The Many Issues With The Dubose Shooting

So having finally watched the entire interaction between Dubose and Tensing. There are a lot of issues here BEFORE the shooting even occurred. Let me say this first. For 20 years I have driven my car with a custom front plate in a state that requires 2 identical license plates on a personal vehicle. I have done so with the full knowledge that at any time I may be stopped by the police for having such a setup or come back to my vehicle to find a ticket for not having the plate. I repeat: I FULLY understand that my actions will bring the attention of the police. And I have had the attention of the police. I don't act a fool when this happens. I take my warning or ticket, pay it, and move along. If I don't want the attention of the police I put the proper plate on. This is my choice.

This leads us to Dubose. In the video he claims that it was legal to have only one plate on his car when in fact it was not. I have lived in states that only require one plate and you know what? They ONLY give you one plate. States that give you TWO plates do so because it is what the law requires. So either Dubose was a total idiot OR he knew full well he was lying to try to get out of a ticket. Why not simply admit you took it off? Instead Dubose lied about having the plate in his glove box. So having established himself as a liar on top of not having the required plate, Officer Tensing probably thought he had a possible car thief. Had the Dubose produced the plate, the interaction would have probably ended there (as mine have) but his lack of product lead to more interaction.

Next thing Dubose does is hand the police office a closed bottle of liquor from the driver side floor. Now I don't know the specific laws in Ohio, but I think if you hand a police officer a bottle of gin off the driver side floor of your car, a police officer will think that you were about to do the drinking and driving thing. That's a felony. Now possessing alcohol in your car is not illegal. But I'm going to ask why this bottle was on the driver's side floor.

Now Dubose knew full well that he didn't have his license and registration with him yet he lied and said he had it in the glove box. He was asked multiple times to produce his license by Tensing who actually had a right to ask him to produce that. So lets add the suspicious moments up:

1) Driving with a missing front plate.
2) Having a bottle of Gin on the driver's side floor.
3) Failure to produce a current driver's license.

At that point Tensing asks for Dubose to step out of his vehicle. This was a lawful order unlike the situation with Sandra Bland. Sandra bland produced the papers asked for and had complied with all orders up to that point. There was no probable cause to remove Bland from her vehicle. Dubose on the other hand, had no front plate as required by law and was driving without a license. If you're stopped and cannot produce your license expect to be asked to step out of the vehicle especially if there are issues with the vehicle like a missing plate. If you hand the officer a bottle of Gin too, well yeah, expect to be asked to exit the vehicle.

And this is where Dubose really messed up. When he refused to exit the vehicle, even though he KNEW he had no license on him, HE escalated the situation by pulling back on his door. This is one of the things that bothered my about the commentary I read. Someone said that being stopped for not having a front plate "inflames African-Americans." Lets address this bullshit right now. As I said earlier, I have a custom front plate. I cannot be "inflamed" because a police officer decides to enforce the motor vehicles law that I knowingly violated and decide I'm not going to cooperate. Also the statement implies that there are laws that African-Americans don't have to obey simply because they don't like them. That is a very very dangerous concept for any so called leader to advance. African-Americans have to obey the same laws every body else does, whether they like them or not. If they don't like them, they are free to vote in representatives to change those laws.

It is entirely reasonable to say that Tensing thought that perhaps Dubose was more than just a guy missing a front plate once Dubose refused to exit the car and doubled down by pulling closed his door. However, after that Tensing is completely in the wrong. I don't know if he forgot that he had a body cam on him, but his lying about what happened after that was totally unnecessary. Watching the video, he could easily have said that Dubose refused to exit the vehicle after a lawful stop and not having a license and became combative when he was being removed from the vehicle resulting in a shot. It was Tensing's lie that changed the situation. He was not being dragged. he fell as the car took off.

I don't think Tensing will be found guilty of murder. The video from the body cam does not prove malice or forethought. Tensing is definitely guilty of fraud for the statement he made in regards to being dragged. He might even be guilty of criminally negligent homicide because one could argue that pulling his gun and firing was reckless in that situation. However, the fact that we know that Dubose had no license and no front plate and had resisted lawful orders made after those discoveries (because they establish probable cause) will almost certainly lead to an acquittal if this goes to trial.

They Know Who The Bigger Problem Is

While situations such as Sandra Bland and Eric Garner get the attention, those of us who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear understand what the number one killer of black people are. And the ones who are doing the killing know it too:

Mark Jones, a former special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and an expert on illegal firearms at the University of Chicago Crime Lab, says interviewees consistently tell him, "We are not afraid of the police. We're afraid of other people in the neighborhood who might try to kill us." [my underlines]

Arrested For Being An "Uppity Negro"

Sandra Bland was wrongfully arrested for being an Uppity Negro(tm). The dash cam video proves this beyond any doubt whatsoever:

[This link is broken]

You need to watch the video from the beginning because it is instructive on what was going on in the mind of the officer. The footage starts with him giving a "friendly" warning to a driver he had pulled over. Apparently that person did not have their insurance on them. He's friendly to the driver. It is apparent, later that he EXPECTS that people he pulls over should all be happy about being pulled over.

After giving the warning to the driver he pulls a U-turn and heads up the road. He runs up on Sandra's car, which is in the left lane. Sandra seeing the police car running up behind her quickly pulls into the right lane to let the officer pass. She does so without using her signal. A reasonable officer (or any other person for that matter) would have seen the courtesy given to them and moved to pass the slower moving vehicle. This cop uses that courtesy as a pretext to stop Sandra on a technicality. Let me be clear here, under law the officer has a right to pull Sandra over for non indicating a lane change. However, they have discretion as to the enforcement of such an infraction. I would suggest that because Bland had out of state plates, the officer decided to use his "discretion" to "investigate" an out of stater. It happens in parts of Texas often.

