Chauncy DeVega Is Scared A White Person Will Shoot Him. I'm Not.

Chauncey DeVega is quite the paranoid person.

As a black man living in the aftermath of the Dunn and Zimmerman trials (and the data suggesting the racial bias of Stand Your Ground in practice), I am afraid that a white person will use said defense to "reasonably" decide to shoot me because of the color of my skin. A rational actor who is a person of color would choose preemption and "winning" the "game" over "losing" and being shot dead.

I wonder if Chauncey DeVega is in the habit of acting in a way that can be mistaken for threatening by your average citizen ( not police 'cause that's a whole other topic). I wonder if Chauncy is in the habit of cussing out people who ask him to turn his radio down.

But that's not even really important because Chauncey, depending on where he lives has a far greater threat to worry about: Getting shot by a black man.

Oh. I wasn't supposed to say that.

I don't know where Chauncey lives but if he lives in NYC and has done any research into the crime statistics he would know that of 209 homicides in NYC, 68% of them were committed by Black people. 27% of them by "Hispanics" who can be of any race or a mixture of any race. 8% by whites and 3% by Asians.

Lets do the math shall we? 62% of 209 is 129. 27% of 209 is 56. So between "Blacks and Hispanics" 185, or 88% of the homicides were committed by non-whites and non-Asians.

Say Chauncey who exactly should you be afraid of if you live in NY?

Oh. I wasn't supposed to point that out. I've broken the great negro code: Thou shalt not point out when we're fucking up.

61% of the homicide victims were Black and 31% were Hispanic (again can be any race or mixture thereof). That's 92% of the victims being non-white and non-Asian.

Chauncey is scared of who?

Look, if there is one thing that black folks have no business even writing it is that they are scared of being shot by white folks. The statistical odds of a black person being shot by a white person is miniscule compared to the odds that they will be shot by another black person.

What was that line Kool Moe Dee said? Yeah THAT.

Civilization or Barbarism?

Taking the title of Cheik Anta Diop's popular book, we must ask the question when we see this:

What's that, you say?

Oh that's an alleged member of the Seleka fighter who had overthrown the government (ahem…Ukraine) because of course they wanted what they wanted when they wanted it (ahem Ukraine). But this isn't about comparisons to the Ukraine. What this is about is my commentary a few months ago:

So half a globe away, in yet another black populated area of the world, French (read: white) troops are needed to restore "stability". Am I the only African bothered by this? Why is it, time after time, White folks need to be flown in to one of the places that we supposedly "run" in order to restore "stability" (among other things)?

Apparently this behavior occurred right after an alleged ceremony of national unity.

Yeah it looks like that national unity thing is starting off just swell. Let's set our watches to see when the next coup is to start.

"No Power is worth the Cost of Human Lives"

“No power is worth the cost of human lives,” Vladimir Makeyenko, the mayor of Kiev, said in a video appeal to his fellow party members and officers of the Ukrainian security forces."

Ok. How about we revisit the US Civil War and allow the South to secede.

While we're at it, Let's condemn the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt because there were plenty of dead bodies that went along with that one.

And of course we have the entire state of Israel which continues to kill Palestinians to "maintain power".

Shall the US also go and clear things up with the North Koreans? Bodies, bodies and more bodies.

How about this:

Serhiy Liovochkin, who tendered his resignation in late November, just after the first crackdown of the uprising saw police in Kiev’s Independence Square severely beat dozens of students, who had been holding a peaceful all-night vigil for integration with the European Union.

Ok. sure. So cracking down is grounds for removing a democratically elected president?

ABC Entertainment News|ABC Business News

and this:

8.36am / 3.36am ET: Police have used tear gas to remove the last protesters from the park, according to various reports. Josh Harkinson, again, appears closest to the action. He tweeted: The riot police moved in with zip cuffs and teargassed the occupiers in the food tent Then they wrestled them to the ground and cuffed them He then says he was ordered to leave by police, despite saying he was a member of the media. All press had to go a press pen, officers told him. There doesn't appear to be any media access to the final removals of protesters.

Tear gas?

Batons

I say Obama just go and resign. How about it? I mean if police are tear gassing people and shit, the president should just up and resign!

How about this:

New York court upholds eviction of Occupy protesters

Well clearly the justice system is corrupt and so Obama should just resign!

Yup. Clearly by the logic of these folks, Obama and a few judges should be removed from office immediately.

Right? Right?

Cause if the police move to break up a protest the government is definitively illigitimate.

Well if that's not how we do things here in the land where we supposedly hold democracy dear, then why are "we" providing cover for people who are clearly not interested in institutional democracy?

Seriously though, that statement makes no sense. Essentially it means that the mob can simply threaten anyone it pleases in order to get what it wants. Ukarinians will live long enough to regret the road they have walked down. When those bankers get a hold of the Ukraine, they will find out the meaning of IMF and austerity. Wait until they are under the gun of Brussels, where unelected people from various countries can step in and muck about with Ukraine's laws and economics for the interests of the bankers. They will know.

US and EU the Biggest Threats to Democracy in the Ukraine.

Quick set of question for the audience: Do you believe in Democracy? Yes? Ok.

Do you know how a democracy works? No? Ok let me explain:

In a democracy the people vote for their leaders. The leaders take their respective offices and carry out their duties as described in their laws. Sometimes those leaders make decisions that are popular and sometimes they don't. When an elected leader does something so unpopular that the people do not wish to be represented by said person they organize themselves, pick a leader that they wish to replace the discredited one with and then when elections roll around the vote for the new representative. The old one leaves office, the new one comes in and the cycle continues.

Are we clear on that?

Good.

If the EU and the United States believes in democracy, then why are they supporting non-democratic actions in the Ukraine? This is a simple question.

Democracy is not mob violence in the street. Democracy is not setting government buildings alight. Let us be very clear here: Regardless to whether the people or anyone else agrees with Yanukovych's decision to more closely align the Ukraine with Russia or with the EU, it is not proper, at all, to have violence and destruction as a means of protest. Furthermore it is entirely undemocratic to hold street demonstrations demanding the resignation of the duly elected president over such a decision. Particularly since there are mechanisms by which he can be legally and peacefully removed from office: The next election.

It is both immature and anti-democratic to think that because one wants a particular political outcome right now that one is supposed to have it. And it is very, very bad for the EU and the United States to support such immature and anti-democratic actions.

Just last year a single not too sane woman in her car with her child in the backseat was shot to death while acting erratically close to the White House. A government who's security apparatus is willing to shoot a single, unarmed (not counting the vehicle) woman to “condemn” the legitimate use of force by a legitimate government against persons who are credibly attempting a coup is the height of hypocrisy.

I said a very long time ago that by backing and creating “color revolutions” of all kinds across the globe would be a very dangerous thing. As a Pan-Africanist nationalist I know full well the dangers inherent in allowing anti-authority habits to grow in a restive population. Once the idea of organized government is discredited in the minds of the population, no subsequent government is safe from those who think that what they think is better and that they should make the change right now or else.

Most of the post-colonial wars and coups in Africa have been the result of just that kind of thinking. Once you shortcut your way to decision making, everyone else thinks they can do it too.

As it stands the greatest threat to democracy in the Ukraine is not Yanukovych, but the street protestors, the EU and the US. The US should immediately cease and desist with any and all sanctions on the legitimate government representatives of the Ukraine and distance itself from the entire mess until it is resolved between the parties in conflict. The EU and the US have no business interfering with the internal politics of that sovereign nation.

Silly De Blasio Visions of Fairy Zeros

Once again the Mayor who seeks to outlaw that which he doesn't like has declared his vision Zero for NYC. For those unfamiliar with this Vision Zero it is the high on crack cocaine and heron dream of a city with zero traffic fatalities. Yet another example of liberals who simply cannot stand any risk whatsoever, except going to school in the snow, while declaring an emergency but anyway. De Blasio says he has as his model Sweden. So being the, you know, academically inclined person I am, I went to look at what is going on in Sweden

Ten years after initiation of Vision Zero, results have been unimpressive in Norway. "The zero vision has drawn more attention to road safety, but it has not yielded any significant short-term gains so far," a staff engineer at the Norwegian Public Roads Administration said.[9]

Sweden, which initiated Vision Zero, had somewhat better results. Sweden has a long tradition in setting quantitative road traffic safety targets. In the mid-1990s a 10-year target was set at a 50% reduction for 2007. This target was not met; the actual ten-year reduction was 13% to 471 deaths. The target was revised to 50% by 2020 and to 0 deaths by 2050. In 2009 the reduction from 1997 totals was 34.5% to 355 deaths.

And there's a pretty table showing how far from zero Sweden has gotten since 1997.

