Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act

In an act that should be an example for the US Congress, the British parliament showed a measure of respect for international law and decent aversion to another set of lies by the US government by voting NO on a vote urging "action" on Syria.
But Mr. Obama’s efforts to marshal a unified international front for a short, punitive strike raised concerns about the evidence, reawakening British resentment over false assurances from the American and British governments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Even on Thursday, a British summary of intelligence could say only that it was “highly likely” Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. And many questions were raised, both Thursday night and in the days before, about whether the American assurances could be taken at face value, whether the expected riposte would accomplish any serious strategic or policy aim, and whether it might set off a worse regional conflict.
And they shouldn't. Libya should stand as the latest example of so called "humanitarian intervention" that was exposed as regime change, a totally illegal aim under the UN charter and international law.

The second example should be the last time the US accused Bashir of using chemical weapons. That accusation was shown to be unfounded and that evidence pointed to the rebels as the most likely source of the chemical weapons.

While I'm at it let me take the opportunity to say SHAME on ABC World News tonight with Dianne Sawyer for acting as propaganda organs for the White House. Dianne Sawyer should be totally ashamed of herself for repeating the claims of the White House as if they were and verified facts, and to launch a smear campaign on Assad. That is not World News. That is World Propaganda. If that is they kind of reporting she and Martha Raddatz are going to do then I suggest they go [back] to GMA where they can do gossip and other light fluff fare.

Anyway back to England:

After the shocking defeat, Mr. Cameron was clear. “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “While the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
Now lets see if the so called representatives in Washington have the guts to do the same. If not let's see if the voting public has the guts to put the ones who support this foolishness out of office.

The “US effect” Biases Behavioral Research

This tight clustering went away when it came to the behavioral studies, though, which had a much greater frequency of extreme results. And here, US-based researchers showed a clear indication of bias. Rather than being evenly distributed around the typical answer, the results were much more likely to support the experimental hypothesis. Why do so many papers that produce positive results get published? Fanelli and Ioannidis suggest that it's because behavioral sciences don't have a robust set of theories, in contrast to traditional biology (which has things like evolution and genetics). Without that, researchers are able to be very flexible about the hypotheses that they propose and the methods they use to test them. They also argue that the "publish or perish" mentality that drives US scientists motivates people to report positive results. The two combine, they argue, to make "US researchers potentially more likely to express an underlying propensity to report strong and significant findings."
Not surprised actually. I think that there is also the political correct issue of not wanting to report something that would offend any number of groups. For example, when it Psychology Today reported on the findings that Black women were objectively less attractive (compared to others), a whole storm erupted. Many people, including myself took offense to the publication. However, what I took offense to was the explanation rather than the actual data. Since if we do observe the behavior of people, we cannot miss a strong negative reaction to black (as in dark skinned and tightly curled hair, thick lipped and broad of nose) women. We see it even in publications that claim to represent said women. A lot of people went after the results, when they are pretty much undeniable. The explanation fell far from the root of the problem though and that was the problem with the publications.

Today the medical journals that previously declared certain behaviors as diseases no longer do so for reasons that IMO have nothing to do with objective science but with politics. If one wishes to publish material that is contrary to the new "canon" you can expect to either not be published or to have one's career deaded quickly.

So it's not just a case of "publish or perish" that is a likely culprit but publishing the "right stuff". For example I know someone working on a dissertation in which they asserted that a particular community was segregated. I've long ago explained the difference between separation and segregation. While it may have been proper to declare certain areas segregated in say 1940 because it was clear that black people (or others) could NOT live in certain areas regardless of income, etc. it is impossible to make such a claim in 2013. if one is going to assert a place segregated in 2013 one has to prove that point. Until then you can only factually state that a particular neighborhood is primarily inhabited by a particular ethnic or racial group and that is all. That persons that far up in academia does not realize this basic issue is, in my opinion, symptomatic of the biases that are in the behavioral sciences. This can only be eradicated by enforcing a strict "math" rule to such research. In math 1+1 =2. No way around that. You can make any kind of explanation you want but if you don't show 2 as the proper answer and show your work, it isn't valid. Period.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The Syria "protect civilians" Hoax

If you read anything about this recent "chemical attack" bullshit, you need to read the linked piece:

So the U.S. and its allies are using their own “evidence” and will come to their own conclusions, likely much faster than the UN is able to investigate. Obama will then say that Syria poses an “immediate threat” and that there is no time for the UN to investigate. It’s sadly predictable; we’ve seen it all before.

Of course, the Obama administration and its anti-Syrian allies cannot act as an objective party in this matter, since they have been directly backing the Syrian rebels. Nor can Obama be trusted that his “evidence” that was “smuggled” out of Syria is any evidence at all. Again, this is why there is the UN: to perform an impartial investigation. Even if there were evidence of a chemical weapons attack — which looks likely — such evidence doesn’t say who launched the attack, which, of course, is the key issue


Of course the above is obvious to anyone thinking for themselves.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

"My God Is Black"

So one of the fellows who shot Chris Lane in the back while he was taking a run told his sister:
"I can't go to your church anymore because my god is black."
Really now.