I will also point out that Bland pulled over immediately which indicates that she was cooperative. Cooperative does not mean "happy to be in the situation".

The officer approaches the passenger side of the vehicle (standard procedure) asks for Sandra's documents and asks her if she's OK. Now personally I think the officer was being an ass for asking the person he just inconvenienced whether they are OK. BUt maybe in that part of Texas he expects people to be OK with that. She doesn't say much. He returns to his vehicle to run the plates and whatever else police do in such situations. When he returns to Sandra's vehicle, this time at the driver's side, he asks again if she's OK. She says she isn't and he asks why and she tells him that she didn't appreciate being pulled over after moving over to let him pass. That is reasonable. At that point the entire attitude of the police officer changes and he steps outside the law. It is not resisting an officer to tell him why you're bothered by a stop, particularly after that officer just asked for that information. The old rule applies: don't ask questions you don't want the answers to.

Then the officer goes further into abuse of power by telling Sandra to put out her cigarette. Why? What did her smoking have to do with being given a ticket for changing lanes? Sandra was absolutely right to question him on that. When he then takes her refusal to comply with what is CLEARLY an UNLAWFUL order, he orders her out of the vehicle. Although an officer can order a person out of a vehicle, it must be under probable cause. He has none. You cannot give a lawful order to enforce a previous UNLAWFUL order.

The officer tries to tell Bland that he was going to do her a favor by giving her a warning. This goes back to the stop at the top of the video. He expects everyone to smile and be thankful that he's only wasted his time demonstrating his authority. This is why I say that it is clear that Bland was arrested for being an "Uppity Negro". Once Bland answered his question as to why she was upset he should have given her the ticket and gone about his business and he knows this. Everything that happened after that was because he was personally offended. This was not law enforcement this was ego enforcement.

At this point I cannot say beyond reasonable doubt whether Bland was murdered in the jail cell, but I can say for certain that had the officer at the initial point of contact acted in a professional manner that Bland would be alive today.

Your Reputation PRECEDES You

The next time you hear about a cop shooting a black minor who he thought had a gun. Where on earth would that cop get that idea from?

Tomorrow's Tech Stars Sound Off On Why Silicon Valley Should Embrace Diversity

First watch the video:

Now read carefully on what the kids said in reference to Facebook and Google:

"Companies like Google and Facebook, they're very powerful," says one of the teens, Isaiah. "And they're also very progressive and liberal companies. But according to demographics, there's only like 2 percent of African-Americans at Google and Facebook."

Why?

"I wouldn't be able to get into Facebook, have a programming job or anything if they don't change their percentages in minorities," says another teen, named George.

Really? Why? Does this kid think that Facebook has some 2% Negro quota?

Ahh the "soft racism of low expectations". Who told George that he couldn't get a job at Facebook assuming he is even QUALIFIED to do so unless for some reason Facebook upped it's numbers? And on what basis did whoever told George this "fact" do they make such an assertion? Did anyone inform George the percentages of African-Americans that have advanced computer science degrees?

One of these students said that Google and Facebook NEEDS to increase their diversity if they want to take the next step of being progressive. What kind of bullshit is that? Someone told this kid that Facebook and Google exist to be "progressive". This fellow is in for a rude awakening when he finds out that "progressive" does not pay for electricity or salaries for top flight engineering talent.

What is also quite disturbing about this clip is that in the demands for "representation" not a one of these so called up and coming programmers (Lets see them say 8 years from now) had anything to say as to what they offered Facebook or Google that their current staff does not (and please please please do not talk about the "gorilla" incident. That wasn't racism, that was an honest mistake on the part of a computer).

Only one kid said anything about working for himself (Bravo!). That should have been the attitude of most of these folks. But the real deal kicker? No one mentioned that Jay Z's music streaming venture Tidal is the creation and is maintained by a company with ZERO black folks. It's kinda sad when the African-American front person of an internet based company cannot even build a company (or find one to use) that has at least the number of black folks as "not diverse enough" Facebook.

But we don't wanna have that conversation.

Prison As A LifeStyle Upgrade

There's a lot I can say about this piece on women convicted of tax fraud but this recurring theme stood out to me:

Prison itself isn't bad, said Frazier, the mother of four. Outside, she depended on a $625 a month disability check and food stamps. Here she gets three meals a day, a shower, a roof over her head.

She just misses the kids. It's an extra penalty paid by parents.

"Now that I sit in prison, I say it's not worth it," she said.

I'f I'm reading this right, the part that is NOT worth it is the missing the kids, not the loss of freedom.

It appears that it costs $21k/year/prisoner for federal lockup. Honest question: which way would money be a better return on investment? $7500 or $21K? Of course since not all people on disability or food stamps are committing these frauds so it's not a one to one investment so that would have to be considered. The second thing is even if the "pay outs" were increased, how many of these individuals would have committed the crime anyway?

The English Discover Brown v Board

The Guardian reports on a discovery about English schools:

The education of white pupils is being hampered by increased school segregation on racial grounds, according to analysis by an influential think tank.

A study by Demos pointed out that many schools outside Britain’s big cities are becoming more segregated than the communities they serve.

Real quick note here. How does a country in which whites are the native population that is not a "colonial nation of immigrants" have a problem of segregation? And if it does have such a problem, it would seem to me that it is a problem of their own making. It would seem to me that the government ought not have let in so many non-English as to enable such a thing to happen in the first place.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of Demos’s mapping integration project and former head of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), warned this is dividing society and holding back white children who tend to do better when taught in racially mixed schools.