Yeah, so much for zero. To push this nonsense even further, De Blasio wants to drop the NYC speed limit to 20 MPH from the current 35 mph (where possible). Where possible is of course the issue. There are few places in NYC where one can attain and maintain 35 MPH for very far, particularly during daytime hours. Secondly many of the auto to pedestrian accidents, particularly the ones prompting this Zero nonsense, happened at intersections involving turning vehicles. Let us also note:

27% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved driver failure to yield. Pedestrian-vehicle crashes involving unsafe speeds are twice as deadly as other crashes.

If 27% of fatal pedestrian crashes were the fault of non-yielding drivers, then what were the other 73% caused by? Streets blog tries to change the subject by breaking out "enforceable" vs. unenforcible events:

Crash data analyzed by Transportation Alternatives revealed that most city pedestrians and cyclists killed during a 14-year span died because drivers broke an enforceable traffic law.

But when you look at the actual causes, enforceable or not, pedestrians are the largest contributing factor(30%). Pedestrian activity is the largest predictor of fatalities than any other cause.

But here's the thing. This data is completely contradicted by other data:

Another point from pop center.org:

Pedestrian-vehicle crashes also tend to concentrate at certain places:6 The majority of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (60 percent in urban areas; 67 percent in rural areas) occur at places other than intersections.

Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur where no traffic control exists. [My emphasis]

70% what?

Where is the usual place where there are "no traffic controls"? That would be between intersections. Meaning, where a pedestrian steps out into the street into oncoming traffic in an attempt to cross a street and avoid going to an inconvenient controlled intersection. Did I make this up?

Pedestrian Behavior Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries and fatalities. In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida, researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of these incidents.8 Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior accounted for 90 percent of crashes where vehicle struck a pedestrian.9

Please Mayor De Blasio, explain this to us.

See the real issue are the pedestrians (and to an extent cyclists who think the lights don't apply to them, and I say this as a cyclist. But it is unpopular to blame people for their own actions. Someone else must be at fault. Of course the ones to blame are the 2 and 3 ton vehicles that people apparently think little of before stepping out in front of.

So the solution given by De Blasio is not about educating pedestrians to the risk they pose to themselves every time they jaywalk or walk around absorbed in their phones. It is to slow down the drivers so that when the pedestrian steps in front of them the pedestrian doesn't get killed. If is essentially a shifting of the pedestrian's responsibility to protect themselves onto a third party (the driver). This is much like the feminists who think a drunk man has more responsibility when he has sex with drunk female. He has to account for his and her behavior to his own peril.

Cause you know, Drunken sex is 100% avoidable by every person. Jaywalking accidents are totally avoidable by every pedestrian.

If De Blasio had sense and guts, he would direct the police to enforce the laws as they are. He would instruct the appropriate agencies to look into signage and other changes that may help alleviate the problem. Lastly he would clearly let pedestrians know that it is THEIR responsibility to not step out in front of 2 ton vehicles.

California cops Taser deaf man for using s aggressive hand signals...

Meister "was removing his own property from the backyard of a friend's home, with the friend's consent" when he was initially confronted by two cops, according to the lawsuit.

"They ended up grabbing his arms and turning him around, and if you do that to a deaf person, it's like gagging them," his lawyer John Burton told the Daily News on Tuesday. "It would be like if I put my hand over your mouth if you try to tell me something."

Meister reflexively pulled his arms away and jumped over a small fence to create space so he could better communicate, Burton said, but Officers Jeffrey Salmon and Jeffrey Tysl apparently took that as an act of aggression.

Well you know those hand gestures can be quite deadly:

*straight face*

14 African Countries Forced by France to Pay Colonial Tax For the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization

Not exactly new information but still worth keeping in mind.

France is quite desperate but active to keep a strong hold on his colonies what ever the cost, no matter what.

In March 2008, former French President Jacques Chirac said:

“Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third [world] power”

Chirac’s predecessor François Mitterand already prophesied in 1957 that:

”Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”

At this very moment I’m writing this article, 14 african countries are obliged by France, trough a colonial pact, to put 85% of their foreign reserve into France central bank under French minister of Finance control. Until now, 2014, Togo and about 13 other african countries still have to pay colonial debt to France. African leaders who refuse are killed or victim of coup. Those who obey are supported and rewarded by France with lavish lifestyle while their people endure extreme poverty, and desperation.

And we here at the Ghost wholly agree with the following sentiment:

It’s up to us as African to free ourselves, without asking for permission, because I still can’t understand for example how 450 french soldiers in Côte d’Ivoire could control a population of 20 millions people!?

Though we understand exactly how 450 French soldiers can control a population of 20 million. When the 20 million value the French more than themselves it's easy to understand.

Stadium Diplomacy or Who's Building Africa?

I recall the often times that people would point to the tall buildings in Africa as evidence that Africans were and are not backwards tree dwellers. The thing was I never until recently asked who was doing all that building. It is an important question when we look at Detroit or any other large black cities. Why is it that Detroit's black population was unable to retain the city which they rested political control of? It's easy to simply say, the white folks left. But really the issue is why did you not pick up where they left off? It's a fair question.

So going back to Africa look at this:

Mozambique's new national stadium, Estádio Nacional do Zimpeto, is on the outskirts of Maputo, not far from the Chinese-built international airport. The Chinese have also overseen the construction of the new parliament building and a new "Palace of Justice" in the last few years. The main institutions through which a sense of Mozambican national life is constructed — the laws of the nation, international departures and arrivals, and its most spectacular public moments of heroism — now take place in Chinese-built structures.

Why are the Chinese building African stadiums, court houses and airports?

No seriously.

Is anybody, anybody at all asking for Nigerians or whomever to come to their country and build anything?

No seriously.

How do you talk about being independent and cannot build your own fucking parliament building?

How do you field a national team for football and NOT be able to finance and build your own stadium?

Wouldn't you think that if you can't afford to, or have the knowledge to contract a stadium that maybe you have more pressing issues than football?

The impact of this most concrete form of soft diplomacy is difficult to assess in terms of hard cash. But there's little doubt about how it is supposed to work. For relatively small outlays — usually well short of $100 million — China constructs a sterile national arena that can be opened with long speeches and presidents in tailored suits kicking balls for the cameras, in return for sweetened access to natural resources, votes at the United Nations and the marginalization of Taiwan. Domestic politicians point to highly visible new infrastructure as evidence of their success as managers of the national development agenda; China and Chinese businesses gain, at the very least, an entrée into the highest circles of government.

Of course.

Here's a suggestion to the African so called "leadership". Pay Chinese (or whomever) to train YOUR people in the various skills and industries needed to build a stadium (including perhaps making the machinery as well) and then build the stadiums, airports, parliament buildings and courthouses yourself?

Similar advise for Detroit. Stop complaining about where the white folks went (and what they took with them) and build and maintain Detroit for and by yourselves. Why this total dependency on other people to do stuff they did for themselves?

That is the question.

Chocolate City: African migrants head for China

Up to 1 million Chinese are estimated to currently call Africa home, but data on the number of Africans in China are scarce. Local media estimate that anything from 20 000 to 200 000 Africans traders are now living in Guangzhou alone - a town in the south of the country, which is so popular with migrants from countries such as Nigeria, Congo and Tanzania that it has been controversially dubbed the ‘Chocolate City’.

Most come to buy wholesale goods ranging from stock cubes to electrical goods, which they sell back home and in the West. The relationship is a purely economic one and cultural tensions run higher here than almost anywhere in the country. Much like the Chinese in Africa, migrants in Guangzhou tend to live in enclaves and have little social association with locals. Taxi drivers often shun African customers and openly decry the local girls who date African men. In one of the worst run-ins to date, a Nigerian man died in police custody in 2012, prompting protests by Africans across the city.

The Michael Dunn Trial

I've been following this case but not commenting for various reasons. However; there is one note on the trial that I think needs to be written. The judge instructed the jury as follows:

“If we determine deadly force is justified against one person, is it justified for the others?”

“No,” the judge replied as he read the questions in open court. “Self-defense and use of justifiable deadly force applies separately to each count.”

I'm not sure how the judge (or the law) can actually be read that way. If a group of people confront you and one person takes the "initiative" to punch you in the face, how is it that you cannot be in fear of your life from the entire group? That doesn't make sense.

What the judge's statement says is that in such a case, you ONLY can be in fear of the person who attacked you and should consider the rest of the group as non threatening as a person in his vehicle over a mile away minding his business. That makes no sense.

The only proper instruction is that so long as the victim (or alleged victim) feels that a group is acting in concert that the actions of any one of them warrants fear of deadly harm by any of the others.

Indeed the law already covers this in felony murder. If a group goes to commit a crime and in the commission of that crime a person is killed, then all persons involved, regardless as to whether they pulled the trigger or even had intent that a murder happens would be held liable.

