The Left Goes All In On Ending Air Passenger Safety

Last week I posted on how the left has gone all in on the concept of black inferiority. In that post I highlighted the point made by an "educator" that certain traits are inherently white which meant that their opposite was indicative of black culture:

“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”

Now there are those who may think that this is only going on in "education" but no, this concept is being pushed throughout America (and elsewhere I suppose). Today's example comes from the FAA.

The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has been running a program for the past two years to promote unqualified nonwhites as air traffic controllers (ATC), despite the ready availability of highly-qualified whites.

News of the anti-white racism emerged after a lawsuit named the government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOCC) as a co-respondent in an action launched by white ATCs against the FAA.

For those put off by the language used in the linked piece, please get over yourself. The point isn't the language it is WHAT is being done. Pay attention. Air Traffic controllers are the people who essentially direct all air traffic. If they mess up, you die either in the air or on the ground. If they don't mess up tooo badly you get million dollar damage to airplanes. In other words, this is a profession where a typo, missed decimal point and lack of attention to detail doesn't just result in a need for a retraction or reprint, but could end up killing people. You would think that of any profession, an Air Traffic Controller would be immune from dumb diversity experiments. You'd think.

According to the claim, filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the original test, known as AT-SAT, tested for “characteristics needed to effectively perform as an air traffic controller. The characteristics include numeric ability, prioritization, planning, tolerance for high intensity, decisiveness, visualization, problem-solving, and movement.”

Beginning in 1995, the FAA collaborated with universities and colleges to create accredited degree programs in diverse Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI) schools.

“Then, the FAA gave a hiring preference to veterans, those with CTI program degrees, references from CTI administrators, and ‘well qualified’ rankings on the challenging Air Traffic Selection and Training exam (AT-SAT)—a validated, proctored, eight-hour, computer-based test,” the MSLF said.

You'll see that the test reflected the requirements of the job. You'll also note that those requirements are, per the preceding quote to be "white supremacist".

But on December 30, 2013, the FAA announced that it was eliminating the test to transform the agency into “a more diverse and inclusive workplace.” The announcement was “accompanied by a suspect analysis that purported to show women and minorities as ‘underrepresented’ in those the FAA hired,” the MSL statement continued. The old AT-SAT test was replaced with a “Biological Questionnaire,” which contained questions such as “The number of high school sports I participated in was . . .”; “How would you describe your ideal job?”; “What has been the major cause of your failures?” and, “More classmates would remember me as humble or dominant?”

What exactly do these things have to do with the job? This is not the first time such things have been done. See the New Haven Firefighter suit Lefties are willing to put your safety at risk in order to push their programs. I am all for hiring people who are qualified and if a company wants to diversify their workforce, no problem, well some problem but only ideologically in terms of brain drain, but there ought never be a lowering of standards to get there. Lowering of standards is an admission of black inferiority. If you don't believe in it, then you don't lower the standards for work.

Left Goes All In On Black Inferiority

I'm going to let you the reader in on a secret: I'm old. I'm old enough to have done a thing called research and study before becoming the Pan-Africanist that I am. Oh, you didn't know I was a Pan-Africanist? Well if that surprises you the reader, it is either because you're new and have no clue who Garvey is or you're an old reader and don't know who Garvey is. Now I say that because as an old timer, I know that in days of old things like segregation and assumed black inferiority were things that lefty black people did not like. So it is of little amusement to see lefty blacks being at the forefront of the New Segregation movement (Safe Spaces) as well as the New Black Inferiority movement. Indeed blacks have so approved these things that lefty whites are now able to make clear arguments of black inferiority that haven't been seen since the high days of Jim Crow. These arguments have reared their head in the so called 17th Annual White Privilege Conference that was held in Philadelphia.

At this conference one masculine looking Heather Hackman opined:

“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”

So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.

I have read such ideas about black people that goes back to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. That no one in Hackman's circle even paused and said: Umm, you know this sounds awfully familiar shows that these people have simply not done the research.

Hackman said when she was a professor, she freely employed these methods with her own students. She once let a student complete an essay assignment as a graphic novel, and allowed students to write in non-standard English or even foreign languages she herself couldn’t read.