Well my God is black and doesn't condone shooting anybody in the back. So exactly what "black god" is it that this guy has "found" that condones such actions?

Furthermore what "black god" thinks highly of pants hanging off your ass and disrespect of women in public over social media?

I have studied a number of black religions and I haven't found one yet that has such ideologies.

So I want someone to ask this person exactly what "black god" he is following, cause it's not any that I know of.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Total Parental Fail

They were bored?

Let's see, was there a library accessible? Was there a track or a park they could have gone to and, I don't know, learned how to run long distance, work out? Learn some Kung Fu (which is good for developing discipline and impulse control)?

How about reading? Anyone thought that reading would be a good way to pass time?

Like music? Anybody thought of making some music? Spoken word?

I can think of all kinds of shit to do other than find a gun and pick someone minding their own business to shoot in the back

And really...really....what kind of fucked up parenting has been done by the parents of these kids where upon hearing the suggestion of "hey lets find someone to shoot!" The immediateresponse is "You're fucked in the head. I'm out of here?"

No, seriously.

I was a 15 year old. I was a latch key kid. I was raised by a single parent. No way no how I was going to be hanging around with ANYONE that seriously contemplated shooting someone. Why? Because it was made clear to me from before I could remember that "thou shalt not kill." (which is actually an admonishment against murder and not to all killing, but that's beyond the scope of this post). While I no longer ascribe to the specific religion that I got that message from, the one I do subscribe to is also quite clear on that.

15, 16 and 17 year old's know that killing is wrong. They're old enough for that. The acceptance of such a plot is a failure of imparting morals and the value of life by the parents and by extension the community in which they lived.

Here's a clue for parents with kids sitting on their asses at home during vacations and breaks:

Book reports. If you have no plans for your child to be supervised during the summer while you are at work (a bad idea), then you should have weekly book reading and reporting assignments for them. No kid who has work to do is going to be bored enough to consider the fun of killing a random person on the street. Side benefit is the educational value of reading and writing. I have a nice list of books that will keep your child well occupied.

Math problems: Your child should be given hard ass math problems to do which are required to be done by day's end. Not so much that the entire day would be taken up by it, but enough so that there is not enough time to contemplate whether shooting a man in the back is a good idea. Side benefit: better math grades next semester.

Home chores: These little rug rats have nothing to do? Time to learn how to earn their keep. They should be cooking dinner for when YOU the parent comes home. There is no sitting on your ass all day while I work then come home and cook for some able bodied teenager. No. warming up previously prepared food should be their job along with vacuuming/sweeping and perhaps laundry. Earn their keep. If you have a vehicle, it's their job to clean and hoover it every weekend.

Bored 15 year old thinking driving up on a man and shooting him in the back....total parental fail.

The Harriet Tubman What?

On August 14, 2013, Russell Simmons posted these words on twitter: “Funniest thing I’ve ever seen Harriet tubmans [sic] sex diary.” Those are words guaranteed to catch one’s attention, the way a bomb going off gets attention. Simmons wasn’t lying or joking either. His latest entertainment venture, All Def Digital, had in fact produced something he called The Harriet Tubman Sex Tape.
Simmons claims that he wanted to show Tubman “turning the tables” on the slave master.
These Negroes here.

From Huffington Post:

but I still maintain that comedy should push the edge. I misunderstood the underlying implications and I'm deeply sorry for that. Because I thought the slave took advantage of and blackmailed the slave master. That's what I thought. "Django," whatever…and I liked "Django." I'm not Spike Lee. I ain't a hater. I thought "Django" was good.
These Negroes here.

Never the fuck mind that Django is fiction. I don't care if one thinks that Django was good. What kind of so called black person, descendant of enslaved Africans, doesn't understand "the underlying implications" of a sex parody of one of THE seminal black women in African-American history? Perhaps the same type of negro that thinks comparing their sexual prowess with to the lynching of Emmett Till But this is not surprising when we have a generation of completely clueless young black people, many of whom think the accounts of slavery and Jim Crow are fictional accounts made for movies. It's hard to blame them when those who should know better are busy sanitizing black history in an ongoing and continuous effort to gain and maintain white acceptance. Which leads us to the second part of the original linked piece:

The movie does tell some historic truth but with an underlying message that political action is acceptable only within very narrow parameters. The son in the film goes on a journey from the lunch counter sit-ins to the Freedom Rides to the Black Panthers. Daniels should have just left the Panthers alone instead of depicting them as disrespectful young people who never remove their black berets and give offense at the dinner table. But he couldn’t leave the Panthers alone. If white people can be appeased with the right attitude there is no need for radical politics to be taken seriously. The Black Panthers also have to be brought low in the popular consciousness of a Lee Daniels movie.
It was the brief clip of Oprah's character saying to who I assumed to be a black panther that everything he had was because of his brother (who I assume to be The Butler). It was at that point that I understood that this "epic" about a Butler was going to be yet another broadside at black folks who wont react to racism in the "proper" manner (meek, forgiving and with a smile). Up until that point I was going to see The Butler, but decided I won't support a film that disrespected the Panthers. The Panthers for all their faults were faulty for us and therefore deserve our respect. Not uncritical respect, but our respect.

