are 8 million people in the NYC metro area. That means the infected are one quarter of 1 percent of the total population.

Unlike the vaccines for Measles and Diptheria and the like which are nearly 100% effective, the flu "vaccine" is only 60% effective. Also unlike those vaccines, the flu "vaccine" must be taken every single year. Why? Because the Influenza virus, like the Rhino virus (responsible for the common cold) is constantly mutating with various new strains appearing every year.

Now take into account that we've seen that the odds of getting the flu in NYC is effectively .25% and that the Flu vaccine is effective only 60% of the time means that with a vaccine you have a .15% chance of getting the Flu. Yet we are firing people from their jobs over these kinds of statistics?

Even worse, it would seem to me that IF mask wearing is effective in preventing flu transmission and since the flu "vaccine" does not prevent catching or transmitting the Influenza virus, that medical facilities should require all staff, "vaccinated" or not, to wear masks if the actual concern was "patient safety".

Seriously. Think about it. These health care facilities claim to have the patient health as their primary concern and their choice is to force people to take a shot that is LESS effective than a mask?

Look, do you think these vaccines are being made for free? Do you?

Again, rather than assert the rights of a person over their bodies (as Roe V Wade did), people are getting fired. Even with a clearly more effective alternative. Worse, the state is getting involved by trying to legally mandate shots. One should not need a "religious" argument to refuse a less than 99% effective "vaccine". Particularly one that is not "one and done".

So long as the "safety argument" can be made anything can be legislated.

Exhibit 3: NRA: We didn't get a chance to oppose N.Y. law

Cuomo and legislative leaders negotiated the bill's language behind closed doors, a regular occurrence in Albany. The bill was introduced on Monday evening, passed the Senate on Monday night and approved by the Assembly on Tuesday. Cuomo, who issued a special waiver to avoid the usual three-day window for lawmakers and the public to review bills, signed it into law late Tuesday afternoon.
Whether one agrees with gun control or not, one should be bothered by the fact that legislation, any of it, is done backroom, rushed through the legislative body and waivers created to bypass public input.

And apparently this is "business as usual" for Albany. Looks a lot like the documentary I saw on Hilter and how he ran things. Hitler thought an idea was good. He wrote it, folks knew to "get behind it or else". The public...well the public didn't have a say did they?

You'll note that one of the primary reasons for the rush was to "thwart" the citizens of NY State (the vast majority of whom are and have been completely law abiding) from "stocking up". A blatant disregard for their fundamental rights. All this did was show that the gun people on the far right who were talking about the left's wish to "take away their guns" were absolutely, 100% correct.

Exhibit 4: Aurora Theater's Reopening Sparks Mixed Emotions This is not a clear "rights" issue, but about the total emotionally unstable the population seems to be becoming. The inability to face risk, to face obstacles, people who don't like them, etc. Everybody owes somebody something because of how they "feel".

The Aurora, Colo., theater where 12 people were killed in a mass shooting last summer reopens Thursday, with a private event for victims' families and first responders. But some families are giving the event a pass, arguing that the decision to reopen is insensitive. Jessica Watts lives just a few miles from the theater where her cousin, Jonathan Blunk, and 11 others were killed and dozens more wounded. "Basically, any time I want to go shopping, yes, I have to see that theater," Watts says. "I drive by it numerous times a week. And it's one of those very sad hard realizations that there's 12 people that are no longer here." Watts says the Cinemark, which owns the theater, should move the venue elsewhere and turn the existing site into a memorial.
"Insensitive"? This is like the calls to demolish the Newton school. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The only thing we are teaching the children is how to avoid things that make them uncomfortable. To not face fears. Avoidance, avoidance, avoidance.

It is clear that various interest groups all over the political spectrum are using fear tactics to get the things that they want. They are willing to demonize the "opposition", sometimes using coded language like "common sense" (AKA: Only someone stupid would disagree.). I think it would be most fruitful for folks to look at why the US has a limited government and why that is actually beneficial. Freedom comes with responsibility and risk. Deal with it.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Aussie Says

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, the old English penal colony, decided to throw his 2 pence into the gun debate in the US. You'd think a head of state would have the sense to not comment about the internal affairs of another state but hey, everybody and their momma is talking about what they think should happen so why shouldn't he?