I expect that if Dunn is convicted that those instructions will be a point of contention in the appeal. Edit: Just to be clear: Dunn perjured himself on the stand with his claim that he called "A friend in law enforcement" and that he told his fiance that "they" had a gun. Those two points alone will go against him.

Google teams with Foxconn to build robots that replace human workers

Given the last post about the displacement of human workers and the consequences, as well as my long running commentary on the long term destruction of human labor we have the following:

Foxconn, which assembles iPhones and iPads and many other consumer products, including Android devices, wants to increase the use of automation "at its factories amid challenges of rising labor costs and workplace disputes in China, where it has more than a million workers," the Journal noted. Poor working conditions for Foxconn employees has drawn condemnation, and in one case may have caused a riot that temporarily closed a factory.[My emphasis]

As I have been saying, the reasoning for the increasing use of robots and other forms of automation will be couched in terms of "labor costs" and "safety"

Foxconn's ambition to populate its factories with robots that can assemble electronics projects make the company an ideal testing ground for Google's robotics tech, analysts told the Journal.

And believe that it is not just Foxconn that has that ambition. There will be no patents needed. People will be let go here and there. A hundred at this factory. A thousand at another one. Friday firings when the news is asleep. Nobody notices the little drips, just ask a mechanic who has to tell his customer that there is no oil in the engine. It is then that the owner thinks about the "little bit" of oil that was always sitting in the car park.

Dean Baker: Not Too Bright

Dean Baker has a piece in Counterpunch where he dismisses the concern over the very real issue of technology and employment.

Economists are not very good at economics. We know this because we had a huge housing bubble that collapsed, which almost none of them saw.

Actually one does not need to be an economist to see the issue of technology on human employment. This side trip to bash on economists only really shows what Dean is really about. We'll get to that later.

In particular they can be a great source of entertainment. That’s how we should view the story that robots will take all of our jobs and leave most of the population unemployed.

So those of us concerned with a future in which humans do not “work” and therefore do not have a means of getting income which is needed for, well, everything is “entertainment”? Ok.

Remember the story about how the aging of the baby boomers will bankrupt us because we will have too few workers to support the surge of retired baby boomers?

In that story, all of us aging baby boomers will be left waiting around for someone to change our bedpans. But now we are supposed to be worried that we won’t have any work for people to do because the robots will be there to do it faster and cheaper.

Either of these stories could in principle be true, but they cannot both be true. If robots are capable of doing most of the tasks that humans now do, then we don’t have to worry about declining ratios of workers to retirees. We will have plenty of robots to do the work for us.

Well actually these things can both be true. The actual argument about “supporting baby boomers” is about taxes and other social services. Those services cost money and the money that comes from Medicare, medicaid and social security comes out of the paychecks of those who are not retired. You need to have this income to support the retireees who are living longer and may outlive their savings and investments.

The robot argument is about what those not retired people do for a living. Yes the bedpans (and diapers) will be changed, but if a robot does it and not a person, and a robot does not have to be paid and therefore does not pay into social security or pay any taxes whatsoever (does your car pay taxes?) then the system colapses not only do you have less people working but you also have killed your tax base.

So yes, both things can be true.

Alternatively, if we are facing labor shortages because there are too few workers to support a growing population of retirees, then clearly robots will not have taken everyone’s job. At worst we have to worry about one of these problems, but not both.

Dean is merely fixated on his retiree scenario to see the larger picture. The labour shortage, the human labour shortage is the issue. Retirees are a current class of people, the issue with robots (and automation) is that humans will not have a job to retire from. That's the long term argument. It will likely begin with retiring of older workers but it will spread out.

Let’s assume robots are the problem. This would actually not be a new story. The robots might be new, but this is the story of productivity growth that we have dealt with for centuries. Ordinarily we think productivity growth makes us richer, since we can produce more goods or services in every hour of work. This can lead to rising pay and living standards or alternatively more leisure time.

However, the robot story is somewhat different or so its proponents would claim. Robots are supposed to lead to such rapid increases in productivity that there will be no way for all the displaced workers to be reemployed. The problem in this case is not productivity; rather the problem is that all the benefits are going to the owners of the robots.

Well, no. Yes, technology increased productivity but never to the extent of being able to replace all human involvement. Yes, there were disruptions but not the wholesale elimination that is on the horizon. Look at the auto industry. The auto industry produces many many many more cars than it did in the 50s. Yet the labor pool involved continues to shrink. Don't let those reports of new factories fool you. They don't employ anywhere near what they would have in the 1960's. The issue of re-employment goes like this: Where? Once manual labour is dealt the death blow by robots, that's millions of people who simply will not have work to do at all

Dean wants to make this a discussion on who owns the robot, as if people are going to be purchasing robots and sending them to work in their place. No, it's not who owns the robots. It's who owns the business. It has not been the case where people own the business for a long time (outside of farming). In smaller ecomomies, everybody has a hustle. Entrepreneurship is how employment happens. But in a post industrial society the masses are hustle-less. They depend on large companies for employment.

The final frontier of productivity is the elimination of wages. It simply becomes a matter of how long does it take to produce a good rather than how long and how much (for the worker). The robot becomes a fixed cost to obtain and a relatively known cost to maintain. It breaks, it is replaced with another robot with the exact skills needed. Once one has gone automated, it is only a matter of how long and how long's restrictions are the limits of physics.

There also is no evidence that robots and other technological change is responsible for the upward distribution of income in the last three decades.

That may or may not be the case, but it is not relevant whether it is. Once you're no longer paying for human labour those “savings” will go to the business owner because, as we know from slavery, if you own the means of production AND you don't have to pay it a wage, healthcare, etc. you come out ahead. Besides, where does this guy thinks the unpaid labour costs go to? Charity?

But there is a more fundamental problem with this robot-driven inequality story. The owners of the robots won’t directly get rich from owning the machines: robots will presumably be relatively cheap to make. After all, we can have robots make them. If the owners of robots get really rich it will be because the government has given them patent monopolies so that they can collect lots of money from anyone who wants to buy or build a robot.

While it may be the case that a patent war could occur between manufacturers, the fact that those who build, sell and maintain the robots will be making out quite well is simply a matter of economics that the government has little control over (and probably shouldn't). But lets say that patents are not enforced so anyone who can, could make a robot. It still does not address the issue of robots displacing people as units of labor. Just like very few people own any business whatsoever, very few people will own the means of making robots for industrial use. Therefore we're back to humans being displaced.

Antagonize Who?

Camelia Entekhabifard writes in the NY Times:

Last month, a temporary international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program took effect. Many hope that this reflects a changed Iran: one that understands that it can’t endlessly antagonize the West, and is willing to make concessions.

Who is antagonizing who?

See that map? Those are US bases surrounding Iran. Camelia thinks that the readers are idiots. It was the US that decided to overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader. It was the US that funded Saddam Hussein to fight a war with Iran and supplied gas used to kill Iranian soldiers (pretending to this day that it was Saddam's own).

Iran has had it's commercial aircraft shot down. It has had it's money seized in foreign banks. It is under an economic embargo with is in fact an act of war as defined by the UN.

So WHO exactly is antagonizing WHO?

Swiss Immigration Vote Raises Alarm Across Europe

BERLIN — Swiss and European leaders reacted warily on Monday to Swiss voters’ narrow approval of a proposal to limit the number of foreigners allowed to live and work in Switzerland.

A bare majority voted in a referendum on Sunday to cut immigration quotas and require that Swiss nationals be given priority in hiring. The result could have far-reaching implications for relations between Switzerland and the 28-member European Union, of which it is not a member.[my emphasis]

Why is it "Alarming" that citizens of a sovereign state, created for the benefit of said citizens first and foremost, vote to make sure that the government it created, operates to benefit said citizens first? That isn't alarming. That's common sense.

Laurent Fabius, France’s foreign minister, said Monday that the European Union would have to reconsider its relationship with Switzerland.

“It is a vote that causes concern because it means that Switzerland wants to withdraw into itself,” Mr. Fabius told RTL radio.

Laurent is an idiot. Saying that the duly elected representatives ought to be putting the citizens of it's country first is not "withdrawing into itself". And the Frenchman should watch his mouth. France, a country that does everything it can to make sure it's language isn't "polluted" by other languages should keep silent when citizens vote in the interest of their own country.

Switzerland has one of the highest proportions of foreigners in Europe, amounting to about 27 percent of the country’s population of roughly eight million. Many job seekers have arrived from countries hit hard by the European economic crisis.

27%? And they're surprised at the vote results? 27% is a very high proportion.

The referendum on the changes to the country’s liberal immigration law was a rebuke to the Swiss government, the banking industry and business leaders, who had lobbied against the restrictions, warning that such a move could endanger Switzerland’s prosperity.