This reminds me of the Brown V Board decision but in reverse. In Brown V. Board it was argued that black children, in the absence of white children failed to perform because their self-esteem and academic performance depended on being in proximity with white students. Anyone who actually believes that also believes that black students (people) are inferior to whites (and others). What is most striking about this report is that it is using the reverse logic. Whites, who heretofore were considered The Master Race now suffers from lack of contact with his "inferiors" who are actually his inferiors. I know..very confusing.

Launching the report on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Phillips said: “To some extent, in London the clever thing for smart middle-class parents to do is to look for schools which have substantial numbers of Indian heritage children, because the statistics say that their child will benefit from sitting in the same class as those motivated kids.”

Indians you say?

He claimed that greater racial integration in schools would improve community cohesion and increase the educational attainment of ethnic groups, such as white children, who are currently falling behind.

Although studies have actually shown that non-homogenous communities actually have less cohesion. But never mind that. Why are whites (the natives of England) falling behind in education to people who are not natives of the country? I would think that issue would be most alarming.

“White children are the ones who are doing least well. Those white children who are in schools where there are a lot of high-performing minorities tend to do better. There is something about sitting in class with those kids that improves performance ... We are trying to prepare children for a diverse world – schools should reflect that.”

Yup. Someone read Brown v. Board. Odd thing about this claim is that in the US where the same claim was made, when you look at the broader data, the levels of academic achievement between groups is consistent regardless of school types. Asians are at the top, followed by whites with blacks usually trailing way behind.

It is interesting that there is no mention of black students.

Clarence Thomas: Prophet?

In pondering events of the past few years including the recent Supreme Court rulings I have come to the conclusion that it is entirely possible that Clarence Thomas is in a sense a prophet. What would make me come to this conclusion? His statement during his confirmation hearings:

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[63]

Of course Thomas was referring to the allegations of sexual impropriety towards Anita Hill. But we know that the reason that Anita Hill was even put forth against Thomas was because he was a black conservative. The same black folks, including me at the time, were perfectly fine with seeing Thomas embarrassed publicly and the chance to keep him off the Supreme Court while simultaneously defending Bill "first black president" Clinton for lying about receiving head from an intern (among other events). Bill Clinton was the "right kind of person". Thomas was not. But if we look at Thomas' statement in a more abstract sense we find that he was in fact telling us what was coming down the pipe.

As I've discussed before the purpose of public lynchings is to keep order(Please note that my posts from that era were done in a program that failed to honor paragraphs. That's why they look like one big run on sentence. Sorry about that). That is, whites who lynched black people who may or may not have been guilty of a particular crime (or social custom) did so to let the surviving blacks know who was in charge and to what ends those persons in charge are willing to go to maintain control.

Once you understand lynching as a tool of a larger purpose, rather than simply as an act of violence then you start to pay attention to the WHY rather than the WHAT. This is of course what Thomas meant when he said:

it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.

The events of the past few years would justify modifying this statement to read:

it is a high-tech lynching for uppity [straight, generally male, generally Christian], who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to [the new] order, this is what will happen to you.

Isn't that what happened to the Baker? The Florist? Brandon Eich? The people on the "wrong side" of GamerGate? Tim Hunt? The UVA Fraternity members? Hell Donald Trump (who I have my issues with). If anything, we saw during the entire Ferguson episode that there was an actual lynch mob mentality as in black people actually holding signs asking for a lynching. But worse than that there was an actual attitude that if you wished to get at the facts and the truth that somehow something was wrong with YOU.

Just now there have been a bunch of black churches burnt down. Out of 7 so far, only one has been deemed actual arson with an unknown suspect. Yet news [sic] reporters keep showing people talking about how they know it was some white supremacist. Not a single one of these reporters [sic] asked basic questions such as: How do you know? Do you have proof?

Tim Hunt was fired from his job due to the tweets of a person who purposely distorted his presentation. What was worse than the random tweet was that the alleged adults that run the university Hunt worked for didn't even have the maturity to look at the entire situation to find out whether Hunt was in fact putting down female scientists or if he was actually noting how backwards his own attitudes towards women were. Hint: it was the latter.

Now as soon as someone on twitter makes noise, governments and corporations go into full censorship mode. The government can't legally do it yet, but they can certainly lean on corporations. After all, no corporation wants an EEOC or DOJ investigation as to why x,y or z "hateful" [enter subject matter here] is still available in their stores or why x,y or z employee is still employed after making a,b or c statement that the "right group" has found upsetting. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who remembers the old "does not mean we endorse...." mantra. Now "guilt by association" is the new normal, even if the associate is not guilty of anything!

The dictionary defines fascism as:

(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

When I first learned this term, I focused almost entirely on the race angle. At the time, for me it was the central problem of fascism. I could not conceive of fascism divorced from race. Yet if we were to remove the racial angle and the need for a dictator we could easily see that we are in the formative stage (some say "formed") of fascism. If you step out of line on a growing number of ideas you will find yourself in trouble. Your ability to work, even for yourself, will be destroyed with the full cooperation of the business community and a helping from the state.

One could argue that there is in fact Democratic Fascism. Instead of having a dictator you simply have a growing state apparatus, with "justice departments" that can swoop down on any individual, company, town or state and inflict a high tech lynching with real time feedback from Twitter. All a Democratic Fascism needs is for the elected representatives to be believers in the institutional line and willing to enforce them to the death (of those who oppose of course).

Isn't this all what Clarence Thomas told us would come to pass? Clarence Thomas: Prophet?