Meaning this "woman" decided to not do her job. It's one thing to have a command of English but have issues with grammar and spelling (things that happen here often). It's entirely different to simply allow students to not master the language at all because you're trying to make a racial point.

Here's a quick example of how full of shit Hackman is. Imagine that the organization that was responsible for landing a probe on a fast moving comet ran under the ideology of Hackman. In order to land that probe you have to be on time, which means being disciplined. It takes mastering mathematics and putting in a lot of work to design the probe. This takes hard work, discipline and rigor. You can't be late with the landing because you'll miss the comet and/or destroy the probe. In other words it is impossible to master high tech or to run a highly technological society without the so called "narrative of white".

Welcome to the New Left Crow and the new White Supremacy movement.

Evidence For Welsing's Isis Papers?

Another perhaps special, instance of the use of projection is the historic and continuing desire of whites for sexual alliances with non-whites- a desire indulged by white males throughout the world. This deep desire has been projected onto Black males and females, and is manifest in the notion that people of color have sexual desires for white males and females. The Color-Confrontation theory postulates that whites desired and still do desire sexual alliances with non-whites, both male and female, because it is only through this route that whites can achieve the illusion of being able to produce color. The extreme rage vented against even the idea of a sexual alliance between the Black male and the white female, which has long been a dominant theme in the white supremacy culture, is viewed by the Color Confrontation theory as a result of the white male's intense fear of the Black male's capacity to fulfill the greatest longing of the white female- that of conceiving and birthing a product of color. [My underlines]

At another level, white male homosexuality may be viewed as the symbolic attempt to incorporate into the white male body more male substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen, or by having male ejaculate deposited in the other end of the alimentary canal. Though anal intercourse, the self debasing white male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is fecal matter. This fantasy is significant for white males because males who are able to produce skin color are viewed as the real men. [My underlines]

The Isis Papers Before I enter into why I provided the above quotes I want to address the second quote. If we take the above quote seriously then it should be suggested that this applies not only to homosexual white men but to heterosexual ones as well. In the example I'm going to provide we will see that anal sex is not (or no longer) necessary for the "fantasy". Now for the example:

Wife gets black baby jackpot. Him is cucked.

Start with the headline:

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

What rational reason would there be for a white couple to give birth to black triplets. And lets leave aside that until very recently such an act would have been impossible. What deep underlying psychosis would cause this couple to spend the money it takes to secure and implant the offspring of some other couple?

This past Sunday, my gorgeous wife – a white evangelical, like me — gave birth to our beautiful African-American triplet daughters whom we adopted as embryos.

Adopted? Children are adopted. Embryos are bought and sold.

These sweet girls will hopefully soon be coming home to meet their 3-year-old African-American brother and 2-year-old biracial sister, both of whom we adopted as infants.

So this is a habit then...

I grew up as a child of evangelical missionaries in Honduras, very aware of racial diversity because I was the blue-eyed, cotton-topped white kid who stuck out like a sore thumb, but all the while felt deeply connected to the people there, even though we looked very different.

If you got this far and still thought the opening quotes were at a minimum "offensive", you might want to go back and read it again.

My wife, on the other hand, grew up in the delta of Mississippi and it wasn’t until she took a few trips to Haiti that the veil of racial prejudice was lifted from her eyes. One of the central themes of Christianity is, after all, that God, through His Son, is calling people from every tongue, tribe and nation.

I missed the part of the Bible that called for seed carrying.

When we were still dating, a common bond that drew us together was the fact that Rachel and I both wanted to adopt. While we were fertile, we were both deeply convicted that one of the ways to be pro-life is to involve ourselves in adoption.

Lets assume the above is truthful in terms of the outward conversation. Given what we've read so far, I believe the entire "pro life" and Christian angle is a cover for a deep desire on the wife's part to have black babies, as is done by high profile celebrities. On his part his desire to be seen as fathers of black babies is so strong that he is willing to cuck himself (apparently without the sexual intercourse) to raise the seed of other people.

Knowing that it is often more challenging to find adoptive homes in the United States for non-Caucasian children we informed the agency that we were willing to accept any child except a fully Caucasian child.

Uh huh...