I have a problem with John Howard tooting his horn for what should be some obvious reasons. Let's begin with this:

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject.
Oh, he shouldn't lecture Americans on what they should do but he's going to go and do so anyway. Well why even bother with that opener?

Then there was the following which should have caused the editors of the NY times to say "no thanks, post this in one of your country's newpapers and maybe we'll link to it:

Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
Excuse me? Did I read that right. Your country has no Bill of Rights (AKA supposed guaranteed freedoms that the government cannot take away? And you think that it's better?

Then what the fuck are you doing posting in an American paper?

Seriously, After saying how he shouldn't presume to lecture Americans, this idiot goes on to trash the fundamental document of the nation? The fuck is wrong with him?

This guy actually believes that citizens should not have a "guaranteed" right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and self-defense with arms? He thinks it's better to not have a guarantee of a trial jury by peers? With a government that must prove guilt rather than a citizen having to prove to the state that he or she is innocent? That the state cannot up and grab your property on it's own whim? That the state cannot deprive you of your freedom or property without due process and probable cause?

This dick thinks that not having these things enshrined in the sovereign law of the land is Better?

One does not have to support the NRA to call this bullocks for what it is. One does not have to oppose "gun control" to see thus steaming pile for what it is.

John states the obvious: If there are no guns there can be no gun crimes. In the US unless the second amendment is repealed, there will be guns in America. Along with that will be the rights of citizens to own guns (some more lethal than others). And there will be gun crime.

One either accepts that the price of a free country with a right to own guns is gun violence (along with all the other types) or you decrease the freedom. Those are the only options here.

The same logic applies to freedom of speech. Some people will use that freedom to say really vile things. We cannot and should not preempt such speech unless we wish to be less free to speak. This is why I object most strenuously to "hate speech" legislation and the like. The state should simply NOT be in the business of regulating speech other than that which poses an immediate danger to life or that is libel or slander (under civil laws).

So Johnny boy should go back under the rock he crawled out from under with his nonsense about it's better to not have a Bill of Rights. '

Friday, January 11, 2013

"The Perfect Man"

Only in a White Supremacist society can a "news" program announce that the "perfect [single] man" is a white man and nobody even has a funny look on their face. We're looking at you GMA.

"Not In Our Homes"

So reading this article on VP Biden's gun control initiative I was struck by two things. The first was a piece in the article:
But a coalition of liberal organizations on Wednesday sent a letter to Walmart’s chief executive asking the company to stop selling assault weapons.

“Assault weapons of all brands and models continue to adorn your shelves, from Sig Sauer M400s to Colt LE6920s,” the letter says. “We know the horrific capacity of these weapons to wreak havoc on our communities because we have witnessed it firsthand. They have no place in our streets and in our homes, and we strongly insist that you honor your 2004 pledge to ensure they have no place in your stores either.”

Perhaps it's just me but I have a problem with an "advocacy group" speaking on what does or does not have a "place in our homes".

If this group of people do not want to have a gun or any other weapon "in their homes" then they are free to not have a gun or any other weapon "in their homes". This is that nanny state bullshit that "the left" is increasingly fond of.

While this particular letter may be directed at a private corporation, one would be a fool to think that this particular sentiment, that they can and should determine what you have in your home or person is what they are attempting to use the power of the government for.

The second item that caught my attention was one of the comments. Alan M of California posted:

Fear of government tyranny against our citizens is the real smoking gun in the debate over gun control. Die-hard defenders of the 2nd Amendment believe that assault weapons are necessary not for hunters and sportsmen but to keep us safe from a government bound on taking away our individual liberties, starting with our guns. This is a form of paranoia and conspiracy mongering that only serves the interests of the gun industry. How ridiculous to think that armed citizens could possibly stand up to the arsenal of modern weapons under government control. Is the answer even more sophisticated citizen weaponry to keep federal government in check? Absurd.
Paranoia and conspiracy mongering.