First The Fourth Now The First

For those of us who understood the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage for what it was, we knew that it effectively nullified the first amendment of the US Constitution. We knew that it was only a matter of time before the state would step in and declare free speech and free exercise to be illegal if such speech and exercise did not meet the approval of certain entities. Though some private companies like newspapers decided to gag their audience, private companies are supposed to be able to regulate what appears in their private property. However, I believe today marks the first time that a state agency has explicitly abridged the first amendment rights of a private citizen:

The Oregon official imposed a gag order on the couple, mandating that they “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

While the state may issue a gag order in such cases like a trial or a settlement case that has a gag provision as a part of it's agreement, the state may not order a private citizens to not discuss their beliefs and activities in public if they so choose. Such activities are explicitly protected by the US Constitution. The order is on pages 42-43 of the decision The flimsy reasoning offered by Oregon:

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In actuality the business refused to participate in a wedding which violated their beliefs. They did not refuse service to homosexuals. Homosexuals, as far as I know the case, can still buy items from that place of business. The way the Oregon court thought[sic] about it was that the Oregon Bureau has a mandate to make sure people aren't discriminated against and if it means restricting your first amendment rights to do that then so be it. Prior to last week's ruling I would have said that based on the Hobby Lobby decision, enumerated rights would triumph over these kids of rules. But since then I believe there is no reason to believe that any court in the US will uphold enumerated rights and if any court does, it is only a matter of running to another with the same or slightly modified argument to get what they want.

And remember, just last week Justice "I am the law" Kennedy told us that Christians and others who object to SSM on religious principles would be free to speak. Well that was quick wasn't it.

Twitter employs only 49 African Americans despite diversity pledges

On the heels of Facebook's report here goes Twitter:

Twitter employs just 49 black people out of a total US workforce of 2,910. The tiny number of African American staff – 35 men and 14 women – represents just 1.7% of Twitter’s US staff.

And what do they do?

The Rev Jesse Jackson, president of the Rainbow/Push Coalition, who has long campaigned for tech companies to be more transparent about their lack of minority employees, told the Guardian that black people are “becoming intolerant” of Facebook and other Silicon Valley companies’ lack of progress in making their offices more diverse.

And just what are black people going to do about it? Go to their own twitter? Oh wait. Right. There's a black search engine. How's that project going? Imagine being upset because someone built something themselves, that you voluntarily use.

and as Twitter actively exploits its large number of minority users to bring in more advertising revenue.

Twitter be like a slave master yo!

Seriously though. Are we to believe that Twitter management is on some "Lets sell these niggas hard on this advertisement auction block!" Are we to believe that Twitter is not interested in leveraging EVERY SINGLE USER that VOLUNTEERS to use it's "service"? I mean really. If black folks being mad about Twitter is like a slave volunteering to stay on a plantation after the Civil War. If you like it so much you don't wanna leave, then don't complain about the beatings.

African Americans account for 13.6% of the US population, according to the 2010 US census, and Pew Center Research shows that black people use Twitter disproportionately more than white people.

Black people do a lot of things disproportionate to their population. Do we really want to have a conversation about that?

Twitter’s vice-president of diversity and inclusion, Janet Van Huysse, said: “We are committed to making inclusiveness a cornerstone of our culture.”

I would think the most important cornerstone of a business would be say...profitability and hiring the most productive employees (while human employees are needed). Lets be totally real here, how exactly does "inclusiveness" (whatever that's supposed to mean when folks can be subject to mob rule if they have the wrong opinions) affect the profitability of Twitter?

And if the results of the VP's work is 49 people, shouldn't this person be dismissed for lack of results?

It showed that 93.8% of employees were white or Asian, with just 180 people out of a total workforce of 2,910 being drawn from other minorities.

Interesting. Tell me what two groups are largely responsible for the invention of the computing hardware and software in use around the world?

Twitter’s lack of minority employees contrasts starkly with the rainbow nature of its users. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that 27% of black adults and 25% of Hispanics use Twitter, compared to just 21% of white people.

Because all companies should have staff that reflects its users. Before you agree with that...you think really really hard...

“I am very disappointed,” Jackson said. “Black people are greater users of the product and capable of doing the jobs, but there has not been an adequate commitment to hire, train and maintain [black people].

That a certain group represents a "greater user" has squat to do with who should be employed by a company. Secondly the issue has never been whether there are black people that can "do the jobs" (and we are assuming these are programming jobs). The actual relevant fact is how many black people there are with the necessary qualifications. We already know that only about 4% of African-American college graduates have a computing degree and that number shrinks dramatically when you move to the level of PhD. Therefore anyone who understands the entire concept of supply and demand as it pertains to skilled labour knows full well that there aren't that many black high level programmers to go around. And really people. just because you can tweet does not mean you can program. And no, just because you set up a WordPress website does not qualify you to program for Twitter or any other high tech company.

“Some people call it ‘Black Twitter’ because we over-index so much, but they still don’t hire more black people. We are becoming intolerant with these numbers, there’s a big gap between their talk and their implementation.”

Translation: We waste a disproportionate amount of time tweeting so hire us.

Jackson said Twitter “should set a timetable to make their workforce look like the market place, and a commitment to make the board of directors more diverse”

Have a seat Mr. Jackson. How about since black people are 13% of the population, the engineers at Boeing ought to be 13% African-American regardless of qualifications. Think hard on that one.....

He said that at the moment, Twitter is benefitting from black people’s love of its medium – which often leads to black issues trending worldwide – without paying enough back to the community. “They hire people they know, they trust and like,” Jackson said. “We’re not in that the circle.”

Twitter owes pay to black communities? Is this that new reparations? I will agree with the latter part of the statement. There is a lot of hiring of buddies and people in certain circles which leads to exclusion. Absolutely. That can be addressed without the untenable comparisons to population demographics.