We did this with the deeply held conviction that if the Lord wanted us to have a fully Caucasian child my wife would conceive naturally.

Uh huh....You'll note this is the only time "natural conception" is discussed. No one even bothered to ask them if they tried to have their own children.

There is something beautiful and enriching being the only white face sitting and chatting with some of my African-American friends as my son gets his hair cut on a Saturday morning. There is also something wonderful in the relationship that is built as my wife asks a black friend on Facebook how to care for our little biracial daughter’s hair.

Per the opening quotes: Mission accomplished!

I felt sheer delight during this pregnancy watching my son and daughter, with his dark brown skin and her with the ringlet hair and slightly tan skin, kiss my white wife’s growing belly. Each evening they said good night to those three growing little girls in her belly, and now they get to finally say sweet dreams to their baby sisters — face-to-adorable-face.

Did I step into a fetish magazine? Seriously though, how can this not be a textbook example of what I quoted above? HOw is this not using, to take a popular phrase, black bodies in order to salve deep seated genetic self-hatred? The delight at knowing black bodies were growing in his wife's belly (which I assume he had his penis near at some point closely timed to implantation).

I can remember a friend going through the adoption process telling me he had always wanted his family to look like a little United Nations.

This is telling us that this is not just one person. I will remind the reader that most interracial marriages/breeding that involve black people are in the form of black male and white female. And that incidence has grown to about 30% (whereas in the 1970's or so, it was maybe 5%). At the very least we can respect those that don't cover up their desires with "Pro life" and "Christian" values. But these people are examples that makes the Isis Papers not something you can just dismiss out of hand (though it does contain some items that are factually wrong among other things).

Compelling Behaviour

In my lifetime I have watched society move from “get government out of my vagina” to “put government in my vagina”. For those who don't understand this means going from legalizing abortion under the argument that the body is a person's property and they have privacy rights as to what they do with it (out of my vagina) to make a law that makes other people pay for my birth control so I don't have to pay for it (government in my vagina- and your wallet).

I have watched society move from “leave us alone and stop criminalizing our private behavior” to “compel other people to participate in our private behavior (weddings) and advocate for us (like us or else...)”.

I have watched society move from “don't push your beliefs on me” to “I will have the government force my beliefs on you.” The latest being the so called “religious freedom” laws that have been passed, modified and sometimes repealed by various states. The very fact that there needs to be “religious freedom laws” in a country where the sovereign law of the land explicitly protects religious freedom to exercise (live your faith) from any action by government with very slim exceptions is a sign of just how bad US society has gotten. What is worse is that one has to even retreat into a “religious argument” for things that should be “common sense” or what for generations was understood by all. However when you no longer have a common national culture, you cannot have "common sense". So lets get into the latest nonsense.

Declining to serve a person is not the same as declining to perform a specific service. One would think that the above statement is self explanatory but it isn't for a lot of people. I'll give two examples of the former that is and should be illegal (with a few exceptions) I'm going to use race here since a lot of people try to do the "what happened to black people is the same" argument:

1) Black persons enter an eatery. Owner or employees of the eatery announce that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This is and should be illegal. You are declining to perform any service whatsoever to the persons simply based on who they are. There is no “black” way to cook eggs and make coffee. There is no endorsement of behavior by serving eggs and coffee to a person who is black. 2) Homosexual person comes into an eatery. Owner or employee announces that they do not serve their kind at all and to get out. This should be illegal. Except in very rare cases, usually in reaction to a new outrage, this is not happening. Again, there is no different "homo coffee" or "homo eggs".

What Is Happening

A homosexual couple enters a store asking them to provide a service for their wedding. They tell the owner of the business that it is a same sex couple (something that couldn't even happen prior to 2000AD). Owner declines to perform that service. Couple gets upset because the owner is not approving of their behavior. You'll note that the owner did not decline to serve the homosexual couple. They declined to perform a specifics service. Why isn't this discrimination against a person? Easy. Lets change nothing except for WHO asks for the service.

A heterosexual person enters the store and asks for service for a wedding for a same sex couple who has contracted or otherwise agreed to have the heterosexual person plan for them. The owner declines to perform that service. Who has been discriminated against? It cannot be the heterosexual person who inquired about the service. He (or she) received the same response. The homosexual couple who the heterosexual person was inquiring for hasn't been discriminated against, they aren't the contracting party. They aren't even present.

