Clearly Murder to Me

Here's another article with a link to the surveillance video.

You see Crawford drop the gun as he crawled away from the Officer. How does that constitute a threat? How is it they claim they were dealing with an "active shooter". When there were no gun shots reported? As I said before, How do you rush into a store that sells guns and assume a person holding one is a criminal?

It seems clear to me that Crawford's initial drop and crawl was because he knew he had an unloaded BB gun and he was unclear as to what the threat was. He came BACK around to the original aisle when he caught sight of the blue uniformed officer who may or may not have taken a shot at him only to be confronted with the second, white shirted officer. It is clear that the tactics they used against a person commit ting no crime whatsoever, and clearly not a threat to anyone in the area, since there were no victims or potential victims in the closed off aisle, were the reason for his death.

This is case of radicalized swatting. The caller should be held to account, and the officers dealt with in civil court since the grand jury inexplicably could not see what was plainly in front of them.

Family Seeks Action Against 911 Caller In Walmart Shooting

The video synced with the 911 call clearly shows that the caller was lying about Crawford. He should be held civilly and criminally responsible.

Ritchie had said of Crawford near the start of his 911 call: “He’s, like, pointing it at people.” He subsequently told the Guardian that “at no point did [Crawford] shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody”, stressing instead that he had been “waving it around” and that the muzzle moved in the direction of other shoppers.

The surveillance footage released on Wednesday shows Crawford passing shoppers with the gun at his side. After arriving in a corner of the store, he is seen swinging the rifle at his side and holding it towards a store shelf containing pet products while standing alone and talking on his cellphone for five minutes.

And here's the thing. When you watch the video you clearly see a woman with her two children enter the aisle. No way they missed the lone person at the other end of the aisle. You don't see her scramble to get away from the man. It is clear that she doesn't feel threatened.

A Note On That White House Intruder

I have a few ideas about how, or whey that guy got as far as he did into the White House.

The obvious one that is probably getting rounds on Black Twitter and FB (I'm party to neither) would be the disrespect of the president and the likelihood that the members of the secret service secretly don't really care for the life of this president. I think that may have some validity based on some of the stuff I have read in the past year or so. But I think that even if it is motivated in part by that, there is more to it.

Recall that this president has twice publicly named, shamed and had fired a number of male SS agents for cavorting with prostitutes while in countries in which prostitution is legal. I think another may have been made an example of for being drunk and announcing that he was a SS agent. I thought at the time and I still think that it was a bad idea for him to do that.

The reason for this is that I don't think that the behavior of the SS agents was unique to this president. And if it wasn't unique to this president and no other president was placed in danger by this activity then there was IMO no reason to have made the public case of it that was made. I think that this (and perhaps other actions) lead to a great deal of resentment among the people who are tasked with protecting the president. Simply put, you don't piss off the people who's job is to lay down their lives for you.

Now I could be totally wrong on this point. As I said, these are "ideas". I have no real facts to support these ideas.

Lastly, I note that the intruder made short work of a female SS agent. I assume she was armed with a gun. He was armed with a knife. How does that work? I assume these SS agents are at least trained in Krav Maga. Did this fellow get the drop on her and knock her out with one blow? Perhaps it's time for the SS to re-evaluate their recruitment and training of their female agents. What if said female was the last line before the president. We could be having a day of national mourning instead of a juicy security story.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

So a judge has said that there is no right to free water service Also in this article:

About 24,000 city water accounts have been shut off this year. A month-long moratorium halting shutoffs ended in August and crews are now back to shutting off water to up to 400 accounts a day, DWSD officials said last week.

Residents, civic groups, and "The Avengers" actor Mark Ruffalo participated in mass protests in recent months fighting the city's treatment of delinquent water customers. A pocket of protesters lined West Lafayette Boulevard outside federal court Monday.

Who is Mark Ruffalo? Oh he's that guy that played Hulk in the Avengers and has some other movie credits to his name. He is apparently worth $20 million. If that is the case we need to seriously ask Mark whether he has ponied up for the people who he's protesting for?

After all, if it is good to have other people pay for the services used by others who cannot afford it, then Mark ought to lead by example and put his money where his mouth is and commit to at least bringing $1 million worth of customers current on their water bills. After all if you have 20 million you're not going to miss $1 million.

The Ghost thinks that black folks ought to finance their development. The Ghost has put his money where his mouth is. What say ye Mark?

Actually Mr. President....

“When there’s a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who’s helping the Philippines deal with that situation,” the President said. “When there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge and making sure Haiti can rebuild.”

1) That's because people know the US has troops everywhere, unlike some other countries.

2) The Chinese were VERY early to Haiti after the earthquake even though it was, you know, half a world a way and of no strategic value whatsoever.

3) In regards to the Phillipines, given it's status as major non-NATO ally....

That Quaint Notion of Due Process

Side note: Notice another follower gone to the wayside. Truth hurts. Anyway onto the subject of this post. In the wake of the Ray Rice fiasco the theme of "punish them when the accusation is made" has taken hold of many personalities. I was in the gym where I overheard one of the black commentators say that it was the right of [name of team] to wait for the due process to go on, but for him he wouldn't wait for all that. Did I mention this person was black?

They didn't care about due process for this fellow.

I am pretty bothered by black folks, descendants of slaves, subject to all kinds of injustice to say such things with a a straight face. And here's one:

Of particular interest: Strong's dismissal of players involved in an alleged sexual assault. Kendall Sanders and Montrel Meander were both kicked off the Longhorns squad after being charged with raping a co-ed over the summer. Strong didn't wait for the legal process to conclude; he took action on his own

Oh, never mind that due process thing. If an accusation was made, the players must be guilty. No need to wait. Take ACTION NOW!

They didn't care about due process for this fellow.