“It appears that the tech companies seem to treat it as a public relations issue rather than addressing the actual problem. African Americans use social media more than others, the corporations continue to build and profit from that, so it is especially problematic that they do not have an employee base that in any way reflects its users. They have really failed on this.”

A problem for WHO? Twitter needs to be profitable. That is all. If it isn't, that's the only problem they have that is important to Twitter. Notice that COC hasn't even addressed that. Color of Change could give a hoot about what Twitter needs. And this is the bottom line that none of the critics can bring themselves to even discuss:

If this lack of diversity is so bad for business how the hell did all these companies come to be so successful? It's abundantly clear that the product isn't damaged by the makeup of the employees and management. It's pretty clear that Twitter could be just as successful with 0 non-white employees (and I'm certain at one point it was like that). Furthermore I would make a very large wager that if all the black users of Twitter disappeared tomorrow, it would continue to be successful (I can't say anything about profitability). Why would I make such a statement? Wiebo

So The EU Paid The Bankers....

From The Guardian:

Only a small fraction of the €240bn (£170bn) total bailout money Greece received in 2010 and 2012 found its way into the government’s coffers to soften the blow of the 2008 financial crash and fund reform programmes.

Most of the money went to the banks that lent Greece funds before the crash. [my underlines]

They could have just written the cheque to RBI and cut the middle country man out. But really, if this is true then it's pretty clear that it wasn't a Greek bailout it was a bank bailout.

The troika of lenders first stepped in during the spring of 2010 after Athens could no longer afford to finance €310bn borrowed from a wide range of major European banks...

Greek government debt is still about €320bn, 78% of it owed to the troika.

I saw a credit card statement like that many years ago. I advised that person to cut the card up and toss it into a fire.

Wal-Mart apologizes for turning down Confederate flag cake, baking an ISIS cake

And the reason?

“For that reason we did not make the cake. [Netzhammer] brought in the other image of ISIS and really, what happened, was our associate didn’t recognize what that image was and what it meant or it wouldn’t have been made.”

I say that generally that fits for more than Walmart. A lot of people don't recognize the signs and don't know what they mean until they've already FUBAR.

Facebook only hired seven black people in latest diversity count

*laughs hysterically*

Ok I'm done.

The most recent EEO filing available shows Facebook hired an additional seven black people out of an overall headcount increase of 1,231 in 2013. At that time Facebook employed just 45 black staff out of a total US workforce of 4,263.

Really?

Facebook’s black female headcount increased by just one person over 2013 to 11, and the number of black men increased by six to 34. There were no black people in any executive or senior management positions.

Just like where I work. Seems to be standard operating procedure.

Over the same period the company’s white employee headcount increased by 695. There were 125 white people holding executive and senior management positions at the firm.

Similar to where I work. They get hired and run up the ladder, quick fast and in a hurry. What actually bothers me about this though is the sheer hypocrisy of Facebook, Apple, etc. in that they talk a whole lot of game about "diversity" but the senior offices have "No negroes allowed" policies.

“We need a team that understands and reflects many different communities, backgrounds and cultures. Research also shows that diverse teams are better at solving complex problems and enjoy more dynamic workplaces.

Now now Zuckerberg. If that were the case then Facebook wouldn't be doing as well as it is. The fact of the matter is that Facebook does just fine hiring (and not hiring) the people it does. if it were in the shitter then Zuck could say something like that. But the fact is that the hiring practices of Facebook are serving Facebook very well. There is no economic incentive to do anything differently.

Guardian UK

Rise Of The Robots: An Interesting Note On American Spending

So my new read is Rise of the Robots. There is an interesting note on page 53:

Second, although it may appear that virtually everything sold at Walmart is made in China, most American consumer spending stays in the United States. A 2011 analysis by Galina Hale and Bart Hobijin, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, found that 82 percent of the goods and services Americans purchase are produced entirely in the United States; this is largely because we spend that vast majority of our money on nontradable services. The total value of imports from China amounted to less than 3% of US consumer spending.

The Supreme Court Is Sick

After yesterday's ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States made yet another ruling in which it shows that it's membership has no regard for the Constitution or it's own purpose. Just yesterday Justice Roberts released a ruling in which he said:

(e) Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. Pp. 20–21.

Get that? It doesn't matter what the legislation actually SAYS. It's what we think the congress thought when they voted on it and we should be concerned about the "Calamities" that would ensue if we did our jobs.

Now with the gay marriage ruling we see this from Roberts:

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized co urts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment....

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu - ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun - damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand ma rriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

And this is his dissent!!

He is using the same language and even references from the dissent in yesterday's ruling to justify is current dissent. How can a neutral judge use two very different lines of reasoning on the very same set of issues? Either the court cannot legislate and think up what is and isn't good law or it can.

It's pretty clear here that the SCOTUS is a corrupted institution that can't keep it's thinking straight and is hell bent on ruling on emotion rather than the law. Peeking at Alito's dissent I saw many references to other countries and the past, but not ONE mention of English common law that is the basis of common law in the US. At this point we can stop saying the US is a country based on the rule of law and say that it is ruled by popular opinion.

Edit: Alito did not mention English common law but Roberts did. For that reason I have struck the sentence from the original. Also Thomas (wow...I'm referencing Thomas...) deep dives into Blackstone, the Magna Carta and the rights of Englishmen.

"Plain Meaning Arguments"

Allow me to present a thought argument. Imagine if you will that you have a child in school and they had a test. A math test. Say that little junior said that two plus two equals three. imagine that the teacher marked the answer correct. Imagine that for every question that junior answered incorrectly, the teacher actually marked it correct. You'd be very concerned right? Concerned enough to go to the school (or at least call) to find out what's going on right? Because since we all know that two plus two equals four, why would any teacher mark any other answer as correct??!! How would you feel if upon asking about the clear discrepancy the teacher told you:

"Although in plain meaning, your argument that two plus two is four are quite strong the context and structure of the problem as well as a desire to not have a calamity lead me to just mark the answer correct."