By which the business leader's mean their ability to milk the Swiss people of their money. Simple question for the "business leaders" and "bankers" who prosperous was Switzerland before it got 27% immigrant population? And can they show that Switzerland became more prosperous as the immigrant population grew and due to the economic activity of those persons?

The admonitions failed to drown out the warnings of the rightist Swiss People’s Party, which introduced the referendum, saying it was necessary if Switzerland was to retain its identity in the face of immigration.

Immigration has become a polarizing issue across Europe. More prosperous nations are growing worried that their welfare systems cannot handle an influx of workers from the poorer Eastern European countries and some southern member states of the European Union.

Far-right parties with anti-immigrant platforms in France, the Netherlands and Norway have gained strength in recent years, and there have been sharp debates in Britain and Germany over limiting the number of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania because citizens from those countries gained full access to European Union job markets this year.

In reference to the welfare, one problem that these countries have is that they have stagnant to shrinking populations along with high percentages of older people. Welfare programs rely in tax income to work. And it doesn't make any sense for a country to spend it's welfare monies, planned and created to cater to it's citizens, to cover new people. Imagine if you will that you saved for your retirement and then when you retired you found out you had to support 3 other people out of that. I'm pretty sure you'd be annoyed. In terms of national identity that underscores another issue. Do these countries and their citizens have a right to determine their culture in their own native lands? If you have an increasing population of people who do not share your culture, the language, customs, religion, what is the response to that population? What happens when or if that population does NOT want to conform to the host countries values and ways? I have said many times that the entire reason there are different countries is because there existed at some point a set of people that did not want to live with or like another set and therefore went off and formed their own polity.

The center-right European People’s Party group in the European Parliament, which is the largest group there, took a tough line.

“The free movement of citizens is a core principle of the E.U. Switzerland has a binding bilateral agreement with the E.U. to accept and guarantee free movement for all E.U. citizens,” said a statement by its chairman, Joseph Daul, and its vice chairman, Manfred Weber.

Well if they feel so strongly about it how about they have the places where the Europeans move from pay the countries where their citizens move to for costs incurred for hosting them? Sounds fair to me. If you tell me I have to let someone in my house and eat my food, you should be willing to pay me to do so. If the sending country is unable to cover the costs of it's citizen then the EU should pay the host country itself. After all, if it wants to make a rule, it should be willing to pay for it.

The Scandal Bowl: Tar Heels Football, Academic Fraud, and Implicit Racism

Last month a grand jury in Orange County, N.C., indicted Julius Nyang’oro for defrauding UNC by accepting payment for teaching a no-show course on “blacks in North Carolina.” The 19 students in AFAM 280 were current or former members of the Tar Heels football team, allegedly steered to the phantom class by academic advisers who sought to help elite athletes maintain high enough grades to remain eligible for competition. AFAM 280 was one of dozens of courses offered by North Carolina’s African & Afro-American Studies Department, formerly chaired by Nyang’oro, that never actually met, according to investigators. Known for rigorous academics, North Carolina allegedly operated a Potemkin department since the late 1990s.

Ouch. Also:

Willingham also said the tutoring program routinely used the no-show classes in the African studies department to keep athletes eligible to play sports. Investigations led or backed by UNC have found more than 200 confirmed or suspected no-show classes since the mid-1990s, with athletes accounting for nearly half of the enrollment

So does this mean that all of the no-show classes were in the "Afro-American" department? If so, let me say that I am not surprised in the least bit. Outside of a handful of AA studies departments (Cornell's and Princeton's come to mind) a lot of those departments are not taken seriously in the least bit by those universities running them nor by many of the students who take them because they are often taken because they are required "diversity" and "anti-sexism" courses and seen as easy A's.

Howard Morgan

Glaring issue:

Howard Morgan's van was crushed and destroyed without notice or cause before any forensic investigation could be done.

... Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question.

The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.

That's a whole lot of reasonable doubt.

Detroit children dying in culture of violence

Remember late last year I wrote about how the murder rate in African-American communities such as Camden and Detroit were essentially acting as population control:

That was a record. Now for the longest time I could not understand the gravity of the murder rate in terms other than it's impact on business, employment and community stress. But now, all late, it has dawned on me how bad this is. If you the reader don't understand, then lets look at it in terms of a school. The average urban school class has 30-35 students. I'm going to go with the smaller number. If you have 67 people killed, it would be like every year, two classes of students simply disappearing.

Now coming from the Detroit News:

Nearly 500 Detroit children have died in homicides since 2000 — an average of nearly three dozen a year.

That's just the children. in 15 years, 500 hundred kids (and their potential kids, and their potential kids) gone.

Poof.

From Michigan Capitol Confidential:

At the high school level, Detroit had 767 high school teachers and 24,466 high school students. That’s a 29 to 1 pupil to teacher ratio.

So high school. 29 students. 500 dead children equals 17 empty classrooms. That's pretty heavy.

Imagine if tomorrow you dropped your kid off to school and when you walked by the classrooms usually bustling with kids, a whole row of them were empty. Two rows? The entire hall of homerooms empty. Get it now?

Infant mortality rate in Detroit rivals areas of Third World

From the Detroit News

Infant mortality is the No. 1 killer of Detroit children; violence is second. In 2011 alone, 130 of the 208 Detroit children who died that year had not yet marked their first birthday.

Violence, as in assault, is the leading killer of black male's from age 15 up to 34. Between the ages of 35 and 44 violence (assault) is the 3rd leading cause of death. After that heart disease and HIV. Thus, when we look at it collectively, completely avoidable deaths (as opposed to accidents, which are by their nature unforeseen) are the leading causes of death for black folks, males in particular. Why do I say that?

he News found that Detroit has more babies born to moms who are under 20, like Gonville, and to single women, than in any other major American city. And often, those young women are not themselves in good health and otherwise ill-equipped to have babies...

Experts blame a confluence of health risks for Detroit’s high infant mortality rate, including inadequate health care, information, support and know-how by young mothers.

Eighty percent of new Detroit mothers are unmarried, compared with 42 percent of all Michigan moms, which may mean they have less support — financial as well as emotional — than women with husbands. Also, the city has more teen moms than any other in America: 18 percent.

Detroit is 87% black so there is no need to guess who that 80% represents. Remember: "I don't need no man"

I remember being told by a woman that by saying that the return of men into the household (particularly for AA families) would probably be a good idea, I was promoting "patriarchy". It seems to me that the statistics show that the "patriarchy" (whatever that is) had far better outcomes for African-American children. I'm certain that the "real" answer will be more state intervention.

We know that if we concentrate medical care on mothers and young babies (this) can have very dramatic impact on infant mortality rates, and so there are some really important pieces of work that are happening but they are not done at a big enough scale,” said McDonald, of the Skillman Foundation.

“We truly need to be very intentional about ... making sure that there is outreach to mothers so that they are not isolated, that there are services wrapped about them and their new babies to make sure that we’re very intentionally going after them. It’s infuriating, because we know we can change the trajectory of these numbers.”

Of course. State intervention.

Brooklyn School Cutting Gifted Program to Boost Diversity

Let me ask the reader a question: Do you believe that people should be recognized and challenged per their abilities?

Yes? Good.

A popular gifted program will get the axe after Ditmas Park school officials chose diversity over exclusivity.

Citing a lack of diversity, PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald informed parents in a letter that the Students of Academic Rigor and two other in-house programs would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners. “Our Kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in,” McDonald told parents

Question: Why does it matter if a "gifted program" is diverse? It's supposed to be populated by whoever has the talent right? And how is it not diverse?

More than two thirds of the school’s roughly 1,000 students are black or hispanic while Asian-American and white students made up 28%, according to Education Dept. records.

So there are about 666 black or hispanic (who can be black as well) students in the school and Asians and Whites (those neanderthal descendants) make up 280 or so of the population (the rest being what?) but there is a "diversity problem" in the gifted program? How is that. Shouldn't "gifted" intelligence be equally proportional to the population? And if so shouldn't the Blacks and hispanics make up the majority of any gifted program at that school by sheer demographics alone?

No? Why not?

At least one parent described the small gifted program, Students of Academic Rigor — or SOAR — as overwhelming caucasion, although others disputed that characterization.

So the class is overwhelmingly "caucasian" but the school is overwhelmingly not caucasian. Why is that?

So the solution to black folks not performing is to change the playing field so that we can look like we're performing? Is that it?

Maybe a better and actual fruitful proposition would be to direct more resources at the underperforming majority of students.