Here's the thing about due process. If you actually believe in it then you run your organization based on that principle. You don't suspend or dismiss your employees (or players) on charges. Standing up for due process is not weak. It is a higher principle than immediate punishment.

And lastly on this:

"If I'm a parent," Vincent said, "and I'm looking to send my son or daughter – especially my daughter – to the University of Texas, that coach is saying this is important."

Thanks for letting your son know that you don't worry about him much. Secondly, thanks for letting your daughter know you did a shit job raising her. See 'cause if he didn't do a shit job raising her, then she would know not to go getting drunk around folks she doesn't know. Not to pass on offers by her friends to take her home should she get that drunk (cause 80% of rapes occur when the victim is incapacitated). That you haven't had her learn self-defense (which both of your kids should have been taught). That she is a poor judge of character and situations so she sends mixed signals to the guys she has over or who's rooms she visits.

But see this guy (and the others) will know how bad their supposed "tough stands" are if they ever find themselves accused of something they didn't do and someone takes a "tough stand" on them.

That's when they'll know.

All Kinds Of Wrong

I know some folks think that I am all "police can do no wrong" due to my coverage of Ferguson. Absolutely not the case. I simply know and acknowledge that there are screw ups on both sides of the blue line. I don't give either side a pass. Here's one I've been following, where everything is just wrong.

The police officer who shot dead a young black man in a Walmart store in Ohio as he held an unloaded BB rifle had less than two weeks earlier received what prosecutors called a “pep talk” on how to deal aggressively with suspected gunmen.

When I first heard this one I thought there had to be something more to the story. Living in the northeast it is not usual to see firearms in a Walmart, Kmart or whatever. But when I travel to other parts of the country such a thing is unusual. And if firearms are sold in a store you would think that citizens living there would not be alarmed to see a customer walking around with a firearm either in hand or in a cart. Therefore I surmised that this fellow must have been doing something with that gun that would provoke a customer to call the police. Alas we found out that he was not. In my opinion, this was a clearly racially motivated event...on the part of the customer who called the police.

About 80 seconds before Crawford was shot dead by the police officer, Ritchie told the dispatcher: “He just pointed it at, like, two children.” The surveillance footage shows that he in fact stood still with the rifle at his side as the children and their mother browsed further down the aisle. After another 40 seconds later, the dispatcher asked Ritchie: “You said he pointed it at a couple of kids?” Ritchie replied: “Right”.

Since the video evidence shows Richie was in fact lying about the behavior of Crawford, we can only come to the conclusion that he wanted to have a police confrontation happen. The question I have for the prosecutor is why Ritchie isn't up on charges. His deliberate lie to police lead directly to Crawford's death.

Now lets turn our attention to the police in this matter. Again, since this store was known to sell firearms, why did the police assume a man in the store with a gun was a threat? Did the police at any time think that this guy was a customer? Why did they take his word for it? As far as I know, there were no other calls from customers in the store about a man pointing gun at children or anyone else. You would think that if a person pointed a rifle at your child, in a menacing manner, not only would you do whatever you could to get out of the store, but also would be calling the police as well. The total lack of concerned calls from customers OR store employees says much about the lack of thought (at the very least) on the part of the police department

. The slide show shows the real issue of militarization of the police. It is not the machine guns, sniper rifles or the armored vehicles, it is the thought that the police are there as a domestic army. The army is not charged with law enforcement. The only purpose of an army is to kill the enemy. An army has no charge to protect the innocent. Nor does it have the burden of assuming any suspect is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peer. The police on the other hand are charged first and foremost with keeping the peace and apprehending suspects.

As the slide said: We must change the mindset. It is not the job of the police to "end the threat as soon as possible" unless that threat is directed at their person or at another person in the vicinity.

It is the job of the police to evaluate a situation and de-escalate it as soon as possible. The officers could have easily asked the store employees if there had been any reported incidents in the store. It's not like they would not have heard a rifle go off. They should have found the person who reported the event. They should have inquired as to whether the store sells guns to customers (hence an explanation for why this man had one in his hand).

But this is what you get when you allow a fear mentality to go unchecked. When people do not have the leadership ability to tell people to calm. The fuck. Down. Yesterday I was told that I was the recipient of Dick Cheney's heart transplant because I'm "cold." "Cold" is often what is required to make proper decisions in otherwise emotion tainted events. When people are scared, they often make bad decisions. When people are angry they often make bad decisions. If anything I'd prefer a cold policeman to one that is unable to control his or her urges. I don't want police around who see everything and everyone as a threat to their lives. I want police who react to the actual events unfolding in front of them.

If Crawford wasn't waving a gun around when police arrived. If he was on the phone as shown on the video tape, then there was no danger to react to. You do not tell police to think of "loved ones" who could be killed. You do not tell police to think of movie theater shootings and the like, because they are irrelevant to the situation they currently find themselves in.

So these officers should be held in account. The leadership that taught them to think in such a way that gets innocent store customers to get killed should be held equally to account. and Ritchie should be held for a false police report that lead to the death of a person.

Except It's Not Like That At All

The FBI is concerned about encryption on your phone:

While Comey says he understands the need for consumer privacy, emergency situations that could be brought to an end with a warrant are moving out of reach. He states the inability to search a smartphone with a warrant is akin to a company-marketing a closet that could never be opened in a kidnap situation.

So your data is equivalent to a person being locked in a unopenable closet door. Was there laughter in the room when this comparison was made? No one asked this bozo for a documented case where the inability to get into a phone resulted in the death of any individual anywhere?

Never Mind The Data, Go With The Child.