If you are a sane person your next move would be to the principals office to have the teacher removed.

Lets try another one. imagine you are on trial for murder. And you're in a death penalty state. Say we have an expert witness who is supposed to testify as to the time of death of the person you are accused of murdering. Your alibi is that you couldn't have done the crime because you were too far away to have possibly made it to the crime scene, committed the crime and then arrive back at the location where you said you were. Say that the expert witness had data that showed that the body's drop in temp showed the murder took place 2 hours [ago] but on the stand said it was something like 7. That time difference puts you in the execution chamber. Upon cross examination your attorney challenges the clearly wrong interpretation of the data and the prosecution objects saying that though the plain meaning of the argument is strong, the context and structure of the testimony as well as a desire to not have to go find another witness or are more likely suspect which would be calamitous means we should just let that testimony stand.

Yeah. me too.

Now imagine that there is no appealing this objection, which of course was granted. Well you're dead.

This my friends is what the Supreme Court of the United States did yesterday. In their ruling in favor of the Obama administration we find the following in the summary:

(e) Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. Pp. 20–21.

I haven't read past that. It is unlikely I will because the statement here is so powerful that it will undoubtedly have a profound effect on future courts and the nation as a whole. How is it that "plain meaning arguments" in a court of law be less important than congresses duty to write law properly and for the courts to enforce the laws as written? Consider the recent case in Mass. where a man was caught filming up women's skirts in a store. He was arrested and prosecuted based on what the state thought was the law. They thought that surely the statute meant to include that kind of behavior. The judge in that case read the law and saw that whether the intention was there or not, the law as written did not criminalize the actions of that person. The Mass. legislature did what they are constitutionally bound to do: legislated and created a law that added upskirting as a crime.

This is exactly what the courts are supposed to do. If the legislature wrote a law in a manner that excluded something they may have wanted to included, the legislature must amend that law. It is not for the courts to change the "plain meaning" of the laws to fit whatever views that the justices may have. This is what is meant to be governed under LAW and not men. Consider their very brief explanation for dismissing the "plain meaning" argument:

Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

Reliance on context and structure in statutory interpretation is a “subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself.” Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 83 (1939). For the reasons we have given, however, such reliance is appropriate in this case, and leads us to conclude that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.

I would agree with this IF the "context" was that there was only that one statement. However I wrote extensively on the subject and showed that the term "state" was used a number of times in relation to Fed and that the paragraph in question, not just the quote in contention clearly never mentions the federal government even though in the context of the legislation, when they wanted to put the federal government on the hook, they were not shy about doing so. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that these justices, like many of the congresspeople who voted for the ACA didn't actually read the document.

But here's another thing with the statement by the court. If the "context of the entire document" is going to be the standard then it's probably time to let the gun control people have a go at the second amendment. It has been pointed out by many that the second amendment's right to bear arms is in the context of a well maintained militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So it is veryeasy with the context argument to say that individuals not connected with a militia have no right to keep and bear arms. It's an easy argument to make on both "plain meaning" and "context" grounds. But perhaps they don't want to in order to avoid "calamity".

Did He Say That?

Doing my morning reading when I saw the following:

This year’s attacks on Jews in Paris and Copenhagen have led to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling on European Jews to immigrate to Israel.

If Jews do it, that would trigger a serious economic crisis in Europe, Kantor warned.

"I think out of three million Jews that are living in Europe at least one million, a very active part or young part, self-sufficient part are going to leave and it will be a disaster, an economic disaster for Europe in general because first of all some supporters, non-Jewish supporters will come with Jews. It's a lot of cash and money currents are going to leave Europe and also businesses," he said.

Three million Jews in Europe out of a population of around 740 million total. That's what? Not even one percent of the total population? If the exit of less than one percent of the total population of Europe would lead to an "economic disaster" then one would think that this extremely small population must have an inordinate amount of economic power in Europe. No? And isn't it usually the case that those holding inordinate amounts of economic power also have inordinate amount of influence in government policy?

I suppose if I were in France and published this, I would be soon hearing that knock on the door.

Five Social Disadvantages That Depress Student Performance

I saw this report two days ago and wanted to address it since education is one of the issues important to The Ghost. Though this report lists 5 disadvantages I'm going to add more particularly for black folks (and not so black folks who are called African-American...ahem...I'll deal with that on another post). The short list is as follows:

This report describes how social class characteristics plausibly depress achievement and suggests policies to address them. It focuses on five characteristics for purposes of illustration:

*parenting practices that impede children’s intellectual and behavioral development
*single parenthood
*parents’ irregular work schedules
*inadequate access to primary and preventive health care
*exposure to and absorption of lead in the blood.

Leaad poisoning is definitely an external factor. A parent that has no idea that there is lead paint in their home that their kid is eating cannot be blamed for that. So lets get to the findings: I want to add something to the talked with children. If the adult is speaking street slang to their children or other forms of so called "ebonics", they are not helping their children in the least bit. In fact I would suggest that it creates a barrier to later learning as proper English has to be learned in the classroom almost like a second language rather than English being primarily improved in the classroom.

Also allow me to take issue with the following:

ECLS-K reports responses by socioeconomic status (SES), using an SES definition including parents’ income, education, and occupational prestige. Such definitions are useful but limited, missing other important social class characteristics. For example, in 2010, the ratio of black to white median family income was 56 percent, while the ratio of black to white median family wealth was 5 percent, owing largely to 20th century housing policy that barred African Americans from purchasing suburban homes that later appreciated in value, a primary source of wealth for households.