RE: The NRA’s Call for Jihad

NRA Jihad? Counterpunch ran this piece yesterday in which one Charles R. Larson made the following idiotic claim:

It’s not very difficult to connect the NRA’s screeds against gun control in the United States with incidents of genocide in the world (Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, even the Nigerian/Biafran War in the late 1960s) or even as a call for jihad against those who would attempt to impose any controls on gun ownership.

This idiot put the NRA in the same box as machette wielding people in Rwanda who thought of their victims as “cockroaches”.

Really. He did.

Personally, If I were running Counterpunch and took a cursory glance at this piece, I would not have allowed it to grace the page.

Of course this is par for the course for people who misuse the term Jihad and apply it to anyone who has a strenuous objection to their supposedly guaranteed rights being taken away because of the actions of the criminal few.

For many Americans (not for all gun owners but for too many), gun ownership has become just as serious an addiction and as out of control as alcoholism or the abuse of other substances.

Well if we're talking addiction on the par of say crack cocaine, then Larson would be referring to criminals who will do anything to get a gun. Of course the law is already clear (in most places in the US) in regards to criminals accessing and using a firearm. And NOBODY, not even the most staunch gun rights advocate is saying that criminals ought to be free to carry.

No, the point of that little gem was to paint gun rights supporters as not only genocidal maniacs but as persons on the par with those frequenting AA meetings. Read:

. Addictive personality factors—potential harm to one’s self and others, the inability to admit that the addiction might, indeed, even be harmful, the need for increasing the actual number of lethal objects in one’s possession—all demonstrate co-dependency and an obsessive need for more guns, bigger guns, guns that have no justification outside of military contexts.

Ahh the addiction. Having all those potentially harmful objects (knives duly excepted) is a sure sign that one has a mental disorder. Never mind that most gun owners dont' commit any crimes whatsoever. That their children do not pick them up and kill themselves or others with them. No, never mind all that. There are criminals out there who use guns for nefarious means therefore all gun owners are, mentally speaking, disturbed. Oh sorry, “not all” just the ones who have “an increasing number” of “lethal objects” (knives duly excepted).

I suppose next the writer will claim that those of us who practice a martial art and are quite capable of dispatching a soul to his or her maker quickly, sans arms, are also addicted to, oh, being harmful objects.

The paranoia of gun addiction often culminates in dangerous if not irrational beliefs (“Obama is going to take our guns away from us”) and the endless need for more and more guns, presumably to defend one’s self the day Obama comes knocking on one’s door.  

Ahhh “paranoia”. First off, let's be clear. Not a single gun owner thinks that Obama (or any other US president) will literally come to their door and demand their guns. No, let me take that back, none of the sane gun owners, which the vast majority are, thinks that's going to happen.

What they do fear is that a US President, or State governor, will sign legislation, rushed through some legislative body, with little public notification or input, having not been read by the vast majority of said legislators, that will outlaw some gun (or ammunition) which they purchased lawfully, stored lawfully, transported lawfully and used lawfully, and there will be a sherrif (or other state representative) who will show up at their door and demand they turn over said arms. And yes, THAT does happen.

And if that were not enough, a US president or State governor may pass a law in which if some person thinks another person is “unstable” (possibly because that person is pro-gun rights) they can report said person to the state and the state will therefore have a right to confiscate that person's arms “pending an investigation”.

Oh yeah, THAT happens too.

Or perhaps a man who owns guns falls out with his wife. Say she wants out and decides to follow the advice of not a few lawyers out there who instruct her on how to make a fake domestic violence claim. Oh yeah, in that case, here comes the Sheriff who, following the law will remove the guns (to protect the “battered” wife) and him from his home. No need to substantiate the claims you know.

Yeah, this happens too.

So knowing all this, how do you call a person paranoid when what they fear is not only rational, but actually exists? Oh right, better to throw out the totally irrelevant “Obama at the door” argument that no one is making.

All of these aspects of gun ownership characterize an American society in which guns have become the means of dealing with the most trivial incidents of daily life.

Really sir?

It is simply not the case that “guns have become the means of dealing with the most trivial incidents of daily life”. That statement is delusional and, as a matter of fact a sure sign of actual paranoia

No, the fact of the matter is that gun use to settle “disputes” is rare. Yes, rare. Relative to the total US population (over 350 million) very few people who have disputes (which would be 99% of all adults) do anything worse than cuss the other person out. What you have are a set of people (unfortunately largely populated by African-American males) who lack decent conflict resolution skills who obtain guns illegally (they are either minors and/or persons with criminal records) and use those guns to “settle up”.

The next smaller subset of those with poor conflict resolution skills are those who go to public places such as malls and schools, and take revenge out on persons (or groups) they feel have hurt them emotionally.

So sorry to burst Larson's bubble but his entire thesis is bullshit.

 Those who do not possess them may conclude that they are becoming the victims of jihad and/or genocide conducted by dangerous fanatics who—according to recent incidents—will shoot to kill for the slightest provocation.

That statement right there is what we call actual paranoia. Genocide? Jihad? Counterpunchj saw fit to post this to their site?

Texting in movie theaters may be annoying to others, but is it criminal to the point of homicide?  Why does a retired policeman need to take a concealed gun to a movie theater?  Granted, he may have observed many killings during his career, but does he believe that he needs to carry a gun everywhere he goes?  

I see. It must be the case that the retired officer (who was totally in the wrong) merely steps out of his house and into a theater. He doesn't drive there. Doesn't walk there. Doesn't go anywhere else but there. But aside from that is the gall that Larson has to assume that HE has to approve of why and wherefore that that citizen chooses to do with his right to carry a concealed weapon. The shooter had every right to walk with his weapon. When bad things happen they don't up and announce themselves before hand. It's not like the people playing the knockout game wear a sign on their chests that say “I'm about to knock you the fuck out”. It's not like common criminals who will assault and steal your shit send you a letter in the morning that you should perhaps walk with your weapon today because today is your day to get knocked unconscious and left for dead. It's not like school or workplace shooters announce a week in advance that they will be coming in to kill the boss and the secretary might get one to the head. No Larson, when bad shit happens on the street, fortune favors the prepared.

I'm not going to justify the movie shooter's actions. He was right to go complain to the management. Apparently the management failed in their duty to take the customer's complaint seriously. They should have. People in theaters are really out of order with their phones. I sit in the very back of theaters and those bright ass screens are very very annoying, particularly since I'm paying. And yes, sometimes I want to see the previews. The theater shooter completely overreacted and should pay dearly for his actions. That does not excuse the entitlement pricks who think they can't go 2 hours without looking (and occasionally speaking) at their phones.

And lastly:

We are not ALL under attack—only those who do not possess guns.  Ergo, gun owners—and especially NRA spokespeople who have never demonstrated one iota of concern for the innocent victims of gun violence who are killed every day in our country—have created such an atmosphere of fear that they have become blood brothers of religious jihadists, using virtually the same argument.  And the thirty thousand deaths by guns (too many of them children) every year in the United States, what separates them from the victims of pogroms that kill off that many victims of ethnic disputes in Africa or even Europe?

Larson is really paranoid. I do not own a gun and I do not feel “under attack” by any gun owner. I support a gun owner's right to his or her arms. I don't oppose concealed or open carry either. Guns do not scare me. My only concern is the state of mind of the person holding it. That person could be a police offer (or other agent of the state) or a private citizen.

If you are walking around in a constant state of fear due to reported gun violence and you do not live in a place where that gun violence regularly happens (usually poor African-American communities) then you sir (or ma'am) should see a professional about your mental illness.

And in regards to those 30,000 dead children (taking his word for it), most of those children are teenagers engaged in gang violence meaning they did not obtain their guns legally and they used them in illegal acts (ie: not self defense or defense of others). In other words many of those “children” willfully engaged in behaviors they knew could get them killed. Sorry Larson but I don't saddle the responsibilty for those bad decisions on law abiding gun owners.

Charles Larson is a fear monger plain and simple. His comparisons to civil wars in various countries are totally out of order and Counterpunch can do much better in what it approves for it's site.

"Our Ancestors"?

Every now and then, no, scratch that, very often I read stuff that reeks of "white folks are the center of everything". Today's post in the LA Times is a perfect example:

Mating between Neanderthals and the ancestors of Europeans and East Asians gave our forebears important evolutionary advantages but may have created a lot of sterile males, wiping out much of that primitive DNA, new genetic studies suggest.

"Our forebears"? I'm an African. I do not have European or East Asian ancestors. How do you write an article in a country in which there are people of various racial extractions and write "our forebears"? Oh right, you weren't thinking of the non-European descended masses.

“So it suggests that something came over from Neanderthals to present-day people that had to do with the skin and was advantageous and rose to high frequency.”

"Present-day" what? Black people have the same skin they had when humans first appeared on the scene. So what "present-day people" are you talking about?