In terms of the "all you have" comment. Harpo should have thought long and hard on that point. Isn't it SAD that a black family, indeed that black folks nation wide, depend upon the "kindness" of "benevolent" white folks for employment opportunities. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as particularly fucked up. I don't know about you, but that sounds vaguely like sharecroppers.

All I have to say to these folks is that when the next college frat does a black face party or a Republican group gets together for an Antebellum South costume party, I don't wanna hear a damn thing from these "celebrities".

Monday, August 19, 2013

Confirming What The Informed Already Knew

CIA Admits Role in Iran Coup Well that only took six decades. The CIA has finally admitted its participation in a 1953 coup that ousted Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The U.S.- and British-orchestrated coup influenced years of anti-American sentiment. Now, almost 60 years to the day later, the CIA released a version of "The Battle for Iran" internal report to a Freedom of Information Act request. Under the section titled "Covert Action" it reads: "[T]he military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy," to avoid leaving Iran "open to Soviet aggression." The American role has long been common knowledge, but the CIA had refused to confirm that aspect of the operation.
So every time you see a mofo talking shit about Iran, you point 'em to this and end the conversation.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Stopped and Frisked in London Airport

Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald said, was told that he was being detained under Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act, which allows the authorities to detain someone for up to nine hours for questioning and to conduct a search of personal items, often without a lawyer, to determine possible ties to terrorism. More than 97 percent of people stopped under the provision are questioned for under an hour, according to the British government.

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.
Ahh. You know how these politicians say how the laws they want passed (or just rushed through the legislative bodies) say that the laws will not be abused and the rights of the public will be respected.

Yeah, all that jazz.

Funny how all these European states are showing themselves to be simple extensions of the US govt. Why not just officially make them US states and collect taxes. I mean if they are going to stop the plane of the Bolivian head of state from going about his legitimate business though he posed no threat to them at all, then what's the point of calling yourself an independent nation?

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Michael Dawson: Hater

So Michael Dawson writes up a critique of the proposed Hyperloop in which he essentially walks in and takes a shit on the proposal and leaves. That his critique is but a fraction of the length of the proposal not to mention his numerous comparisons to Tesla automobiles is telling that Michael is a hater.
I put the scare-quotes around the word “plan” here because Musk’s ridiculous proposal is clearly little more than a cocktail napkin fantasy being publicized to keep Tesla’s stock price in the rarified strata where it presently resides so undeservingly.
Cocktail napkin. You would not believe the number of ideas that are now commonplace that originated on that form of paper. I sure wouldn't use "cocktail napkin" as some kind of offense. I suppose that Michael doesn't have many "oh damn!!" ideas while he's out and about. Anyway, why the fixation on Tesla?
The Hyperloop imagined by Musk, who is invariably described as “a billionaire” as if that should-be-unspeakable status somehow renders one a technical genius in one’s chosen field of exploitation, would be a giant techno-tube shooting people from Los Angeles and San Francisco in half an hour.
Now I'll agree that being a billionaire doesn't mean one has unspeakable status. But if one is using one's billions to address a world wide issue of travel and energy use, then yeah you get attention for that. Besides Michael, where is your non-billionaire idea for long distance travel? Oh right, not in this offering. I'll take the billionaire's actual idea (however flawed) over Michael's non-idea any day. Besides that billionaire is doing a lot of hard math stuff and solving relevant problems to put his crafts into space and vehicles on the road. Michael is doing what exactly?

Right.

Aside from the obvious question of who would be willing to risk traveling at such a velocity in constant, extremely close proximity to terrestrial solid objects, the rank silliness of the “plan”
I assume Michael is one of those risk averse liberals. Anyway I am certainly game for riding in one of these should it be made. But more to the point, that today's vehicles readily go 90+ MPH on the roads was thought not only to be impossible at one point that one would have to be nuts to do it. Also why does Michael think that included in real world development plans would be safety and accident mitigation technologies (perhaps some that we haven't even thought of yet)?

Hater.