While these economic disparities do exist they do nothing to explain why a parent doesn't buy a book for their child. Anyone rolling through the 'hood will note that black folks of "poor" backgrounds have no problems purchasing expensive sneakers, spending inordinate amounts of money on vehicles and of course on weaves of all hues. Also, even within the middle class of black folks who are still behind their white counterparts in wealth, they generally have enough income to purchase books for their children but choose not to. I grew up with a wall of books of all kinds and my parent never made more than $46k/year in her entire life until well after I graduated college. Parents who are bullish on education do what they have to do.

Patrick Sharkey, for example, has shown that the quality of the neighborhood where a child’s mother was raised has a bigger influence on the child’s achievement than the quality of neighborhood where the child was raised.

This was also pointed out in the Bell Curve. Poor smart people have better chances at being successful than poor dumb ones. If you are poor but live in a home that values hard work and education, that will likely pass on to the children who generally will do better than the parent. If you live in a house of deadbeats who think living that life is acceptable, then the children of those people are going to also think that such behavior is OK. This is old news to those of us paying attention. There is something very important in this chart. It shows that on average the HIGHEST SES blacks own less books than the LOWESTSES whites. So the question would be what are the characteristics of this high SES class of black folks that they simply do not read? I would be very interested in how other groups (Asians, Hispanics of various racial backgrounds) rank.

Other research finds that parents on public assistance, unemployed, or with less than a high school education typically provide less cognitive stimulation to children.11 When reading aloud, lower-class parents provide less guidance and are less strategic in building on children’s prior knowledge to expand it.12

This is not surprising. If the parents were prone to "building on prior knowledge" they most likely would not have "less than a high school education and/or be on public assistance. Dropping out of high school is generally a good sign of lack of forward looking thinking and desire for "knowledge expansion".

By age 6, white children have typically spent 1,300 more hours engaged in conversations with adults than black children.

I'll repeat here that not only would these children be lacking the 1300 hours but the quality of the hours that were spent are per previous paragraph probably lacking as well.

How parents shape children’s choice-making, self-direction, and stances toward authority varies by social class. Middle-class parents typically give fewer direct orders, instead providing controlled choices. Lower-class parents expect more deference to authority. Lower-class children typically have more unstructured leisure time where they need not follow adult rules, while middle-class children typically have more structured schedules. [my underlines]

I think the underlined passage directly contradicts the preceding sentence. If a child is in a situation where they do not have to follow adult rules, then expectations of deference to authority (particularly male authority) moot. However; I think there is a great deal of value in "unstructured" leisure time IF it is within a set of boundaries. For example, saying to your children "go outside and play" means they are not sitting in the house watching TV. If they are in the house and told to "play" but play does not include video games, iPads or the like, forces a child to use their imagination which IS good for education. It would probably be best for the researchers to define or refine "unstructured".

Math and reading skills of entering kindergartners in the top and bottom SES quintiles differ by about 40 percentile points in normal distributions.16 Cognitive gaps do not change much from kindergarten to middle school. This does not mean that schools are ineffective with lower SES children; rather, lower SES gains resemble those of higher quintiles, and initial gaps are left mostly unchanged. [My underlines]

Meaning if your kid wasn't very bright in the beginning, he will still not be very bright in the end. Bright children will still continue to acquire and build on prior knowledge as they progress. They don't generally slow down. I brought this up in the "20 Minute Kids" post.

Parents who are more involved in their children’s educations by volunteering outside the classroom, helping their children with homework, and checking their children’s homework have children with fewer behavioral problems in the classroom.

That would be "structured time" no? If they weren't prone to doing that before...

The availability of children’s books and whether mothers read aloud, share meals with their children, use non-harsh discipline, expect their children to help keep their homes clean, are affectionate with their children, and encourage children to contribute to conversation all predict better social skills and fewer teacher-reported behavioral problems. [my underlines]

You know that "non-harsh" discipline is code for spanking right? Oh and we will definitely notice that fathers are mention nowhere. Let me suggest a different formulation:

The availability of children's books and whether mothers and fathers read aloud, share meals with their children, use proper and proportionate discipline, set high expectations of their children's behavior and are affectionate with their children...

We have seen what happens when so called "harsh discipline" is removed from the equation. Teachers assaulted in schools. Kids deciding to not go to class. Kids deciding to act a total fool in class. swift, certain and consistent discipline, sometimes "harsh" is a key factor in the proper socialization of children.

Parents with less education have fewer educational interactions with their children at home. Among low-income African American mothers, those who are less educated tend to provide less assistance and be less supportive and encouraging of their children during home-based teachable tasks like puzzle-making. [my underlines]

Aside from the complete absence of "father" in this paragraph I would like to know whether there is a recorded difference in attitude, specifically in the area of support between mothers and their male children vs. their female children. I would also like to know if any of this relatively hostile environment is the result of any hostility on the part of the mother towards their father that has been redirected towards the children.

Moving on: 51% of black children living without a father in the home?!!!

0.0

Although black children are more likely to be living with the mother alone than white children, the share of both white and black children in single-parent homes has grown, partly because falling real wages have made it more challenging for women to find marriage partners who earn sufficient incomes to support families.

Partly. How about largely because the types of jobs that guaranteed a middle class lifestyle have all but disappeared from the US. How about partly because in some professions there may as well be a "no negro allowed" sign on the door for the low numbers of black people employed but the high level of immigrants that are. You might not "need no man" but clearly your children do.

The number of years fathers work nights before children’s fifth birthdays predicts increased sexual activity for the children when they reach adolescence.