And now onto other important matters:

The reports build on the publication in December of the full genome of Neanderthals that showed that they were genetically closer to modern Europeans and Asians than to modern Africans. The best explanation for that phenomenon was gene flow — a fancy term for interbreeding between the divergent species, which shared a common ancestor some 300,000 to 500,000 years ago.

At least 20% of the Neanderthal genome "introgressed" into the genome of our European and Asian ancestors, and East Asians retained slightly more of it, according to Akey’s analysis, based on genomes from 379 Europeans and 286 East Asians.

The slightly larger Neanderthal footprint among East Asians is not easily explained without a second "pulse" of gene transfer after they parted from Europeans, Akey's study suggests. “It’s a two-night-stand theory now,” Akey said.

So let us understand exactly what is being said here: Europeans and Asians have bunch of genes in common with Neanderthals that African humans do not. And that 20% of Neanderthal genes are "introgressed", that is:

Infiltration of the genes of one species into the gene pool of another through repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parents.

into the European and Asian populations and not the African.

But remember: There is no such thing as race.

Significantly:

“The 2% we see today is what’s remaining after there’s been some purging,” Sankararaman said. “We think that it was reduced by about a third.” That purge of Neanderthal DNA is “a huge amount in a relatively short period of time,” he said…

“It was established a couple years ago that there was a small but significant admixture with Neanderthals, but that doesn’t mean that the genes that were brought into modern humans had any function, that they were an improvement on what modern humans had," said Montgomery Slatkin, a UC Berkeley biologist who has done similar research on Neanderthal genetics but was not involved in either study. "But now there is convincing evidence that indeed some of them at least were selected in humans.”

No, doesn't meant it had any function but it doesn't mean that they did not either.

Genes linked to several modern diseases were among the Neanderthal legacy, including those correlated to Type 2 diabetes. But how much of a risk we inherited is debatable — the diabetes gene likely helped us survive food shortages, and may have proved detrimental as food became all too abundant in recent time.

Wait! such a minor amount of genes are linked to such a deadly disease? So the question is clear: What else are "linked" to relatively small numbers of genes?

You Tolerate That?

So reading this piece in the LA Times I came across the following:

Last fall, three San Jose State students were charged with hate crimes for allegedly bullying their black roommate. They'd called him names, barricaded him in the room and clamped a bicycle lock around his neck. It wasn't until the boy's parents visited and saw racial epithets, Nazi paraphernalia and a confederate flag on display in the dorm that college officials were informed and police got involved.

The torment had been going on for months. Four other students lived in that suite, but none of them complained or intervened to stop the harassment.

Yeah, lets agree that it was "bad" for the 4 other students to have not made a complaint but…..

What
The
Fuck
Was "the boy" doing?

Seriously. Who the hell tolerates "roommates" putting locks on their necks? No, seriously. And since the parents saw it, and it was going on for 4 months, why the hell didn't the "boy" go to the police? Fuck the RA. Why didn't he pick up his cell phone and dial 911? Why didn't he do what I did when I had a serious issue with a roommate: tell the relevant campus people that either I go, he goes, or there will be a dead body in the room in the morning?

No seriously. Tell them that unless somebody gets moved, there will be a dead body in the room the next day. Believe me, you will be moved pronto. it helps to clench your fists and look whoever is in charge of room assignments dead in the eye when you make this promise. Yes, I said promise.

Look, you get exactly what you tolerate. Clearly the boy was not THAT bothered by it. Or his parents did a shit job of teaching him to assert himself.

12 Years a Slave: Not Every Black Slave Driver is a "Driver"

; and during my eight years' experience as a driver, I learned to handle the whip with marvelous dexterity and precision, throwing the lash within a hair's breadth of the back, the ear, the nose, without, however, touching either of them. If Epps was observed at a distance, or we had reason to apprehend

he was as sneaking somewhere in the vicinity, I would commence plying the lash vigorously, when, according to arrangement, they would squirm and screech as if in agony, although not one of them had in fact been even grazed. Patsey would take occasion, if he made his appearance presently, to mumble in his hearing some complaints that Platt was lashing them the whole time, and Uncle Abram, with an appearance of honesty peculiar to himself, would declare roundly I had just whipped them worse than General Jackson whipped the enemy at New-Orleans.

12 Years A Slave: Hood Rich?

There was a grand party of whites assembled at Mr. Yarney's, in Centreville, a hamlet in the vicinity of Turner's plantation. I was employed to play for them, and so well pleased were the merry-makers with my performance, that a contribution was taken for my benefit, which amounted to seventeen dollars.

With this sum in possession, I was looked upon by my fellows as a millionaire. It afforded me great pleasure to look at it—to count it over and over again, day after day. Visions of cabin furniture, of water pails, of pocket knives, new shoes and coats and hats, floated through my fancy, and up through all rose the triumphant contemplation, that I was the wealthiest "nigger" on Bayou Boeuf.

Hood rich?

Let there be light: A hand-made solar lamp from Uganda

Garveyism at work.

Only critique, which is not so much directed at him but at the situation: sourcing batteries and panels from China.

With that information in hand, he set out designing his light, finding a contractor in China to manufacture the resulting circuit board.

For batteries, Lule simply chose three AA NiMH rechargeable, which are typically good for 12 hours of lighting. Those are expensive in Uganda at the moment but relatively cheap to import since they're mature technology. He estimates they'll be good for two years of use; by the time that's up, he hopes to be able to sell replacements to his customers. There's also nothing special about the LED itself or the solar cells. "I found people online, and I basically gave them the specifications, and they made the solar panels," Lule told Ars. "I've discovered that, if I buy just the solar cells and make the solar panels myself, I'll be able to save $0.80."

This will likely be discussed further in an upcoming piece in response to the Gates Foundation "Myths" annual letter.

Whither The Black Folks?

Go to Apple.com. Watch the 30 years of Mac video. Scroll through the different years. What do you not see? Who do you not see? Now I will remind the reader that early in Apple's history one Spike Lee was used to pitch Apple machines. My how much progress has occurred.

Do note that there are plenty of women.

The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia

Take an hour of your day and watch this.

Lupita Nyong’o Is Red-Carpet Savvy and Has Awards to Match

I don't really do award shows, but remember The Ghost was the first to give her total and unreserved props for her work in 12 years.

South Vermont Avenue: L.A. County’s ‘death alley’

A detective calls it “death alley.” The two miles of South Vermont Avenue that stretch north from Imperial Highway are home to churches, liquor stores, mortuaries and one of the highest rates of homicide in L.A. County.

And per chance, what are the demographics of this neighborhood?

Black alone - 16,015 (51.8%)
Hispanic - 14,178 (45.9%)
White alone - 341 (1.1%)
Two or more races - 151 (0.5%)
American Indian alone - 89 (0.3%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone - 72 (0.2%)
Other race alone - 65 (0.2%)
Asian alone - 4 (0.01%)

I'm sure that someone is going to blame white folks somewhere, anywhere for this.

In a county of 10 million people, Westmont is among the deadliest places to live. In the last seven years, 100 people — nearly all of them male — have been killed in the 1.8 square miles wedged between the city of Los Angeles and Inglewood.

That's that Black Male Privilege yo.

Westmont’s neighbor to the east, Vermont Vista, shares “death alley” as a boundary. But the L.A. city neighborhood, similar in size and demographics, has had a little more than half as many homicides, 57, over the same period.

Similar? Well actually there are less black folks on that side of the street with the black population below 40% in most of the neighborhoods.

Men account for nearly 85% of homicide victims. One of every three males killed is between the ages of 17 and 25. Latinos, about half of the county’s population, account for nearly half of all killings since 2007.
Blacks, just 8% of the county’s residents, remain disproportionately affected, accounting for 32% of homicides. Last year, black people in L.A. County were killed at more than seven times the rate of all other racial and ethnic groups combined. The homicide rate for blacks has remained stubbornly high even as homicides have plummeted in the county from 941 the year Homicide Report began to 594 last year.

I have already discussed how far out of proportion the murder rates are of African-Americans nation wide so I won't repeat it here.

On a recent evening, Deputies Branden Williams and Lisa Moya drove down West 105th Street between Normandie and Denker avenues. As the two flashed a bright light into the dark, men automatically lifted up their shirts to reveal their waistbands — proof that they weren’t carrying a gun.[my emphasis]

I suppose it's more efficient than stop and frisk.

Corey Stingley Got Himself Killed

It is unfortunate that some of us think it appropriate to protest when one of our own engages in a crime, gets caught and dies as a consequence of their behavior. Let us look at the case of Corey Stingley

A police report points to the time when Stingley is seen in the video putting six small bottles of vodka in his backpack. The surveillance video shows Stingley being confronted by the clerk as he tried to pay for an energy drink. Stingley is seen reaching for his debit card and then running. In the upper part of the screen — you see a struggle as three men stop Stingley.