For starters, take expense. It’s humorous to watch Musk, whose entry-level Tesla S sedan costs $69,900 and also relies on huge public subsidies and tax breaks beyond those already flowing to all car owners via street construction and foreign oil wars, assure his hapless admirers that his Hyperloop, which would require not only large numbers of extremely specialized forms of the motors used in Tesla cars but an unspecified source of solar self-power for the whole system, could be built for a mere $6 billion.
Why the obsession with Tesla? What does the price of the Tesla model S, sold with a large purpose of making a profit have to do with the pice of tea in China? First of all, assuming that Tesla makes all the parts of the 'loop (highly doubtful) does Michael not understand the concept of economies of scale? The amount of magnets and motors and the like would drive down the price of these items AND any other product that uses them.

Secondly, the roads are not "pubic subsidies" to Tesla buyers. Car owners are taxed (and tolled) for the use of roads. We pay for these roads just like we pay for our vehicles. If anything cyclists (I bike) get a free ride on the road since their "vehicle" of choice is not taxed and therefore contributes nothing to the upkeep of the roads that they travel on (admittedly with far less destructive impact).

Thirdly, while I too object to foreign oil wars. They are not necessary and are done by and for the benefit of a small group of people.

Fourth: Had Michael bothered to read the proposal he would know that the "unspecified source of solar self power" was specified: On the fucking roof of the tube. Yes, the images and the text clearly state that the panels would be on the length of the tube with batteries wherever necessary (including in the transport pods) to store power for bad weather conditions (night, clouds, etc.).

Even more importantly, the matter of energy use is treated with equal un-seriousness by Musk. On this front, consider not only the substantial difficulties that plague Tesla car owners trying to make use of their purchases, but remember that “electric” vehicles are really coal, natural gas, and nuclear vehicles, given the fact that 88 percent of U.S. electricity is still made from those sources, with little prospect of serious reduction.
Unserious you say? I mean really? Solar powered but unserious? Again what is with the Tesla comparison? Since we're on that....again.... lets remind Michael of a few things.

1) Yes the vehicles are Zero-Emissions. That means that the product itself produces no emissions when operating. So there is no trickery here. It is exactly what it stated. Now if one is interested in the energy used to produce the car, batteries and the source of the electricity that is an entirely different argument. Why? Because EVERY vehicle on the road, electric or not has similar costs. What the Zero-Emissions claim does is remove the "in use" emissions of the IC motivated vehicle.

2) While it is true that the vast majority of energy production in the US is "dirty" the fact is that per KJ of energy needed to move a 2 ton vehicle roughly 300 miles is less for an electric vehicle than it is using chemical combustion. Why? the IC engine is only 35% or so efficient. Most of the energy produced by the IC engine is lost as heat. An electric motor is 90% efficient in converting stored energy into mechanical energy (moving the vehicle not heating it up) (People with more knowledge on this process please forgive my gross simplification of the subject). Therefore even though the grid is dirty, using it is far better in the long run than using gasoline.

Furthermore as the population becomes more aware of Solar energy and solar panel installation drops in price, many people with electric vehicles will have harnessed solar energy to recharge their vehicles (and/or use their vehicles to power their homes) so the entire "dirty grid" argument goes out the window.

Musk is also silent about the wild impracticalities of all his products. Why should tourists be visiting Earth’s low orbit on a planet that has yet to get serious about either poverty or ecological sustainability? How could 200 million drivers ever possibly recharge electric vehicles in a way that would sustain present time economies, bad as those already are? What happens when the Hyperloop experiences its first serious malfunction? Elon? Elon? [Crickets chirping...]
I don't know why tourists should be visiting Earth's low orbit. I don't have the income to do it. If someone who does wants to do it, enjoy. Self centered people are not going to suddenly become interested in the plight of the poor because Michael or I think they should be. I learned that a long time ago. There will always be people with more disposable income than concern for other humans. Deal with it. On the other hand, the technological innovations that will come from these near space trips will certainly be beneficial to getting us off dirty energy.

As for the200 million drivers recharging electric vehicles, well by the time you get that many people into purely electric vehicles there will have been a massive infrastructure change in the US. Personally I think a mandate for Solar panels on all new housing and the use of fuel cell technology would be a great start. Remove the need for the individual home (or buildings) from having to suck all it's juice from a central grid will greatly reduce the strain on the central grid AND provide a means of charging all those cars without increasing the load on said central grid.

Musk is thinking ahead. Michael unfortunately cannot see beyond perhaps a few years in front of him. Maybe not past his own lifespan. The rest of us are excited to see what could become of this 'Loop proposal and the multiple changes that would accompany it. We're too busy imagining the possibilities to be hating.

The Wishful Thinking Left

Pretty much sums up my current general opinion of so called lefties. Black left not excluded.
Next, like it or not, the actions of “Russia, China and Iran” in Syria have been in accordance with international law, unlike those of the “U.S. and its Gulf allies”. From the viewpoint of international law, the current government of Syria is legitimate and responding to its request for help is perfectly legal, while arming rebels is not. Of course, the leftists who sign the petition would probably object to that aspect of international law, because it favors governments over insurgents. But just imagine the chaos that would be created if every Great Power was arming the rebels of its choice all over the world. One could deplore the selling of arms to “dictatorships”, but the U.S. is hardly in a position to lecture the world on that topic.