Now lets twist this some more. Say a homosexual person goes to a store for service for a heterosexual couple's wedding. The store owner agrees to service the wedding. There is no discrimination. Again we note that this is about the service being requested and not the person requesting the service.

It should be clear then that what these activists are demanding is that the government force businesses to conduct business it doesn't want to engage in. As far as I know that is unprecedented in US history. Yes, the government has forced businesses to do business with persons which they did not want to do business with. But never before has there been an attempt to force businesses to engage in business they do not provide. Not only does this violate religious freedom it violates the rights of people to associate with or not associate.

The Hole Goes Deeper

On top of the nonsense described above, we have a new push to normalize gender disphoria. What is most pernicious about this is that not only do the proponents want to force people to associate with behaviors they do not agree with, they are telling people to actually believe in a non-truth. And they are willing to use the state monopoly on legalized violence to do so.

NY City passed a law that punishes any business where the owners or employees refer to an actual male or actual female as something other than what this actual male or female believes itself to be. Per Snopes:

According to the new guidelines, the commission can impose civil penalties of up to $125,000 for violations of the law and (in extreme circumstances) of up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of "willful, wanton, or malicious" conduct.

And what is “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct”?

Examples of Violations a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman "him" or "Mr." after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

So though Snopes is out to discredit reports that NYC will fine you for correctly identifying a male as a male, it establishes that NYC will in fact do so. Basically it's saying “We're going to give you till the count of ten to say there are 5 lights and then we'll drop this hammer on you.”

Speaking the truth and telling facts is now “willful, wanton or malicious conduct”. The rabbit hole has gotten a mile deeper.

Lest you think that I'm overstating things in regards to state violence, I will remind the reader that Eric Garner was killed due to laws against selling loose cigarettes. Whether you agree that it was a choke hold that killed him or not, the fact is that ultimately the state may use violence to enforce any law it wishes. If they will kill Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes* then what will stop the NYPD from killing a citizen who declines to lie about someone's gender OR pay the fine or appear in court over it?

Look, I could care less what a man or woman thinks they are. I don't care what they do in their home. I don't care, mostly, what they do in the street. I don't care what they do with their friends. I do care when the state tries to coerce me into playing the game. Again, at no time prior to now did the state ever even consider that it could tell citizens to actively participate in a lie under penalty of law. ---- *It can be argued that Garner was killed for resisting arrest. This is a valid argument insofar as you remove the reason for the initial contact. However it must be understood that Garner would be alive today or at least had died under different circumstances if the law against selling "untaxed loosies" did not exist.

BLM Representative Once Again Misrepresents Black on Black Crime

As is de rigueur for those in the BLM movement, yet another representative tried to deflect attention from the largest single threat to black lives: Other black people. First we have the black people hold no responsibility argument:

Black Lives Matter DC Core Organizer Aaron Goggans stated that “It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men. It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people” and “it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth” on Thursday’s “CNN Newsroom.”

You see, all that black crime, headed to levels not seen since the early 90's? That's all the white man's system that is making black people kill each other when they are not being killed by police. Black people are so dumb that they are unable to see this system for what it is and therefore are unable to beat said system. Black people are just too dumb to win.

Goggans said, “Well, it’s important to talk about the myth of black-on-black crime as just that, a myth. Any Google search of the term can come up a lot of different articles.

Including mine.

He added that while he wasn’t saying black-on-black crime isn’t a problem, “I’m saying that that intercommunity crime happens in all communities across the country, and it is a problem that the movement of Black Lives is focusing on.

Oh it's IS a problem? How big of a problem? Oh the same as "all communities"? Apparenlty Goggans didn't read my article because he'd realize that the issue isn't whether crime occurs in communities, it is the AMOUNT of crime, particularly murders that happens in black communities relative to these other communities. If black crime was in proportion to it's population this conversation wouldn't be had.

The movement of Black Lives is also focusing on state-sanctioned violence, which is a different thing. It’s not just a few white cops killing a few unarmed black men.