I am almost always annoyed when I see people push a child forward asking for their opinions on subject matters they do not understand. Not only that, but I am pretty much not in favor of persons who have no responsibilities in life in having much of a say in anything. When you work, pay taxes, and are responsible for yourself, then get at me about how you think things should be run. Until then, excuse me while I discount your subsidized (or flat our paid for) life. yeah, I'm old, old school where children (minors) should be seen and not heard. Below is an example from the Huffington Post. First the headline:

This 11-Year-Old Perfectly Sums Up The Problems In Ferguson

Unless said 11 year old is a bonafide genius, I don't particularly care to hear what he has to say. And adults ought be of the same opinion. It's pretty sad when folks think children have a better grasp on situations than adults. And if your children have a better grasp of situations than adults, warranting such a headline, it speaks volumes about just how stupid the adults are. But lets see what this 11 year old has to say that is so profound:

In an interview with CBS "Sunday Morning," Govan shared his vision for Ferguson, saying he thinks one way to improve things is for the town to hire more African-American police officers. But Govan told CBS' Jane Pauley there's a reason you don't see many minorities on the police force.

"Look, let me tell you why: From the beginning we've felt abused by these people. Why would you go up to serve among the abusers? It doesn't make any sense," Govan said.

Two things about these "profound" comments:

1) More black cops does nothing to curb crime.

2) Lets take the phrase "When I was a child, I spake as a child.." seriously. If your dumb ass thinks that the police exist with the sole purpose of "abusing" you. Then you are a dumb ass. Seems this 11 year old hasn't a clue on the fact that the reason police are in his neighborhood "abusing" people is due to the activities of the criminal element within his community. And since he has NO CLUE, why is Huffington giving him press?

And by the way, the turn around in Camden NJ didn't happen due to "more black cops". So much for that. This is the problem. This constant infantilization of black folks and speaking of us as if we have no agency and no responsibility is very very bad for black folks. Furthermore, the denial of facts when dealing with these issues is also as problematic.

So excuse me if I go back to ignoring the commentary of 11 year olds.

Those Other Witnesses in Ferguson

Yes, I've known about the other witnesses that made the news a few weeks ago. I resisted commenting on them because there was a lot of info to sort through (other witness stories), timelines for shots fired (with that audio), etc. Now I have a piece of info from the witness statements (not on the video) that is going to weigh heavily on the grand jury:

Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

I said in an earlier post that "hands up" does not meant "not a threat". Particularly if we're talking about a moving subject.

They key points here would be that officer Wilson was backing up while firing. This indicates that he considered Brown a threat to him, As I have said in many postings in regards to police shootings; is it near impossible to prove malice in their actions because police are given the assumed non-criminal intent in such situations (rightly or wrongly). However, this note by the witness, squares with the witness caught on the audio tape in which the witness says that Brown was "coming at him" as Wilson was "dumping on him".

Remember that the in the audio released by CNN shows a set of shots, a pause and then another set. This witness statement is supportive of that audio. Wilson shot until Brown stopped. Brown started moving again and Wilson shot at him again.

If the rest of the evidence presented to the grand jury is along these lines, I do not see how they can indict Wilson. The only way I see Wilson indicted (with this kind of evidence) is if it is done for political reasons.

[update]

Just wanted to address this point in the article:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.

Unless a police officer tells you to approach him, particularly if that officer already has his side arm out, you don't walk up on that officer. You stay put. The officer either approaches you or tells you to approach him. 4 feet is not a lot of distance. No officer is going to allow a suspect that he was shooting at, to walk up to 4 feet of him while unsecured. Doesn't happen. Officer will tell you to walk up to a patrol car, put your hands on the car, spread your legs, search your person and then cuff you.

He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

So which is it? Was Brown not walking towards Wilson? Was he walking towards Wilson and got within 4 feet or was he 25 feet away, got shot in the head and stumbled 25 feet towards Wilson? Some of these folks are either lying or did not recall the events correctly. Brown could not have been 4 feet away from Wilson, get shot in the head (instant put down) and then wander 25 feet away to drop to the ground. This is why you should be suspect of witness stories. Aside from self interest, witnesses are often wrong about important details.

1 dead, 14 wounded in city shootings: 'Please don't let me die'

A teen was shot to death and at least 14 other people, including a 12-year-old boy, were wounded in shootings between Friday afternoon and Saturday morning....

About 90 minutes earlier, three people were shot near the intersection of Lexington and Springfield avenues south of the Eisenhower Expressway in Lawndale,...

About 11 p.m. Friday, three people, including a 12-year-old, were wounded near the intersection of Pulaski Road and Adams Street, about half a block from the homicide on Jackson...

• About 9:30 p.m. Friday, a 27-year-old man was shot in the right side in the 7100 block of South Rhodes Avenue in what was believed to be a drive-by...

About 8:15 p.m. Friday, one person was shot in the 2900 block of West 85th Street at Hayes Park in the Wrightwood neighborhood on the Southwest Side,...

A few minutes earlier in Englewood, about 8:10 p.m. Friday, in the 7200 block of South May Street in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side, three people were shot>...

About 8 p.m. Friday, a 35-year-old man suffered a gunshot wound to the thigh in the 5400 block of South Damen Avenue n the Back of the Yards neighborhood on the South Side...

Someone firing at a group hit a 16-year-old girl about 6:55 p.m. in the 1400 block of West 81st Street in the Gresham neighborhood on the South Side.

There is a war on black men in America

That was Spike Lee commenting on Ferguson. As I asked then, War by whom?

Question: How many of these shootings were done by police?

Of The Herero and Nama

I've known of this for quite a while but since it came up I thought I'd share:

But even according to the BBC: “In 1985, a UN report classified the events as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South-West Africa, and therefore the earliest attempted genocide in the 20th Century.”

Every year the Herero hold solemn ceremonies to remember the first genocide of history’s bloodiest century, when German troops drove them into the desert to die, annihilating 80 per cent of their population through starvation, thirst, and slave labor in concentration camps. The Nama, a smaller ethnic group, lost half of their population from the same persecution.