In response to his son's clear criminal activity, which in the past would be a point of deep shame, Corey's father says:

“My son was brutally murdered. This wasn’t restraint. This was murder,” Craig Stingley said Wednesday.

Stingley’s father says Stingley was actually trying to return merchandise at the store prior to the altercation.

“These men plotted to do something, and as a result, a young person’s life is gone,” Craig Stingley said.

No seriously. The video clearly shows Corey shoplifting. Clear as day. When caught Corey clearly tries to run away. Somehow his father sees Corey "trying to return merchandise"? Now we understand why Corey thought it was OK to steal, his father is clearly an enabler who cannot even bring himself to confront the clear evidence that his seed was a thief.

If Corey wasn't a thief and meant to purchase the bottles in his bag (because MAYBE he couldn't carry them all, then when he got to the cashier, he would have opened his bag and told the clerk to ring up the stuff in there. There would be no grabbing and no running. So Corey's dad is full of shit.

Then you have the "plotted" statement. Corey's father would have us believe that the men who killed Corey were standing around in that store waiting for a negro to come in so that they could assault and kill him. No, really, because that is the only way a "plot" argument could be had.

Now let's address the NAACP's statement on the matter:

“The NAACP Milwaukee Branch is greatly troubled by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Corey Stingley. While no one condones the kind of wrongdoing that he was alleged to have been engaged in, the actions of the three men who restrained Mr. Stingley resulting in his death, should be thoroughly examined. We grieve for and with his family and fully support their efforts seeking a civil or federal review of the circumstances that resulted in the most fundamental violation of civil rights – the loss of life.

You would THINK that once it was clear that Corey was a thief that the NAACP would wisely keep away from this case, but no, they have to come out with the stupidness. That paragraph reads like this:

We know Corey was a thief caught in the act of stealing but we're upset that the upstanding citizens took it upon themselves to stop him. In our communities, we let thieves and murderers do their shit and we don't snitch. How dare this citizens enforce a zero tolerance for criminality!

Continuing:

When a person loses his life at the hands of others, it would seem that a “chargeable” offence has occurred. If the District Attorney has determined that the traditional charge of manslaughter is not warranted under the circumstances, we believe that some other charge, under the facts as we understand them might nonetheless be appropriate. The family (and community) deserves to be satisfied that the investigation gave full consideration not only to the question of intent, but also to issues of criminal negligence and reckless disregard for life.

No when a person loses his or her life at the hands of other it does not mean that a chargeable offense has occurred. It means that a chargeable offense may have occurred. Defending life, limb and property are generally not chargeable offenses. You'd think the bright lawyers at the NAACP legal defense would know this.

The only person who was recklessly disregarding "life" was Corey who took the risk of committing a crime. His fault was thinking that because the people HE deals with apparently don't give a damn about theft that other people harbor the same tolerance for it.

The NAACP has had a long history of opposing vigilantism – taking the law into one’s own hands, for obvious reasons. Former National NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous recently cautioned (in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin death) how Stand Your Ground and other similar laws license vigilantism, adding that this should be a matter of grave concern to every enlightened citizen.

It is an insult to Trayvon's memory AND to Travon's family to even mention Trayvon's name in connection to this case. Trayvon Martin was not engaged in criminal activity. Trayvon had not been engaged in criminal activity. Trayvon was defending himself against an unstable Zimmerman (and we know this due to his activities since being acquitted). Corey was a thief who knowingly and willingly went to commit a crime. When Corey was caught he attempted to flee the scene of his crime and apparently attempted to assault the people who tried to stop him. That is not vigilantism that is good community actions against crime. Black people in high crime areas should take note and copy the example of those citizens who stopped Corey from getting away.

Double Standards Abound

So back in December Republican candidate Mark Jacobs said that:

“I think you have to connect with women on an emotional level. And with a wife of 25 years and an 18-year-old daughter, I’ve had a lot of coaching on that,”

Feminists went after Mark. Never mind that he referenced his insight to lessons learned from his wife and daughter. He's a man and therefore cannot say certain things in public. And never mind that research shows his statements to be 100% true. Now last week a female spokesperson for GM's Cadillac division, Melody Lee comes out and says the following:

f you look at market research, something that's really important to women is this ability to connect with a brand on an emotional level. It's arguably important to both men and women, but with women it's even more important that a brand actually stands for something, that it becomes something they embrace as much as the product itself.

Now where is the outrage that GM thinks women are "emotional"? If Melody is a professional sales person and has studied her market and has come to this conclusion than why does Mark Jacobs get grief for doing the same and stating the same?

Oh right, he possesses a penis.

Side note:

One example is in our bigger vehicles, our pedals previously were not adjustable. Now in the 2015 Escalade, you can move the pedal up. I can tell you this from experience. I'm driving one now, and I'm 4'11", and I would never be able to drive this car because I would be so close to the airbag that I would look like a little old lady driving down the street. But they've made the pedals adjustable so I can drive this car and not look ridiculous.

No, you still look ridiculous driving a huge ass Escalade in an urban environment for no other reason that you "feel safe" (which actually means: I can intimidate other drivers and make up for being so small).

This Guy Isn't White?

Because his name is Juan Pablo?

And I thought the One Drop Rule was silly.

Here's a clue white =/= English.

NY Mayor De Blasio and Liberal Utopias

De Blasio is off to a nice start as the umber nanny state mayor that Bloomberg WISHES he could have been. First thing he does is lay out a plan to end the horse carriages in NYC. Why? Because he doesn't like them. No Really. This mayor's first thing out the block is to mess with people's livelihood's because HE doesn't care for it.

I used to think conservatives were the only people who wanted to stuff their values down other people's throats. Of course his actions have been couched in "animal rights" language. That it is inhumane to work the horses. I suppose racing them at Belmont is OK though. Here's a suggestion for people who object to horse carriages in NYC: don't ride in one. See how easy that is. And we know that the "abuse" claims made by groups are mostly false. I say mostly false because I cannot actually verify that no owner has ever never abused an animal under his or her care. But I do know that people who depend on horses for their livelihood do not have an incentive to abuse said horse anymore than a cab driver benefits from not properly maintaining his vehicle. This spring I might actually ride on one them JUST because they are being messed with by the city.

But the real point of this piece is the recent proposal by De Blasio on his "crackdown" on speeders in NYC. He says:

A panel that de Blasio created that includes the NYPD, the Department of Transportation, the Health Department and the Taxi and Limousine Commission will report back next month to pursue his goal of “Vision Zero,” which aims to reduce traffic deaths to zero.

Ahh yes, liberals and their utopias. You know the lands where no crime occurs, everyone has a 100 IQ (or 115) and nobody dies of anything remotely considered an accident. I wonder if anyone at the press conference bothered to even ask De Blasio if there is ANY metropolis ANYWHERE that has zero auto-person fatalities (or at least accidents). Because surely that would have shut that part of the conference down. But never let facts get in the way of liberals with utopia fantasies.

The second dumb thing about his proposal is the fact that there were no mentions, by him, of the fact that a large proportion of automobile-pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian. Police Commissioner Bratton did mention that fact. The number is 66% of accidents according to his statement. So how do you have the majority of accidents caused by pedestrians suddenly made into an automobile operator fault? Oh right, because like many liberals, De Blasio also doesn't care for automobiles.

Yeah, don't look at those pedestrians because they should be able to cross wherever and whenever they please, looking into their phones and not paying any attention to what's going on. Yes, there are folks who are driving under the influence (and not) who are being actually reckless. They ought to be dealt with under the law, but this show boating with weepy, depressed family members is pandering at it's worst.

It's sad that the kid was killed the other day. De Blasio SHOULD have simply allowed the police to do their job and deal with the person who did it. Perhaps order the Traffic division to look into what could be done, if anything to prevent similar situations (longer light, dedicated turn lights for vehicles, Islands) from happening. But noooooooo, showboating and talking utopia nonsense and shifting the blame onto a class of people is far better.

3 weeks in and De Blasio is already making some bad decisions. 4 more years eh?

"I'm A Good Mother...."

"Everybody kid cuss". Really?

Yeah. I suppose we can blame white folks for this one right?

12 Years A Slave: Permission Passes

He came out soon with the pass in his hand, and calling me a "d-d nigger that deserved a hundred lashes," threw it on the ground. I picked it up, and hurried away right speedily.

A slave caught off his master's plantation without a pass, may be seized and whipped by any white man

whom he meets. The one I now received was dated, and read as follows:

"Platt has permission to go to Ford's plantation, on Bayou Boeuf, and return by Tuesday morning.