Actually the data shows that it is a "few" white cops killing a "few" unarmed black men.

It’s actually the state systematically creating up systems that are killing black people, both women, black children, black men, black queer, black trans, and black gender nonconfroming folks.”

Because black people have no agency and therefore no responsibility for their actions.

Goggans further stated, “There are many folks on the ground in Chicago who are doing great work. You can look at The Interrupters.

Outfits like The Interrupters have been around prior to BLM. Where were all these folks when people like The Interrupters were doing the hard work of directly confronting those who are committing the violence against black people?

It’s important that we talk about how the police are used in black communities.

Police go where the crime is. So if this joker spent his time with The Interrupters then he'd be directly addressing the presence of police. I know this is hard stuff to understand though.

It’s important that we talk about, like in Flint, for instance, you have both the state and federal government refusing to govern, and refusing actually take care of the black community there.”

Is this a good time to point out that the Flint City Council is practically all black? And the guy who made the decision that lead to the lead problem is black? No? Let me know when we can discuss the failure of the black city council to govern and "take care of the black community there". I suppose those city council members were duped by "the system" too.

Goggans also argued, “I think we need to fight all the forms of injustice that [the] black community face[s]. And I think you can’t use black on black crime, or this myth that somehow white people are not also killing white people to obfuscate from the fact that the state is killing black people in America.”

Again, the issue is not whether white people kill each other (they do). The issue is the rates of killing as a proportion of the population. And the state (meaning police, assuming he means that) actually kills more white people in America than it does blacks. But you'd have to do that thing called research to know this.

As if 2008 Never Happened

I was shocked. Really, when I read the following from the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

This is what happens when people believe their own hype. The whole "To big to fail" was the last stage of the cancer that dumped the economy in 2008, the first, foundational stage was the granting of mortgages to people who could not afford them or were too damn irresponsible to pay for them. The no income verification loans. The only 5% or whatever down loans. It's as if there is a class of "leadership" who think people get bad credit by accident.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

Hey look. If you're young, you probably haven't gained enough gainful employment to have saved a downpayment. Also in this society if you're young you are probably wasting loads of money "hanging out" rather than finding a spouse, living together and saving together which is the fastest way to build wealth. To the "credit weakened by the recession" point, if your credit is bad because of the 2008 recession, that sucks, but you don't get to get a house on shaky grounds because of it. If you can't recover you stay in the land of renters. As it should be. That doesn't make 'em bad people, just bad risks.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

You mean the taxpayer should be on the hook again for mortgages handed out to people who shouldn't get them? Did 2008 NOT EVER HAPPEN?

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Essentially they want to legalize what is now considered mortgage fraud and predatory lending? Really?

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

As others in the blogosphere have pointed out, wasn't the point of uniform rules to get rid of discrimination that having "subjective judgment" enabled?

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

Which is what lenders are (or ought to be) doing now. Those persons who have fucked up their credit or by circumstances beyond their control have messed up credit lose out. It happens. Life is not fair.

“If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,”

Anyone who is "low income" ought not even be asked about home ownership. Low income persons shouldn't be looking to get into a mortgage. Low income persons ought to be looking into increasing their income. And there are plenty of people in "communities of color" who are and have been buying houses. They aren't "low income". Yes those people of color exist.

“It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”

I repeat: Low income people ought not even HAVE a mortgage much less refinancing one.

But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.

I had no idea anything below 700 was considered "respectable" when looking to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that takes quite a bit to maintain.

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,”

Now I will agree with this. Asking for 25% down is too much. With decent houses in some locations easily going to 300-400k, 25% is 60-100K. That is very hard to save for many people.

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent.

Credit score of 500? I wouldn't lend someone with that score 5 bucks much less a couple hundred thousand. No. They need to up that credit to 650 minimum. And I'm not even comfortable with that. I also think 3.5% is too little. 10% should be the line.

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”

Guess what? The borrower's ability and responsibility to pay is reflected in their credit score. The only mitigating circumstance would be medical emergencies and identity theft which includes parents and other relatives using ones identity when one is a child.

It's really sad to see these government folks disregard the 2008 financial crisis in their zeal to enact some social justice program.