New research suggests that the German racial genocide in Namibia from 1904 to 1908 was a significant influence on the Nazis in the Second World War. Many of the key elements of Nazi ideology – from racial science and eugenics, to the theory of Lebensraum (creating “living space” through colonization) – were promoted by German military veterans and scientists who had begun their careers in South-West Africa, now Namibia, during the genocide…”

FIRST they came for the Herero and the Nama.......

Really Jessica?

Every now and then these Feminists show their true colors. Today Jessica shows hers and the Guardian gives an assist. headline

Good men don't let women get raped. So why aren't you guys doing enough?

What is this bullshit? Did she just blame the majority of men who do not rape, that's 94% of us, thank you very much, for the behavior of those who do?

That's some bullshit.

And since most rapes are committed in private, how is it that men who are nowhere near the scene of the crime. Don't know either the victim or the perpetrator, responsible?

Oh because some guy made a rape joke? Seriously?

Oh now name calling (either men or women) is perpetrating rape?

Total bullshit.

Total.

And a note about the Steubenville rape. Not a few people tried to get that underage girl to go home. People did in fact try to intervene. She decided to go with those guys. No one can make anyone go anywhere unless they have a badge on. And even in the Steubenville event, those guys were a subset of the larger number that were at the original party.

I'm pretty much tired of this type of bullshit being posted to so called "respectable" media. Why are these women given a pass to slander men in such a way that would be intolerable if done to non-whites (of any gender), Muslims (of any sect) or to women in general?

This is intolerable and has to stop.

Well So Much For That Idea

Changes to make departments more diverse "have not curbed police violence in communities of color" or removed the special challenges of policing disadvantaged neighborhoods, wrote Malcolm D. Holmes and Brad W. Smith, co-authors of "Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma," in a recent letter to the National Journal.

Achieving Diversity In Police Ranks No Easy Task You don't say.

Sweden's Problem Isn't Immigration

Returns from the polls in Sweden indicate that the population is moving in the direction of so called "far right" party Sweden Democrats.

The conservative Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is out*: but we knew he would be. His party’s share of the vote is 7pc down from last year, to 23pc, a rather stunning collapse. But where has that 7pc gone? Not to his main rivals, the Social Democrats: they’re still on 31 per cent, as they were at the last general election

The only real gainer is the Sweden Democrats, who are (as I type) on 13pc of the vote, more than double the 5.8pc last time. All other parties in Sweden refuse to enter coalition with them (and were shocked enough that they got into parliament four years ago). But this has helped the Sweden Democrats play the insurgent card, saying the Stockholm “elite” is ganging up against them.

I certainly do not have a problem with the natives of a country being protective of their culture and wishing for those who enter to play by the rules, but eventually Swedes as well as other Europeans are going to have to deal with the real source of their problem: Low birth rates. The main reasons many of these countries imported people was for work reasons. Technology is going to remove a lot of labour needs but so long as Europe has a very low birth rate, they will need to import people. Not only for labour but also for a tax base to support their very large social welfare systems (they aren't free).

The oddest thing about it is that many in the US argue that people should reproduce when they have the ability to care for and educate children. It's interesting that these countries that have such generous family legislation and even governments willing to pay them directly, simply will not have children (or many of them).

So these people in these countries that are upset about the growing number of immigrants should consider modifying their own behaviors. Either that or do what Japan is doing an invest in a robots

Let's Talk Domestic Violence: Sometime a Man Fi Get Kuff

The Ray Rice video has talking heads around the country bobbing up and down, mouths flapping saying very little. Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Google + and other places are full of people saying the usual things regardless of their actual accuracy. I've written about this subject in other spaces but I'm going to put it here.

First, let me get this little piece out of the way. Usually when I discuss this topic I get the inevitable: "Have you hit a woman?" "Have you hit a woman and are doing this to make up for it?" And "Have you hit a woman and are in denial about how wrong it was?"

Let me answer these questions before moving onto the meat of this post:

I have not hit a woman. Therefore I am not trying to make up for it nor am I in denial.

Why do I speak on the topic in the way that I do? Because I care about the health and welfare of men and women. I believe that the only way to do so is to be dead serious about domestic violence. No pandering to any party. No excuse making for any party. No treating any party as if they were children. With that lets get to the real deal issue.

Who commits domestic violence?

If you watch the talking heads, or the twitter experts you will be told that domestic violence is men hitting women. This is completely and utterly false. In order to seriously deal with domestic violence we must strike down this particular falsehood.

The July 14,2009 edition of the Washington Times features the following:

Yet more than 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much violence against their male partners as vice versa. Men account for about a third of domestic-violence injuries and deaths. Research shows women often compensate for their lack of physical strength by employing weapons and the element of surprise — just as Miss Kazemi is thought to have done.

At least as much?

The most recent large-scale study of domestic violence was conducted by Harvard researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that, according to both men’s and women’s accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time.

For those who have issues with reading comprehension, let me highlight the important parts:

1) Men account for 1/3 of domestic violence injuries and deaths. When was the last time you heard this from any of the talking heads you listen to?

2) 50% of reported domestic violence is reciprocal. This was illustrated in the Rice video. They were engaged in reciprocal violence.

3) In 70% of single sided violence, women were the perpetrators. For the hard of reading this is when men stand around, or sit around, or lay around and allow themselves to be hit.

Now someone is saying to themselves, this is a news report not the actual report. Where's the actual data? NO problem you can read the actual report here: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 Therefore anyone who speaks on domestic violence as a one way male perpetrator and female victim is a liar. A dirty, low down, enabler of domestic violence LIAR.

There's another question we have to ask given the above statistics: Why, if there are so many women committing domestic violence, are men the ones overwhelmingly represented in arrests and convictions of domestic violence?