JOHN M. TIBEATS." This is the usual form. On the way, a great many demanded it, read it, and passed on. Those having the air and appearance of gentlemen, whose dress indicated the possession of wealth, frequently took no notice of me whatever; but a shabby fellow, an unmistakable loafer, never failed to hail me, and to scrutinize and examine me in the most thorough manner. Catching runaways is sometimes a money-making business. If, after advertising, no owner appears, they may be sold to the highest bidder; and certain fees are allowed the finder for his services, at all events, even if reclaimed. "A mean white," therefore, —a name applied to the species loafer—considers it a god-send to meet an unknown negro without a pass.

Always the low man on the pole who feels the need to step on someone else isn't it.

12 Years A Slave: A Comment on Women Labour

In the course of a fortnight, four black girls came down from Eldret's plantation—Charlotte, Fanny, Cresia and Nelly. They were all large and stout. Axes were put into their hands, and they were sent

out with Sam and myself to cut trees. They were excellent choppers, the largest oak or sycamore standing but a brief season before their heavy and well-directed blows. At piling logs, they were equal to any man. There are lumberwomen as well as lumbermen in the forests of the South. In fact, in the region of the Bayou Boeuf they perform their share of all the labor required on the plantation. They plough, drag, drive team, clear wild lands, work on the highway, and so forth. Some planters, owning large cotton and sugar plantations, have none other than the labor of slave women. Such an one is Jim Burns, who lives on the north shore of the bayou, opposite the plantation of John Fogaman.[My Emphasis]

How To Keep A Slave: 12 Years A Slave Version

Using hatchets and broad-axes upon slaves was shameful, and should not be allowed, he remarked. "This is no way of dealing with them, when first brought into the country. It will have a pernicious influence, and set them all running away. The swamps will be full of them. A little kindness would be far more effectual in restraining them, and rendering them obedient, than the use of such deadly weapons. Every planter on the bayou should frown upon such inhumanity. It is for the interest of all to do so. [my emphasis]

Reminds me of all that "he's a good white man/woman" commentary I hear when folks wanna excuse certain people's behaviors and writings. Particularly when said person is on the political left.

12 Years: Solomon The Hypocrite

In an earlier posting on the 12 Years a Slave book, I made a point to discuss how Solomon made rather derogatory statements about the

Mary, a tall, lithe girl, of a most jetty black, was listless and apparently indifferent. Like many of the class, she scarcely knew there was such a word as freedom. Brought up in the ignorance of a brute, she possessed but little more than a brute's intelligence. She was one of those, and there are very many, who fear nothing but their master's lash, and know no further duty than to obey his voice

Now here's Solomon pages later:

I think of him with affection, and had my family been with me, could have borne his gentle servitude, without murmuring, all my days.

So here's the same Solomon who had very unkind words for the "jetty black brute" who knew "nothing of freedom" saying how he would gladly serve as a slave to a "kindly master". Essentially Solomon is saying that under the "right" circumstances he would gladly be a slave. And this is somehow better than the "brute" who bends to the lash?

I see. Slavery without the lash is OK. I guess so.

A side note: I have yet to see Solomon refer to anyone not "Jetty black" as a brute. I'm only on page 108 though.

12 Years Quotable

There were men enough in New-Orleans who would give five thousand dollars for such an extra, handsome, fancy piece as Emily would be, rather than not get her. No, no, he would not sell her then. She was a beauty—a picture—a doll—one of the regular bloods—none of your thick-lipped, bullet-headed, cotton-picking niggers—if she was might he be d--d.[My emphasis]

I suppose that's another way of sating "brute" with "brutish intelligence".

And interesting that this would be some of the same things said about black women today.

More "12 Years" Issues

[Updated 11:31 AM] So the last post on differences between the book and the movie discussed the fact that Anne Northrup was miscast as a "dark skinned" black woman (not going to get into that), when by Solomon's description she was far lighter than that. This next issue discusses his children:

At this time we were the parents of three children— Elizabeth, Margaret, and Alonzo. Elizabeth, the eldest, was in her tenth year; Margaret was two years younger, and little Alonzo had just passed his fifth birth-day. They filled our house with gladness. Their young voices were music in our ears. Many an airy castle did their mother and myself build for the little innocents. When not at labor I was always walking with them, clad in their best attire, through the streets and groves of Saratoga. Their presence was my delight; and I clasped them to my bosom with as warm and tender love as if their clouded skins had been as white as snow.[My emphasis]

"As if their clouded skins had been 'white as snow' " As far as the movie is concerned this makes the entire casting of Solomon's family completely false.

The above is TOTALLY not what the Northrop family could have looked like if we go by what was written in Solomon's biography.

Second thing is the clear adoration of things white by a soon to be abolitionist. I have had a critical opinion of black abolitionists for being no less "white supremacist" than the people they were agitating against.

Here's another fine example:

Mary, a tall, lithe girl, of a most jetty black, was listless and apparently indifferent. Like many of the class, she scarcely knew there was such a word as freedom. Brought up in the ignorance of a brute, she possessed but little more than a brute's intelligence. She was one of those, and there are very many, who fear nothing but their master's lash, and know no further duty than to obey his voice

Did Solomon call this black woman a "brute" with little more than "a brute's intelligence"? After getting his ass beat to the point where he was willing to deny he was a "free" man from New York. His ONE and ONLY time having his ass beat and being removed from his normal life, Solomon has such unkind words to speak of a person who likely has only known captivity, non-schooling? Seriously?

12 Years A Slave: Did Anyone Know What A Quadroon Is?

In the actual text of 12 Years a Slave. Solomon Northrup describes his wife Anna Hampton as:

a colored girl then living in the vicinity of our residence...She is not able to de exact line of her descent, but the blood of three races mingles in her veins. It is difficult to tell whether the red, white predominates. The union of them all, however, in her origin, has given her a singular but pleasing expression, such be seen. Though somewhat resembling, yet she cannot properly be styled a quadroon, a class to which, I have omit mention, my mother belonged.

Can't tell whether the red or the white predominate. as in she barely resembled the woman who was cast to play her

Is it so hard to actually get people who resemble the described persons in the text? It is likely that Anna Northrup would have resembled Soledad O'Brian:

or maybe Paula Patton:

Why does it matter? Because when discussing slavery in America these things matter, particularly given the often privileged positions those persons of mixed ancestry occupied (and occupy) in America. And there was no reason for it. Solomon said what his mother and wife looked like so cast the proper folks.

Fighting to Kick the Habit

Mike Tyson tells a great story about himself:

Even when I was just an antisocial kid, stealing and jostling in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, my friends and I would question our behavior. At my lowest points, I’d still be somewhat outside myself, thinking of the effect my actions had on other people...

have such a negative self-image that I just expect bad things to happen to me. And even though I hadn’t been using for five years, all that time I just didn’t feel comfortable in my skin. I was holding secrets from my loved ones, things that I had to get off my chest because I was dying inside. That’s the worst feeling in the world, keeping things to yourself.

I will bet that many of the black boys and men who are killing other on the streets in various cities have the same feelings. In fact Gil Noble did an interview with some gang members who essentially said the same thing as Mike did.

What is key here is when Tyson spoke of Cuss D'amato and how he had instilled discipline in Mike in regards to boxing. Many of these young men acting a total [sometimes criminal] fool in public are in need of strong male models to provide them with that.

"Terminal Stage Of Zionism"

The looming terminal stage of Zionism will be marked by crusades to crush the free speech rights of citizens inside Israel and across the West — to restrict their very ability to organize for the rights of Palestinians. Former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren reflected the increasingly anti-democratic undercurrent of pro-Israel advocacy when he took to Politico to call on Congress to pass laws illegalizing Palestine solidarity activism and punishing Americans for protesting Israeli officials in public forums. 11 students at UC-Irvine have already faced a criminal prosecution for protesting Oren for literally two minuntes[sic] during a public event. So the campaign to block me from discussing my book at venues across the United States was of a part with the McCarthyite tactics that form the heart of today’s pro-Israel playbook.

And this doesn't just apply to Zionism. In the EU there is proposed legislation banning "Anti-Feminism" (among other things)

Section 2. Purpose
The purpose of this Statute is to:
(a) Promote tolerance within society without weakening the common bonds tying together a single society.
(b) Foster tolerance between different societies.
(c) Eliminate hate crimes as defined in Section 1(c).
(d) Condemn all manifestations of intolerance based on bias, bigotry and prejudice.
(e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

This is why I move quite far from my "liberal" compatriots. I noted a very very deep anti-democratic, particularly free speech, streak that runs in those circles. It is no longer a matter of "I disagree" but a matter of criminalizing speech one does not agree with. it has become normal to trample on the rights and freedoms of those they dislike not to protect the rights of some other group, but to prevent them from merely feeling bad.

It is a sad state of affairs.