Naratives Even Stupidify The Allegedly Bright

One very hard lesson I learned over the past couple of years is that when one is invested in a narrative one becomes willingly blind to information that contradicts it. Even worse is that people who are of above average intelligence, will often fall into this trap. The overriding reasons being that since they know they are smart their narrative could not possibly be wrong. If anything those people who hold a differing view are the ones who are "not so bright". And of course there is the aversion to labels such as racist, sexist, uncle tom, sellout, etc, which can put a rather heavy wet blanket on one's social (and employment) life.

Universities are fast becoming places of indoctrination rather than places of critical thinking and the pursuit of facts. The students who graduate from these places are therefore ill equipped to deal critically with subjects to which they have been indoctrinated to think of in a certain way. Today's example comes from Stanford.

In an article about a Stanford grad who supports the Black Lives Matter movement we see the effects that this indoctrination has on bright motivated persons:

As Florida and the rest of world watched George Zimmerman walk away scot-free after a jury acquitted him of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, a still-troubled nation questioned whether race played a role in the teenager’s death.

So far so good. Race (and gender) did in fact have a large role in the death of Trayvon.

But for Samuel Sinyangwe, it was clear. The Stanford University graduate, who was living in San Francisco during that summer of 2013, remembered growing up as a black child in Orlando’s College Park neighborhood.

I put this here because I want the reader to know that the person at the focus of the article is not simply your average person on the street. This is a person who has graduated from a top tier university in the United States. We should expect that such persons would have higher than average analytical skills than your average person. We're talking people with IQ's over 110, with many over 120. These are the very people who should be asking the tough questions.

And like Martin did on that fateful night of Feb. 26, 2012, Sinyangwe would stop by a 7-Eleven on his way home from school to pick up an Arizona sweet tea and a pack of Starburst or Skittles.

“I was not physically in Orlando, but it hit me very hard,” Sinyangwe, 25, says. “I was that kid. I could have been Trayvon. That’s why it hit me so personally and that’s why I realized that needed to be something that took the priority in terms of my focus.”

While the media made the Skittles and Arizona sweet tea a part of the story, it was not relevant to the story any further than Trayvon had one hand in his pocket to hold those items. As the record shows, Zimmerman was far more concerned with the hood on Trayvon's head and that he was walking around "looking at houses".

But what this part shows is that we are dealing with emotive narratives rather than facts. It would have made no difference had Martin simply been out for a walk or had just gotten off a bus. He was attacked and killed for who he was and where his "who" was.

Because he felt such a connection with Martin, Zimmerman’s acquittal also had a second effect on Sinyangwe – it radicalized him and refocused his work as a data scientist on issues of state violence and police violence.

Since Trayvon was not killed by police how did Sinyangwe come to this particular conclusion? While I certainly had major issues with the jury decision given the facts of the case, it was the state that failed to prove it's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is not state violence. It is very dangerous to declare outcomes we don't approve of as "violence". This is a particularly nasty habit of left leaning groups.

So when Michael Brown, a black 18-year-old, was shot and killed by a white police officer and left on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, for four hours in 2014, Sinyangwe knew what he had to do.

You mean wait for the investigation to occur? To perhaps go there and interview witnesses? Get a hold of forensic evidence? Oh no. Sorry. I these would be the actions of high IQ persons who understands the value of impartial investigation. Had he done any of that, he would have discovered that the reason that Brown's body was laying out for so long was due to the crowds of people, some armed and letting of shots, that had surrounded the scene. The ME was actually on scene and unable to get to the body because police feared for their safety.

How is it that years after this information is known do we still have people and publications fronting a proven lie?

Also, we should note that Sinyangwe failed to identify with Brown's trip to the store. I wonder why that is.

As they were working to understand the issues surrounding Brown’s death and the deaths of other African-Americans at the hands of police officers, they discovered something puzzling. The federal government did not have a comprehensive national database of people killed by police. Even more troubling, what the federal government was reporting severely undercounted the number of people killed by police by a margin of 2 to 1, Sinyangwe says.

Did it occur to either one of these fellows to take a look at the FBI crime statistics?