There is a clear answer for this: Male domestic violence victims are routinely ignored by society. Male domestic violence victims are routinely not believed by police. And most importantly, male domestic violence victims, when acting to protect themselves from further violence by attempting to restrain the perpetrator may injure the perpetrator and therefore be arrested as the initiator of domestic violence.

Oh. You want proof of this? Here you go:

(Andrews et al., 2000; Armstrong, Wernke, Medina, & Schafer, 2002; Caetano et al., 2002; Cunradi, Bersamin, & Ames, 2008; Perry & Fromuth, 2005; Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998). For example, Caetano and colleagues (2002) found that 42% of white females reported perpetrating IPV while only 19% of their white male victims reported this perpetration.

Men underreport by at least 50% the rate that they are victimized. And these are white men, possibly the largest pussified group of men in America. Can you imagine what more "macho" men are hiding?

The next question that follows this is: Why is this the case?

Society is of the opinion that women are allowed to strike men. Men are supposed to allow themselves to be assaulted by women. Men feel that they have to lie to the police to prevent the women who strike them, usually women they are romantically involved with, from going to jail, because no man wants to be "that dude" who sent his wife/girlfriend to jail.

Don't believe me? Here's some proof of this mentality: Here's The Good Men Project [sic] article on why males should "man up" and excuse domestic violence directed at him:

She may scream, punch, take advantage or just quietly manipulate you. The stereotype may be used against you by being told to provide or take care of needs; making you feel guilty, ashamed and less of a man—but please don’t feel this way.

It may have nothing to do with you or maybe you did do something to provoke; either way how do you handle the attack? [My emphasis]

Maybe I did what? This from a so called "feminist" site that is presumably anti-domestic violence? I wonder, did anyone after watching Ray Rice throw his punch ask others "hmmm..I wonder what she did to provoke him?" How about it? What exactly did the soon to be Mrs. Rice do to deserve getting hit? Maybe she called him a name he didn't appreciate. Maybe she flirted with some guy and he caught her. After all according to folks who engage in World Star Hip Hop such a thing is HEE-larious when a woman does it

No. If you asked that silly question, you got drawn and quartered by the Twitter experts.FaceBook experts and if you're lucky Huffington Post experts. But a feminist decided that it was a good idea to write "maybe you did something to provoke?"

Since when is "provocation" (other than self-defense, I'll get to that in a bit) an excuse to initiate domestic violence?

Oh but it's not only the Good Man Project [sic]. Men's Health magazine gets into the act:

Front and center. What is the unmistakeable message being sent here? If a man so much as says something to you (a woman) that "pisses you off", you have the right to slap him AND he should EXPECT that!

What. The. Entire. Fuck?

How is this picture in any way, shape or form acceptable?

Men's Health sees no problem with the idea that mere words from a man is worth getting slapped in the face? That men need to "watch their mouths" lest they get a kuff! to the mouth?

See, I used to think that song was cute. I didn't know better. I do now. But an entire generation (or two) of black boys and girls, mainly of West Indian descent grew up listening to this very song. Imagine that. Teaching young girls that sometimes you need to lay hands on your man because HE NEEDS IT!

And then we wonder why there are men out there who are of the attitude "fuck that" and take to hitting first.

But back to Men's Health. The image is a stock photo from Think Stock Photos. When you do a search for "man hitting woman" you get 3 pictures on the first set of women in the act of hitting a man. Either with hand up or having completed a hit. The actual photos of "man hitting woman" aren't anywhere near as graphic. You have a woman on the ground with a man with a belt or a balled fist. But no clear cut kuff to the face. You have to go to page three to get actual "man hitting woman" pictures. But you'll find plenty of woman hitting man without even searching for it. And for good measure Getty Images will pop up with an advert like this:

I tell you. Anyone who says that society finds it "unacceptable" that a woman can hit a man for whatever reason comes to mind, is a straight up liar. And if those persons think that this pervasive permissiveness of female physical assaults on men does not inform the Ray Rice's of the world, they are total idiots.

But that's not all. I posted a piece called the Gender Bullshit Report on my other blog where I documented many instances of commercial use of domestic violence to sell product!!!.

Would anyone think that the following would be appropriate*?

*Note: None of the brand owners have endorsed these images. They are for educational purposes and in no way, shape or form imply that the companies condone any form of domestic violence.

If it is NOT OK to depict women being hit by men in their lives to push product then why did FIAT get away with it? Why did Campbell the company behind V8 get away with multiple commercials depicting men being hit by their wives or girlfriends because they made "poor eating choices"?

And before you try to wave this off, let me remind you, 50% of domestic violence is reciprocal and 70% of one way domestic violence is done by women. So it is NOT an exaggeration to say that there are women internalizing these messages that it is OK to strike men.

This is NOT acceptable.

Why was it OK for KFC to release a commercial where a man is hit by a woman? To sell CHICKEN? (*note: the owner of the video decided to make the video private)

Frame grab for posterity.

Mind you KFC got heat for that and stopped running the commercial but where was the media? Where were all these people who are suddenly so concerned with Ray Rice and his now wife?

I've been at this for a long time. This isn't some recent thing. I've BEEN talking about this issue. I'm supposed to be impressed by folks tooting their horns now about Ray?