Ruby Ridge is not "paranoia" or "conspiracy mongering". Nor was the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. Both, particularly Ruby Ridge are examples of what happens when the state decides to use it's monopoly of force against citizens it "has a problem with." Occupy Wall Street also got a taste of that when unarmed and non-violent protestors got "the treatment" from the NYPD. I won't even get into what happens at various G8 meetings.

Some of you may be surprised that I a black man would point to Ruby Ridge because of the White Supremacist beliefs of the Weavers. That fact should not distract one from understanding how that incident is a prime example of why the government and it's agents are bent on disarming the civilian population. Anyone who is familiar with the history founding the nation knows that the right to bear arms was as much about "a speedy militia" as it was about being a check against government abuse. This was also well known by the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. One should note that many gun restrictions, particularly in California were in direct response to the Black Panther Party for Self Defense policing the police.

It is now these disarmed and pacified civilian population that accepts "free speech zones" and being arrested for protesting outside of the presidential conventions of various parties and the like. Where "no knock" Warrants can be issued and police can run up into your home without announcing themselves because the occupant may be armed and dangerous.

It is the acceptance of this reality which causes the quoted commentator to accept the idea that the government ought to be and is 'rightfully" so well armed that the citizenship has no other choice but to submit to it and accept whatever pittance of "rights" that the government allows.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Creeping Obsolescence of Labor

There seems to be an erroneous consensus on the Left that offshoring/outsourcing explains this phenomenon. About a third of all manufacturing work, some 6 million jobs, has been lost since 2000. But the exporting of jobs fails to explain most of this. “[W]hile many of these jobs were lost to competition with low-wage countries, even more vanished because of computer-driven machinery that can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers.” (Adam Davidson, “Skills Don’t Pay the Bills”, The New York Times, Nov. 20, 2012) This is permanent job loss, and contributes to the inequality endemic to labor-market polarization: “Those jobs are not coming back, but many believe that the industry’s future (and, to some extent, the future of the American economy) lies in training a new generation for highly skilled manufacturing jobs – the ones that require people who know how to run the computer that runs the machine.”
A great read. I will also point the reader to my discussion of the movie I, Robot.
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?

Monday, January 07, 2013

"No One Should Represent The Accused."

A New Delhi court put a blanket ban on reporting the trial of the Delhi gang rape case on Monday, responding to a chaotic courtroom packed with news media and a large number of female lawyers who say no one should represent the accused...

The 13,000-member Saket Bar Association, which represents lawyers where the trial is being held, have vowed not to represent the accused, because of the nature of the crime....

Dozens of female lawyers appeared in the New Delhi court on Monday, many of them vocally objecting to the accused’s right to representation. They scuffled with several lawyers who volunteered to represent the accused.

Shockingly, well not so, that persons who understand how false accusations and the effects of insular societies effect the rights and privileges of women, would stoop to saying that those accused of a crime, any crime, ought not be given council.

And don't think for a minute that this is some aberration. There are many women in "The West" who are of the opinion that the mere charge of rape warrants an instant guilty finding by "law enforcement". And these women of "The West" have probably influenced these "lawyers" calling for "non representation" of the accused.

Here's how it works ladies. Representation for the accused does not equal supporting the accused. The point of representation for the accused of any crime is to ensure that the state does not abuse it's power against citizens. Once one sets the precedence that a citizen can be stripped of representation due to the nature of a crime, then all citizens are in danger of having their right to representation stripped.

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Of Black Men and White Middle-Class Feminists

Ishmael Reed has annoyed me with his defense of the Obama administration on some "gotta protect the black guy in office" tip. However; he continues to be on point on other matters. Read this new piece and the following stuck out at me:
Here’s a fact that you’ll never hear from Amy Goodman, Eve Ensler and Terry Gross. Among all American males, Black men are the ones who are most likely to be murdered by women. I cite Natalie J. Sokoloff, and Christina Pratt’s 2005 book, Family & Relationships –where the authors wrote: “Black women are also more likely than their White counterparts to inflict lethal violence against their husbands.” So what do you suppose black men were doing, while, during the Katrina calamity, the women were swimming upstream? In Las Vegas partying with Tiger Woods and Mike Tyson?
This is in line with the research I have done which has exposed (to me at least) that the regular line(s) in regards to domestic violence are greatly distorted.