Moreover, it is “Russia and China” who have, by their vote at the UN prevented another U.S. intervention, like the one in Libya, which the Western Left, opposed very lukewarmly, if at all. In fact, given that U.S. used the U.N. Resolution on Libya to carry out a regime change that the resolution did not authorize, isn’t it natural that Russia and China feel that they were taken for a ride in Libya and say: “never again!”?
And
That brings us to a second problem with the petition, which is its tendency towards revolutionary romanticism. The present-day Western Left is the first to denounce the “Stalinist” regimes of the past, including those of Mao, Kim Il Sung or Pol Pot. But do they forget that Lenin fought against tsarism, Stalin against Hitler, Mao against the Kuomintang, Kim Il Sung against the Japanese and that the last two ones, as well as Pol Pot, fought against the U.S.? If history should have thought us anything, it is that struggling against oppression does not necessarily turn you into a saint.
My emphasis.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Technology and Male Labour

I've been discussing in recent blog posts in regards to the changes technology will have not only on the job market but on gender relations. Some people are not convinced about what I'm proposing. That's fine as I will let the evidence continue to speak for me. The latest is the simple lawn mower.

Illinois is procuring $42k lawn mowers which are described as huge Roombas. What is it that the state is saying? It "reduces costs" and reduces "safety risks".

The machines have performed well and so far have been low maintenance, said Kerry Brown, a tollway maintenance section manager.

While the Spider has been cost-effective compared with traditional landscaping, the big advantage has been reducing the risk of accidents and injuries, Brown said.
I've said that these will be the first line arguments for replacing humans with machines. Not that I object to safer, but there are ways to deal with embankments that do not involve robots. Understand that this is an effort to remove the fallible and liable human element.

For now the robots are remote controlled by a person with a "joystick" who can be a football field away. I call that a "design flaw" that will eventually be fixed. With computers as powerful as they are, there is no reason why the "roomba" cannot be equipped with GPS and a telematics system to navigate it's given terrain.

Just as you see tractors left out on the highways between grass cuttings expect these rechargeable grass cutters to be assigned a certain amount of acreage and be put on a schedule (as we saw in I, Robot) and go off to cut grass unattended and then return to recharge via solar power for the next run. A human will only be needed for repairs (for the time being).

And of course once the technology goes mainstream the costs will go down from $42K to less than any full time worker would be willing to work for. Entire landscaping crews all over the country, mostly men will be out of employment and that market will cease to exist as a job engine.

Oh and wait until the snow plows get telematic systems..... "No, we don't need you to cut the grass." "No, we don't need you to drive the plow all day/night."

"So what do I do?"

"Perhaps go sign up for college...and the loans that come with it."

Monday, August 12, 2013

Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

In what should have been a "decided while sleeping...no...comatose" decision.
judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling”
Well duh.

But I must object. It doesn't even matter if it is direct or "indirect" racial profiling. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear as to when the police may bother a citizen:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You cannot stop a citizen "just because", nor can you search a citizen "just because". It doesn't even matter that the vast majority of gun crimes in NYC are committed by African-American males. You CANNOT stop and frisk a citizen without probable cause.

Unless....

Being black is considered probable cause.

That is the ONLY reason that can be proffered to excuse this practice. Dare any elected official, or official seeking election come out and say it, if they support stop and frisk?

The data is clear. over 90% of the stops result in nothing. No arms found. Nothing at all.

Why is it we're even having a discussion on the legality of stopping citizens for no probable cause at all and with a "bust" rate of less than 10%?

Let's review my run down of the NYPD program from the previous link:

So let us review: 1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.

2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.

3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.
As I said before It's the 4th Amendment stupid.

Thursday, August 08, 2013

If It Walks Like A Duck....

Most of us know the phrase “If it Walks like a duck...'etc. This phrase is generally used when someone is trying to show that two things that are claimed to be different are probably not. It is also one of the weakest “intellectual” argument that exists.

Long ago I decided that the best way to counter the “walks like a duck” argument is to give an example of water and ethanol. Water is one oxygen atom with two connected hydrogen atoms (H=O=H). Ethanol contains 2 carbon atoms, 6 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. (H3C-H2C-OH).

Water and Ethanol are both clear. Walks like a duck. Water and ethanol are both liquids (at room temperature). Quacks like a duck. Both can exist in a vapour form. Looks like a duck.

One will put out a fire. One is very flammable and is a psychoactive drug.

Definitely not a duck.

This one example shows the weakness of the proposition that because an argument “sounds a lot like....” another one, that they are indeed equal.