And since we are talking about black folks the prior report also had this little piece

Race/ethnic specific estimates suggest that African American and Hispanic women report higher rates of IPV perpetration compared to Caucasian women. A nationally-representative survey found the prevalence of female perpetrated IPV to be 30.0% among African-Americans, 21.0% among Hispanic, and 16.0% among Caucasian women (Caetano, Schafer, & Cunradi, 2001; Caetano, Cunradi, Schafer, & Clark, 2000; Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 1999). [my emphasis]

That is out of the class of women that initiate IPV (that's Domestic violence to you and me), Black women are the most likely, to do so with white women in the Caboose of this sad train. I'm certain that some chicken head reading this will now start talking some "anti-black woman" bullshit in order to deny the "nationally representative survey" because obviously she knows better than the researchers. Just like everyone else with an internet connection. But lets examine one of these women:

Not too long ago Solange Knowles was caught on video attempting to assault Jay-Z. Lets think for a minute how that couldhave gone down had the body guard not intervened or even been present. But lets look at how the press, currently aghast at the work of Ray Rice had to say about Solange's attempt at domestic violence.

Here's the Daily News:

Solange is so far beyond "that thing" that happened in that elevator.

Oh.

I'm sure Ray Rice and his wife were "far beyond 'that thing' " in the elevator too.

But you know everyone else in America needs to be able to put their two cents in. After all Ray Rice's business is YOUR business as well.

Jay and Solange each assume their share of responsibility for what has occurred. They both acknowledge their role in this private matter that has played out in the public. They both have apologized to each other and we have moved forward as a united family."

Oh. And Ray Rice's wife "took responsibility" for her part in the "private matter'. They "apologized to each other" too. Doesn't seem to matter though. Isn't domestic violence, domestic violence regardless? If so, Why did Solange get the vagina pass?

Solange stuns on the cover of Lucky magazine's August issue in a white and mint casual outfit, and also dishes about her music and personal style.

Wait! The edition was still released? Why wasn't it removed like Ray Rice's jersey? Isn't domestic violence, regardless of who initiates it, WRONG? Oh right:

But wait, there is more:

HK: I don’t know if it’s true, but I’m going to put it out there anyway. In a situation like this, I think of me and my own sister, so if we were in the elevator with my husband and my sister started lunging at my husband, my instinct would be to jump in between them — unless I was in agreement with whatever my sister believed.[ [My italics]

So here is a writer for the Daily News, a media outlet currently frothing at the mouth about Ray Rice, saying that if her husband was being abused by a family member (that would be domestic violence), that so long as she agreed with the reason He was being beat up for, she would be OK with it. How is this acceptable? How does the NY Daily News reconcile this bile with it's current coverage of Rice. Oh wait.

Here'sOne more Daily News item:

From watching the video online, I can say Solange is feisty. She’s really feisty.

I would definitely say she did pretty good for someone wearing heels and being held back.

There’s no doubt she can defend herself. I’d give her a 6, maybe even a 7. She would do better in flats and without being restrained, I think.

I can see she definitely did one kick that was a professional move — it’s called a front kick or a push kick.

She’s definitely taken some classes, either self-defense or maybe done some martial arts in workout classes. I can see one kick that she landed that looked really good.

The punching? That needs some work. I’m seeing more open-handed slapping than punching.

Lets disregards the obvious, which is that Solange was not defending herself from anyone. Lets disregard that Jay-Z was the victim here. Can you imagine this guy saying: "Ray showed good form. Good straight punch. straight to the head to stop the threat. Knocked out his opponent in one blow. This is how you deal with threats to your person." Can you imagine that? No? Then why did the Daily News think it was appropriate to have an article complimenting the finer details on Solanges assault?

I could go on. Really. But I'm not because I've provided enough clear evidence as to the real deal regarding domestic violence. So let me close with the one and only principled stand on the subject:

1) All parties are obligated to keep their hands to themselves unless it is in self-defense.

2) Retaliatory violence is not self-defense.

3) If they hit you once, they will do so again. Leave the relationship as soon as possible after the very first hand raise. A person who raises their hand to you is already showing that they have a tenuous grasp on their self control. Do not wait around for that grasp to fully fail.

4) Men: You are not obligated to allow yourself to be hit, either empty hand or not. You have a right to deflect any blow headed your way. You have the right to prevent any further blows from landing on your person.

5) If you find yourself in an relationship with violence that you cannot for whatever reason immediately leave, ALWAYS BE RECORDING. Invest in a recording app for your phone, buy a cheap audio recorder and anytime there is a conflict or pending conflict (such as raised voice) turn that shit on. You need evidence of your "non-initiating" of violence to establish a self-defense claim.

6) Men: Do not let any woman get away with hitting you. Call the police and have her arrested and processed. This is the only way to have the criminal stats catch up with the actual incidences of female initiated violence. Buy failing to report this criminal act on your person you are assisting in the continued misconception that women do not commit, or only commit small amounts of domestic violence.

7) Women: You have no social right to put your hands feet or object on a man for any reason short of self-defense. A "real" man will not tolerate this behavior from you. A just society will not tolerate this behavior from you. If you wish to be treated as an equal under the law, then it is high time you get control of your arms and feet and emotions and act like the adult you wish to be considered to be.

Bottom line: Keep your hands to yourself except for self-defense.

Lets call these spades spades. Most of the people running their mouths about domestic violence don't give a shit about domestic violence. If they were actually serious about domestic violence they would have pointed out all the things that I laid out here. It would be front and center.

Most of these people talking are saying what they are saying because they are afraid to be that guy or that girl "defending an abuser". Fact is that telling the truth is not defending the abuser. Telling the truth prevents future incidences of domestic violence.

1400 girls were raped in England because the authorities didn't want to seem "racist". How may men and women will be beaten (to any extend) because the majority of the fools out there don't want to seem "sexist" or "supportive of abusers"?

Enough of the bullshit. Tell the truth and shame the liars and abusers!

Just Because...

Emily Cleath on poverty:

A picture of you standing in front of your dirty car doesn’t mean that your car has always been and always will be dirty – or that it’s dirty because of some personal failure of yours. Nor does it mean you’re the only person around whose vehicle may become less than sparkling. But that is the impression many have of people living in poverty in the U.S.