In the two years since Brown's death, Sinyangwe and a group of activists created Campaign Zero, a platform that presents comprehensive policy solutions in the hopes of getting the number of people killed by officers to zero. Before any policy solutions, though, they had to know where they stood. Using data, they tried to find the elusive answer to the question: How many people have police killed and why? [my underlines]

Per underlined portion: In what fantasy world do these people live in where they think that in a country which has the highest murder rates of any industrialized countries (perhaps excepting Russia, I haven't checked) would not have even a single person killed by police? In what fantasy world do they live in where police are not shot at, stabbed, etc.? Do these people actually believe that a police officer should allow him or herself to be shot just so the perp can't be shot?

The FBI reported that law enforcement officers across the country had justifiably killed 426 people in 2012. In the same year, D. Brian Burghart discovered that wasn't true.

Using public records, online articles and crowdsourcing, Burghart found that in 2013, 1,271 people were killed during interactions with police. In 2014, that number increased to 1,295, and by 2015, it was 1,299. From 2008 to 2014, the average number of people killed by police was around 419 people per year, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Why the discrepancy?

Burghart says he found through his work that the data collected by the FBI was only coming from a fraction of police departments across the country. The Wall Street Journal says it found in a 2014 investigation that "among 105 of the largest police departments in the country, about 45 percent of killings by officers went unreported to the [FBI] between 2007 and 2012. Currently, reporting is optional and records from nearly every agency in three large states, Florida, New York and Illinois, aren't in the FBI's data."

This is important, but not for the reasons Burghart or the Orlando Weekly thinks. If the actual numbers of those killed by police is much higher than 412 or 426 then it means that the level of criminal activity is being underreported by the state. If anything the state is giving a false impression of safety. If data from places like NY and Illinois are missing, particularly with the huge spikes in shootings in Chicago that we've seen this year so far, one should wonder just how much criminal activity that involves firearms has really been going on.

The end result: Mapping Police Violence, a website that breaks down the data into visualizations any reader can understand. The group found that out of the 1,152 people killed by police officers in 2015, 336 of those people were black. African-Americans made up about 30 percent of the number of people killed, despite being 13.2 percent of the U.S. population.

Ahh the other sleight of hand used by those on the left:

Blacks are 13% of the population and therefore should be 13% of every and anything else, except basketball, football and Hip-Hop.

The crime statistics show however that black people commit certain offenses, particularly assaults (with and without firearms) at 7x the rate of the white population and way out of proportion of their US population. Furthermore since it is black males who are usually on the giving and receiving end of said violence we have to realize that it is really less than 6% of the US population that is responsible for huge numbers of homicides and shootings. This is not in dispute. It is known by the FBI and any and all law enforcement communities. But these facts do not make an appearance and those pushing these 13% arguments hope that the readers will not notice them. If the reader does notice these facts then the facts are deemed racist as is the person who points them out. The perfect circle of indoctrination.

The FDLE typically has a 98 to 99 percent participation rate among the state's law enforcement agencies. In 2015, FDLE reported 56 people had been justifiably killed by an officer, according to a supplemental homicide report. In the same WSJ investigation, the publication found Florida had not participated in the FBI's national tally since 1996. Orlando Police Chief John Mina says from 2010 to 2015, 11 people have been involved in fatal officer-involved shootings and three people have died while in OPD custody. All 14 are men, and out of those, 10 are black and four are white.

Say John Mina, what percentage of those committing crimes in Orlando are black and how many of them are white? Here's the City Data report on crime in Orlando. Here is a link to the demographic info where we find black people are 70% of the population which "coincidentally" reflects the "death by police" demographics.

Sinyangwe says he spoke with OPD officials about their use-of-force policy and recommended changes, specifically in regard to the policy that authorizes officers to hog-tie people, also known as the four-point restraint, and another policy that allows officers to shoot at moving vehicles.

Sinyangwe should have been hung up on, escorted out the building or never given an appointment in the first place.

Mapping Police Violence found the homicide rate for black people by police in Orlando was almost double the amount than for all races in 2014. New York and Florida have similar size populations, but three times as many people are killed by police in the Sunshine State than in New York.