As someone who strongly advocates for African people I often hear garbage comments like “that sounds racist” (and they don't mean that in the way I mean it). Similarly as someone who doesn't do the gender bullshit I get the “that's sexist/misogynist” commentary from folks who usually have never even bothered to research their own favorite topic because if a man wrote it it's wrong (mansplaining) and if a woman wrote it in “support” of men then she's a dupe.(brainwashed by The Patriarchy)

Like a duck.

This phenomenon one of the largest problems facing African intellectuals. They don't want to sound “racist” or that could sound like something a “racist” might say about black people and so they say something not entirely truthful or supportable with evidence instead of speaking frankly and truthfully. And that's when they're not busy burying unfavorable information.

For example I was listening to a podcast where a group of men were discussing the new movie Fruitvale Station. The conversation went into the Zimmerman verdict and one of the individuals decided to inform the public that when it comes to violent crime, white people assault/kill white people, black people assault and kill black people, etc. etc. His point being that criminals generally target the people who they live around and so the term “black on black crime” is stupid. Of course the statement is absolutely true. No doubt about that. The problem of course was that by and large the issue of crime is not so much who is doing crime against whom (though when you look at things such as the flashmob violence in Chicago and the epidemic of iPhone roberries, interracial crime can be higher than people think) but how much crime each group is committing. There was another salient fact left out of that statement. When you compare rates of crime, specifically assault and homicide, between the groups, African-Americans stand out, far and ahead as both perpetrators and victims. As a matter of fact in some geographic locations upwards of 90% of all assaults and homicides are caused by African-American males (generally between the ages of 15 and 30). In other words, in some places African-American males are theface of certain crimes.

Generally speaking there are many white people who object, quite strenuously, to the idea that they pay taxes that go to policing “those people” who they already pay taxes for welfare, etc. There are a lot of people, particularly African-American who do not want to make statements in public that seem to be supportive of such attitudes because it would provide “ammunition” for racists. Never mind that millions of black middle class families make such statements with their feet and money by moving into the neighborhoods that these “racist” white people created and live for “better schools” and “better lifestyles” and to “not deal with niggas”. I mean seriously did you see masses of rich black people moving INTO Detroit over the past 30 years or so?

Even though doing so would have raised property values, provided an increased tax base and provided employment which would have lead to better schools (among other things) for that 86+% black city? Nope. Shortly after the Zimmerman verdict I saw a repost of the report that every 28 hours there is an extra-judicial killing of an African-American. Certainly that is a cause for concern. Police ought not be killing anyone who isn't an immediate threat to them or others. However; in the few weekends that past after the Zimmerman verdict we saw 15 people shot in a weekend in Brooklyn NY. All African-American. All.

In Chicago 21 people were shot over a single weekend of July 15. On the weekend of July 20 another 22 were shot, 6 dead. In Chicago.

Oh and over the July 4th weekend, 72 people were shot. In Chicago.

If my math skills serve me correctly that's 130 shot in two cities in the space of a month. According to the Malcolm X Movement document it would take the police, nationally, 4 months to shoot that many people. In fact between NY and Chicago alone in July, AA men have shot at more AA men than the total number of extrajudicial killings cited in the report.

I take my police brutality seriously but methinks there is a far larger problem afoot. But what do I know?

My friends, acting as if there is not a serious crime problem in our communities and playing “it's no different than any other group” is not going to play in the world where statistics and news is but a click away for anyone to find.

But that isn't the entire argument though because even with these absolutely horrible statistics, the fact is that relative to the entire black population of Chicago and NY. These individuals represent a small minority of the population. That is what makes citing such information “not racist”. Because it separates out the criminals from the general population. It is racist to state that the high level of crime is representative of all members of the community.

To underscore this fact we can look at an old report at the Heritage Foundation we find the following:

In a longitudinal study of 394 families in England, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found that approximately 4 percent of these families accrued almost half of the convictions of the entire sample. "The fact that delinquency is transmitted from one generation to the next is indisputable.... [F]ewer than 5 percent of the families accounted for almost half of the criminal convictions in the entire sample.... In order to achieve such concentration of crime in a small number of families, it is necessary that the parents and the brothers and sisters of offenders also be unusually likely to commit criminal acts."
This is similar to the study done about male rapists where it was found that ~4% of the men had committed 90% of the admitted to rapes.

Overall it is a small portion of the population that is causing a LOT of problems.

So beware the “Walk Like A Duck” argument. The person offering that argument is telling you that they aren't interested in details and specifics. That's always a bad sign in any attempted informed conversation.

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Fraternities Are Gangs?

Sometimes...well more often now than in the past I read some stuff on "liberal" media that just gets my head shaking. Makes me wonder exactly what kind of editorial oversight went into posting pieces. I mean it appears that if you belong to certain organizations or have big name recognition in left circles you can write just about anything and get it posted to prominent blogs without so much as a "hey ummm....this is not factual, you need to change this if you want us to publish this here."