Certainly a snapshot, a single moment in time, doesn't explain much. But in reality few sane people base their opinions on a single freeze frame of an event. Rather they look for patterns and signifiers of behavior. Lets look at the "dirty car" in a more realistic way:

You are standing by your car. It is dirty. You are dressed in expensive clothes, expensive shoes and a fresh cut. It could very well mean you that you value your clothes and personal appearance more than you do the state of your car.

Say that you have been observed with the expensive clothes frequently but the car tends to stay unwashed. That would certainly indicate that you have a low regard for your vehicle.

Say that over the space of 4 weekends, you are observed hanging out, shopping and doing other social things and your vehicle stays dirty. It would be reasonable to assume that you do not value the looks of your vehicle since one had a month to clean it and did not.

Say that in addition to having a dirty car, the place where you live has an uncut lawn, needs painting and has litter about. It would be reasonable for the observer to think that you simply do not care about appearances.

While poverty can strike anyone (the number one cause of poverty being an unexpected large medical bill) there is ample evidence that some (many) people who are poor are poor due to their own behavior and thinking. To shame people for observing such a thing simply is not fair, nor does it help those who are in poverty due to their own behavior.

You buy a house you cannot afford? Why should you be bailed out?

You bought a car you cannot afford the payments on? Well that was your fault, not the dealer who happily took your money. The dealer didn't put a gun to your head and demand access to your bank account and signature.

You're broke but have a shoe habit? Excuse me while I don't give a damn.

You're broke and buying pre-cooked meals? Oh, OK.

Oh you like to get your party on every weekend? Do you.

You're broke but have a lace front? Weave? Oh. Ok. Excuse me while I keep moving along.

Oh you have a child you can barely afford and are having some more? By a new man? No wedding? Oh, excuse me while I put my sympathy back in my pocket.

Oh you're unemployed and sitting at home watching TV? Oh ok. So that.

These are a few examples of behaviors that will get you broke (or more broke) quickly. It isn't mean to point these behaviors out. Some people are broke/poor due to circumstances beyond their control. Some not so much.

Russia Is Again An Example Of What Happens When You Depend Upon Others

France has decided to suspend it's contractual obligation to supply two warships to Russia.

France’s decision to suspend the delivery of the first of two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia shows Paris’ obedience of American diplomacy, said National Front leader Marine Le Pen. Russia still believes that France will fulfill the contract...

The situation is serious. Russia’s recent actions in the east of Ukraine contravene the fundamental principles of European security,” said a statement from the office of President Francois Hollande. [Italics original]

While Le Pen is absolutely correct in that the action is clearly a sign of obedience to the US, it also underscores why Russia and any other sane nation, would be wise to not depend on "western" companies for anything that is in the national interest.

This was shown with the payment processor suspension early in the Ukraine crisis.

China is very aware of the problems this poses in the technology field and is actively trying to create it's own standards and the like and using it's huge population to push adoption. I think China will prevail in the long run primarily on demographics. If you need to sell to a billion people and the cost of doing so is adopting the national standards, I don't see businesses NOT doing business. This is particularly true if the markets in the "West" continue to either stagnate or decline. There are far more people outside of the US and Europe than there are IN these places. As the fortunes of those persons outside the "West" rise, they will be less catered to than in the past. The fact that carmakers make special China editions of their vehicles simply because the Chinese like large back seat spaces, is indicative of this.

As the US and Europe continue to meddle in the financial systems of other countries, they will increasingly figure out that being beholden to these entities is not a tenable situation.

As for France, it would be in the best interest of France to seriously reconsider following the NATO line on this. Russia is not the threat to be worried about. ISIS and the french citizens who will be returning from there (as well as the ones already IN France) is an actual concern.

These "Leaders" Don't Really Care

I've been telling anyone who will listen that the folks who are trying to get press on Ferguson really don't care about black folks. Here's some proof:

e. Cook is also frustrated because she recently reached out to community leaders to participate in her annual march against crime and got no response.

‘What angers me the most is the community leaders, religions leaders where were you when I sent you an email to march with us it hurts. We are all hurting since we don`t have our children anymore.’ Said Cook

No response.

The Example Of Camden

In the past we posted on the alarming crime statistics in Camden NJ. In light of the recent events in Ferguson it is of interest to read the latest out of that city.

CAMDEN, N.J. — In the summer of 2012, the year this city broke its own record for homicides, there were 21 people murdered here. This summer, there were six.

Mind you that six is still high and only accounts for the summer months but we also know that summertime is the high season for gun crimes.

Just as remarkably, with shootings down 43 percent in two years, and violent crime down 22 percent, Osvaldo Fernandez now lets his sons walk to school alone. Nancy Torres abandoned plans to move to Florida. And parents from Center City Philadelphia are bringing their children here — notoriously one of the nation’s poorest, most crime-ridden cities — to play in a Little League that has grown to 500 players from 150 in its first season three years ago.

Large drops. How did this happen? National Action Network? NAACP? Urban League? No. No and no.

ispensing with expensive work rules, the new force hired more officers within the same budget — 411, up from about 250. It hired civilians to use crime-fighting technology it had never had the staff for. And it has tightened alliances with federal agencies to remove one of the largest drug rings from city streets.[My emphasis]

As mentioned in the past when we look at the sequential equation we find that the +i;+s;.... is the order in which national change happens. The intellectual transformation informs the social transformation of society. Crime and the criminal mindset are of the -i;-s; etc. When the black community has high levels of crime it negatively affects the social fabric of those communities. Thus a HIGH priority has to be set to disrupting the -i, in this case drug rings and the associated violence.

Average response time is now 4.4 minutes, down from more than 60 minutes, and about half the average in many other cities. The number of open-air drug markets has been cut nearly in half.

These actions signal a non tolerance of the criminal class. Non-tolerance of the criminal class yields results. Every time.