Again with the relevant questions: What is the overall crime rate of black people in Orlando relative to other races? In particular what are the rates of crime by black suspects in which those suspects had weapons? Second question: Since we see that in places like NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, etc., as the temps rise the murder rates soar. If shootings are more likely to happen in 'warm/hot weather, which Florida has in spades, wouldn't that be a better predictor of levels of violence in Florida relative to NY?

"We pay our tax dollars to the police to protect and serve us," Sinyangwe says. "It's their job to do that. So they should take personal responsibility in upholding and performing their job with the level of quality that is in line with what the citizenry demands."

Actually courts have ruled that police are in fact not for our "service" or "protection".

Almost 121 years ago, journalist and advocate Ida B. Wells published The Red Record, a 100-page pamphlet that includes statistics on three years of American lynchings.

Awwww shit. They broke out with thy lynchings! New low.

From the end of the Civil War in the 19th century to the 1950s, thousands of African-Americans, mostly men, were lynched in Southern states, according to a recent report from the Equal Justice Initiative.

Not to minimize the very real terrorism that lynching represented, but we should realize that the number of black people who kill each other over dumb shit far exceeds the total number of persons lynched in the US. As an aside, I find it highly ironic that many of the people who would use this lynching argument have no problems with automatically believing a woman who claims she was raped or other claims of sexual assault. Many of those same persons will disregard jury findings of innocence. Talk about lynch mobs!

A Pew Research Center poll from last year said 59 percent of Americans now believe changes are needed to give African-Americans equal rights, up from the 46 percent of Americans who responded to a Pew poll in 2014.

Did this Pew poll follow up with a question as to what specific rights black people do not have that are enjoyed by the rest of the population?

Matthew Nichter, a historical sociologist who works as a professor at Rollins College, says Mapping Police Violence, the work of Ida B. Wells, and data collection by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's research department during the Civil Rights Movement all represent an effort to prove to critics that black people aren't exaggerating when they talk about institutional violence, and that the deaths of Brown, Sandra Bland and Eric Garner weren't just caused by officers who were "bad apples."

Lets get a few things out of the way:

Michael Brown robbed a store and assaulted the manager in the process. This he admitted to his friend. He then assaulted a police officer allegedly because he didn't care for the way he was spoken to. Eyewitnesses say that Brown rushed the officer when he was shot. How is that even a case of "bad apples"?

Sandra Bland should not have been stopped by the state trooper. The trooper clearly arrested Bland because he didn't care for her honest reply to his asinine question. However; Bland killed herself. Furthermore she killed herself after her family did NOTHING to help her get out of jail (all she asked for was $500). Bland and Bland alone is responsible for her death so how is that "bad apples"?

Eric Garner is the only listed case where we can discuss "bad apples". We can also discuss NYS cigarette tax enforcement and the ban on selling loosies as a way to "protect the children".

If you look at surveys of people, white versus black, white folks tend to perceive police as the guys who come get your cat out of a tree," he says. "I think that's why data is so critical. There's widespread obliviousness on the part of the white majority because we still live in such a segregated society. The experience we have in the suburbs is different than police presence in urban black areas."

Does Matthew Nichter have any idea why white folks in suburbs generally see police as those who "come get your cat out of a tree" rather than "Oh shit! Po-po!"? I'll give him a clue. In largely white communities there is very little violent crime. Police literally have nothing to do all day except drive around, hand out traffic tickets and look at porn on their phones. There are white communities where there haven't been murders in 40 years. When murders do happen in these communities it is often either a domestic dispute that went deadly or an outsider committing a home invasion.

By contrast is many black communities there are on the street murders happening every day. You're lucky if there is a 24 hour period where someone isn't shot. This doesn't include things like theft and "simple" assaults. Just shootings. Hence it is the very actions of the people inhabiting black communities that are the cause of the differences in perceptions of police.

And this is what I mean about narrative. All the people noted in the article had invested in a narrative. You have a lynching avenue where there is no lynching. There is the segregation as explanation that fails to hold up under the lightest scrutiny. There is wholesale dismissal of relevant facts in the case of Brown and Bland. There is the total non admission of the sky high murder rates that precipitate police involvement in black communities. In this fantasy world, where police shoot nobody, these facts and observations simply do not exist. Too many "bright" people buy into this and it is literally getting people killed.