So it is with one Rodolfo Acuna who in his piece Love the Kids, Hate Gangs wrote the following:

This is not true only of street gangs but also other close knit groups. For instance, at the college level fraternities are gangs, and I feel much the same about fraternities as I do about street gangs. I love the kids but feel ambivalent about fraternity culture.
Really?

This fellow thinks the same about say Alpha Phi Alpha as he does about Crips?

What. The. Fuck?

A thinking person would have stopped themselves as soon as they wrote that bullshit because they would realize that for whatever surface "close knit group" characteristics a fraternity like Alpha Phi Alpha may have with Crips (which would be male membership), they have NOTHING else in common. They don't share a identity, purpose or direction.

Lets be clear. If any "close knit group" is a gang, then the word "gang" has no meaning. Indeed we have seen references to "The Gang of Eight" in reference to immigration legislation. But in reference to this piece we know full well that "gang" is used here in order reference street gangs involved with violence and drug sales and making a direct comparison with male greek letter organizations on college campuses and we're supposed to believe this to be a valid comparison.

Of course Acuna can make such a statement because he has a bias against fraternities and in particular against straight male identified fraternities. He says so himself:

Universities spend a hefty portion of their student service budget on catering to the Greeks. The members are middle and upper class kids who are generally not progressive in regards to homophobia, sexism, and racism and drinking.
You'll note that this....person does not even bother to say "Fraternities and Sororities". He does not do this because well, the women can be excused I suppose since they are perpetual victims of The Patriarchy(tm). No, the problem is with straight males (White males in particular in reference to his piece) who are in his opinion holding values about drinking, gender and sexism that do not meet his standards.

And just who the fuck is he?

Oh right just another left academic of sorts who love to rail against opponents who are "not progressive" by using dubious examples of behavior and passing judgment on people. Just the kind of things that in the recent past, the same lefties complained that the conservatives were doing. I suppose now it's OK.

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Technology and Labour...

A few months ago I wrote a piece on the upcoming changes in gender relations that will be caused by massive changes in technology. The piece upset a "few" people who thought I was being "anti-male". Unlike a lot of folks, I don't have my head in the sand. Of course things do not have to work out as I predict but that does not make it any less likely to happen.

The primary point of the piece was that the changes will occur as a result of displacing men from the workplace by eliminating physically dangerous manual labour by means of robots and drones. Robots and drones will replace firemen, police officers, and the like because they will be able to do the same work for far less costs such as salaries, healthcare, sick days, liabilities and of course risk of death. A few men and women will be hired to maintain and program these drones but they will be far fewer than the vast numbers of men who will be tossed out of their jobs.

The next thing I'm going to point out is the mechanization of the farm. This is important for two reasons. The first is the current immigration debate. Understand that many illegal immigrants (I refuse to use the term "undocumented") are in the US to be exploited on farms and factories across the US. Jobs that Americans allegedly will not do. What happens when the robots hit the farms?

The engineers were testing the Lettuce Bot, a machine that can "thin" a field of lettuce in the time it takes about 20 workers to do the job by hand.

The thinner is part of a new generation of machines that target the last frontier of agricultural mechanization - fruits and vegetables destined for the fresh market, not processing, which have thus far resisted mechanization because they're sensitive to bruising.

Researchers are now designing robots for these most delicate crops by integrating advanced sensors, powerful computing, electronics, computer vision, robotic hardware and algorithms, as well as networking and high precision GPS localization technologies. Most ag robots won't be commercially available for at least a few years.
Bruising is the primary bottleneck to robots doing the work of humans in the field. That hurdle will soon be cleared. Believe that. And when this hurdle is cleared a lot of field that requires pressure sensitivity will be affected. Nurses to give shots? Not anymore. But that's for later.

Understand that once this technology is perfected the mass importation of labour will be no longer necessary. The only person the farmer will have to pay for is himself and those who repair his machines. Productivity will skyrocket and more humans will be displaced. Of course they will be told that they have been "freed" from physical labour and can now compete in the upper (more prestigious) jobs that requires a high debt college degree.

Of course all these unemployed men won't make for "good" husbands, unless of course they are stay at home dads.

*smirk* In the movie Surrogates, the "Dreddies" rejected technology. They did so because ultimately the technology had made being human with human interdependencies and vulnerabilities impossible. I'm not suggesting that one become a luddite. I certainly am not against the use of technology but I think that too few are thinking of the huge changes that are upon us in societies that are "advanced".

Other links:

Technology and The Coming Gender Relations

Steve Wozniak Wants 'Human Computer' to Tutor Kids

I, robot, The Social Problem

Monday, August 05, 2013

No Group Struck More Than Black Mothers?