In June and July, the city went 40 days without a homicide — unheard-of in a Camden summer.

And by coincidence is around the average for homicides of whites in St. Louis is 2013.

“We’re not going to do this by militarizing streets,” Chief Thomson said. Instead, he sent officers to knock on doors and ask residents their concerns. He lets community leaders monitor surveillance cameras from their home computers to help watch for developing crime.

Firstly, I am of the opinion that the surveillance state is a militarized state. I also think that the reference to "militarizing streets" is a political point getter to reference Ferguson. I'd like to see how it works if a riot happens in Camden.

Secondly, again we have the "community leaders" doing their part to not tolerate the actions of the criminal class. This is a part of the +I.

Chief Thomson’s theory is that in a city of 77,000, there are thousands more well-intentioned people than bad, and that the police must enlist them to take back the streets.

This is not a theory. It is a fact. The Ghost has been saying this for over a decade right here. The Black community is in certain places under siege by a small minority of people who have been allowed to negatively transform the communities they live and "put in work" in. Once the majority of people stop tolerating their activities and presence there would be huge changes.

Dealers sold drugs in plain sight of surveillance cameras, confident the police would not intervene. Residents, too, had largely given up on the police; microphones recording gunshots in the worst neighborhoods showed that 30 percent went unreported.

This quote is out of order but highlights what I mean by "tolerating the criminal class and their behavior".

“For a city to be prosperous, it needs to be safe and busy,” he said. “The police are a variable in that equation, but we are just one variable.”

Duh Factor? 10.

“It’s absolutely a different place,” said Tim Gallagher, a social worker who works with students. “You feel safe walking the streets now. The police officers aren’t afraid to come out of their cars and interact with the community, and that’s changed how people feel about them.”

Police should never be afraid to "come out of their cars and interact with the community". The state should never be afraid to govern. Any so called self-proclaimed nationalist who thinks otherwise is not worthy of the title.

The increased police presence has pushed drug dealing off the streets, and as a result, pushed a majority of homicides inside — and random gunfire away from children playing on sidewalks.

In other words, on the street, off the cuff, "you stepped on my shoe" violence dropped because it was clear that the community (state) was not having it anymore. And the "'cause I thought I could get away with it" thinking made it clear that such disputes weren't worth it after all...kinda like how the rest of us think without police being around.

And since we mentioned the NAACP, what was the local NAACP person saying?

“Why should I believe that 250 rookies are going to be more effective than veteran police officers we had before?” asked Colandus Francis, who heads the local N.A.A.C.P.

It's not the rookie, it's the signal the presence of the state sends. Of course if the NAACP was a true nationalist organization it's officers would know this. But the NAACP is not so orientated.

He, like others, accuses the police of harassment, for pulling over cars for having tinted windows or playing loud music, or for rolling through stop signs. But Eulisis Delgado, who protested the new force for months before it began, now says residents should be grateful. “It’s almost like a normal town,” he said. “You do something bad, they are going to stop you.”

Like I posted yesterday. Captain Lock was right. Can't think but five minutes in front of your face. The "harassment" will go down once the state has regained control over the violence. Once the community has regained control over the criminal class. Then that goes down. And face it. since Camden is mostly black, it's not racial profiling, so....

Lets see how long this lasts. I hope it is permanent. It can be done. I say again: It can be done. But it won't be done with the usual complaining suspects out for political points and their white enablers trying to distract us, black folks, from what has to be done.

Commander Lock Was Right

You all can't think but five minutes in front of your face.

This is one of my favorite lines in The Matrix. My favorite being the commentary about cause and effect. But this line so encapsulates one of the many things that went wrong in Ferguson last month.

Apparently there are some folks in Ferguson who think that the business owners they looted and/or burnt out of business have to come back and provide for them.

CBS interviewed three young men in Ferguson, Missouri this week. One protester Gunny warned officials:

“To be honest, if they don’t come and restore these neighborhoods for these people, like when you gotta go travel miles to Walmart and to get gas and stuff like that, it should be right here. If they don’t restore this community for people who stay here it’s gonna be hell to pay…

A second protester chimed in:

Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs.

Whenever you hear someone talk about white flight as THE CAUSE of lack of certain businesses and jobs in what became a black neighborhood, you look right at the above quite and see it for the lie that it is. White flight is a product of the above attitude.

First of all, if these fellows were so concerned about how far the food and gasoline is, why. The.Fuck did they look and burn the places they prefer to go to?

"Can't think but five minutes in front of your face."

And what is this "hell to pay" that they are talking about? Tell me dear reader, would you open up a business somewhere where the residents make open threats about how they think you should run YOUR business?

And being the Garveyite that I am I must ask: Why haven't the black folks stepped in and provided these apparently necessary and desired businesses themselves? Why are our youth on video threatening [presumably] non-black folks to provide for them

And lets look at that last part:

Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs.

Oh. So it wasn't about Mike Brown. I did say that a long time ago didn't I? Oh right, that was me channelling old white southern folks. Let me suggest that one of the absolute worst ways to show folks that you have the goods for gainful, non-dead end employment, is looting.

Think about it. You loot a store. You get shown on video. Later you go wherever the employment is and either someone recognizes you OR once they see "Ferguson" your resume, if you have one, is tossed in the garbage. And when you get that "ok sir, we'll call you if we have any openings." You'll know it's because your dumb ass looted.

When the sign says "help wanted" but "They'll call you..." Yeah you know the deal.

Should that happen? Nope. But those who own the businesses make the rules. You can make all the threats you want but know that the only reason anyone is going to open [back] a business that was burnt and looted is because they can make a profit. That they can siphon money out of that community into their own. And there you are begging for it and some of these folks have the nerve to fly the red black and green.

"Can't think but five minutes in front of your face"