So while reading a piece here I saw the quote from Essence Magazine in which the author (not stated) said:
The Zimmerman verdict disappointed and enraged millions this weekend—but perhaps no group of people was more struck than Black mothers, who worry daily about the dangers their sons face because they are profiled without consequence. These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.
Two points here:

1) How is it possible that the group that is "most struck" by the Zimmerman verdict are Black mothers and NOT All black men (fathers or not) who are the targets of said violence? Black mothers can be "concerned" as much as they want. At the end of the day it is the men and boys who are the ones who are potentially on the exit end of a gun. It stands to reason that these men and boys are the most struck by anything in the system that makes it easier for them to be gunned down by so called "well meaning citizens".

Which leads me to point two.

2) I long since stopped reading Essence and Ebony. I would say that Essence is not for me as a black man anyway. They even say so:

These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.
Fine. If I'm not being served and supported then I don't patronize. I'm not one of those folks who sit at counters where I'm not wanted. *ahem*

I have more problems with Ebony. That was a magazine I assumed (wrongly) was for black *people*. However since about 2 years ago it seems it hired a cotorie of so called "feminists" who have proceeded to turn that magazine (website) into a place with a lot of bullshit. It's pretty clear to me that there are no straight black men with an ounce of self respect working in any editorial decision making capacity at that location. The last thing I read....no...second to last, the last thing is going to be posted on, over there was how men can stop rape. It had to be the WORST, factually erroneous piece I have seen in many many years. Yet it was supported and circulated, without question, by so called Intelligent Negroes(tm).

So yeah, Essence completely blew that opening paragraph. It's been up for just under a month and apparently nobody there has thought to modify that paragraph.

*smh*

How Zimmerman Could – and Should – Have Been Convicted Under Florida Law

Actually, there is such a law. In Florida: "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows [or] harasses ... another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree." Fla. Stat. § 784.048.
Ummmm... I said this a long time ago and I'm not even a lawyer.

The Risks

So yeah, I'm back after a little break. Haven't posted so much since I first opened this blog. I see all you regulars in the stats. Thanks for checking in. :-) Anyway. The following is old news for people who keep up with such things: Florida Cops Shoot Unarmed Black Man In His Mother’s Driveway With the usual excuse: Sheriff: Deputies said man 'lunged' from car before he was shot in his yard
Deputies Jeremiah Meeks and Matthew White responded to a 911 call on Saturday of a possible burglary and found Roy Middleton, 60, rummaging through a car in the 200 block of Shadow Lawn Lane in Warrington, Morgan said. Middleton was searching for a loose cigarette in his mother’s car.

Morgan said the deputies reported that, after they'd made multiple commands to Middleton to show his hands, he eventually lunged out of the car and spun toward them, causing them to "fear for their safety."

"As much as we are trained and as much as officers -- which have Type A personalities -- like to say we are in control, we are not," Morgan said at the conference.

During an afternoon press conference, Morgan played the 911 call made by a neighbor along with the corresponding radio traffic from officers on the scene.

Middleton has said he was in his mother's car, searching for a cigarette. When he backed out of the vehicle, he had his car keys in his hand with a metal flashlight attached, he told his mother. The deputies opened fire.
So to review: This man was in his own vehicle on property that he had every right to be on. He was looking for something in his car and a neighbor called the police to report something suspicious and a 60 year old man (60 year olds don't commit many crimes)was shot.

I wonder if the neighbor, being all concerned and all, bothered to call the owner of the residence that he thought was being burglarized. I suppose not. They aren't THAT neighborly.

But this underscores one of the reasons why people in certain communities do not call the police (or cooperate with them). It is a well known fact that police are more likely to shoot a black person (usually male) due to a claim of "feared for their lives" regardless of whether there was a fear of anything. In some situations the police themselves create a situation in which conflict can occur. I'll use myself as an example.

A few years back I was doing my 6 month oil change. I had music playing and my top down. Someone in the complex I live in did not "appreciate" the music I was playing (not loud, but with the top down, audible). They decided it was a good idea to call the police. I was going in and out of my residence with tools and towels and stuff when I saw unmarked police cruisers go by at a high rate of speed. I thought to myself that something must be going on somewhere and went about my business.

So I was leaning into my vehicle with a chrome tool for something or other when lo and behold I found that I was the police business. Two officers, one of which was gripping his sidearm came at me with some "turn that down". Now imagine that these officers saw the flash of chrome from the tool in my hand and "feared for their safety"? Luckily for me it was daylight. Night time could have ended a lot differently. All because some neighbor didn't have the courtesy to lean out a window and say "Excuse me, I'm trying to sleep."

That's not much different than what happened here except that the suspected offense was more than noise complaint.

And lest some idiot says "well he was rummaging in a car late at night." Let me reming you that anyone can drop anything of value in their car at any time, including late at night and be found looking between and under seats.