I'm going to take this with a few grains of salt. If they are saying that *Single* father's who work night shifts have these issues, then I'd be prone to believe it. If they are saying that where the mother and father live together and the father is working a night shift while the mother is at home, meaning the children are supervised, then something is very wrong. There is a linked paper so I'd have to read it to be certain.

Children with parents who work non-standard hours are heavier than those whose parents work regular schedules. Lower-middle-class children (those whose families are in the second income quartile) whose mothers have worked non-standard shifts for from one to four years have close to twice the odds of being overweight at age 13 or 14 as children from economically similar families whose mothers do not work non-standard shifts.

They did not say the age of these children, which is relevant but it would suggest that either the parents are "rush cooking" and/or the children are being left alone and therefore are prone to digging in the fridge for food.

Parents with non-standard schedules find it more difficult to spend time with children and engage in cognitively stimulating activities with them.74 For example, for low-income African American mothers of preschool children, each additional nighttime hour of work is associated with a decrease in cognitively stimulating mother–child activities of about 1.5 percentile points in a normal distribution of mothers’ engagement in such activities. Thus, mothers who work a full eight-hour night shift decrease their engagement in cognitively stimulating mother–child activities by about 21 percentile points in such a distribution.

This brings an implication for mothers who decide to pursue additional education (or make up education) after having a child. If this paper is correct and each hour costs the child 1.5 percentage points of less engagement and it doesn't matter what the mother is doing for that hour, it would mean that if she pursues an education after work, the children are losing that much more time. She may become better off financially at the end of x years but how damaging has that been to the child's development?

I'm skipping over the doctor visits and lead issues and going to the recommendations.

The employment-to-population ratio of African American men age 20–24 was below 50 percent in early 2014, the lowest rate for any demographic group.121 We can enhance outcomes for African American children by creating opportunities for their fathers to support them. This requires a national full-employment policy, including public jobs when the private sector is too weak to absorb the unemployed.122 Macroeconomic policy is education policy.

Not sure what utopia this group is living in or imagines will happen but there is never full employment in a society where one is not a farmer or hunter. Secondly, with automation gaining steam jobs are going to get more scarce, not less scarce. Furthermore the jobs that are the last to fall will be the ones that these 20-24 year old, high school drop outs cannot do as they generally lack the IQ to do them. Lastly, in the interim the high levels of illegal immigration and the jobs they perform, places they live and strains they put on the educational systems which poor black people already suffer from only means that such employment opportunities will not show up. If the authors are not willing to face up to these issues then their recommendations are extremely faulty.

Young African American men as a group are less employable because they are discriminatorily incarcerated at very high rates.

Sorry but being jailed because you shot someone isn't discrimination. And no, the white man didn't make you do it.

But when growing numbers of middle-class women are single mothers by choice, we cannot expect lower-income women to delay childbearing indefinitely when we fail to create conditions for economically viable marriages.

And why exactly are middle class women choosing to be single mothers?

With 40 percent of births currently to unwed mothers, even if programs to reduce this rate are effective, single parenthood will continue. Ameliorating single parenthood’s negative outcomes requires reforms discussed above: home-visiting programs like the NFP, high-quality early childhood care and education, and high-quality after-school and summer programs for children whose home lives are unstable and resource-starved. The federal tax code’s child care subsidy is inadequate and its availability insufficient to enable low-wage single mothers to afford high-quality child care.

Lets see...the state should provide resources like medical care. Child entertainment, an environment that is conducive to rearing a child. You know what? That sounds like what we expected fathers to do. So in essence the state should be the daddy. Let me ask you a question: You have a choice between two men to have a baby with. One has a job, some savings, car, decent place to live, BUT you never know. He might bail. The other one has millions coming in every year from recurring income and will never disappear. Which one do you decide to have a baby with? Now about that "why are middle class women choosing single parenthood..."

Live Where You Want?

So I'm reading this piece about "diversifying" wealthy neighborhoods where I found the following:

“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.

Maybe that's because that's where the people that can afford it live. Wealthy neighborhoods don't need "affordable housing" cause they can already afford the housing that is there.

The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

There's that garbage concept again.

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.” [my underlines]

You know what? I'd like to live in Alpine NJ. Maybe a house overlooking the Hudson. No. I want to have a house in the Hamptons. Oh wait. I don't have enough money. But I WANT to live there!!! Let me get the government to make them build a house I can afford in those places.

0.0

Look. News for the cry babies out there. You don't get to live where you WANT to live. You get to live where you can afford to live. That said, let me be clear that I am for rent stabilized places. I am for building places that are affordable for people who are not making 6 figure salaries.

“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.

So long as there are people who make more than other people, there will be "unequal neighborhoods". That's a fact of "free enterprise". Secondly the vast majority of people want and like to live around people who are of the same racial and ethnic backgrounds as them. Why is this a problem? Those who WANT to live in highly mixed neighborhoods find and move into such neighborhoods.

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.

Well there are a few things here. First the "violence and crime". Who is committing all this "violence and crime"? Wouldn't that be the other people in those communities? It certainly isn't people coming in from the wealthy neighborhoods deciding to take a trip "slumming" and shooting and robbing the residents for fun. So why not point out that it is the very residents who are creating this violent and criminal environment? And furthermore why not realize and say that the reason that there isn't "affordable housing" in these wealthy areas is specifically to keep those persons prone to "violence and crime" OUT of their neighborhoods so that they do not become subject to "violence and crime".

“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.

Segregation has been legally dead for decades. Negroes who can afford it can live just about anywhere they want. Restrictive covenants are illegal. Why is this person talking about segregation like it's the 1950s?

More Adventures in One Drop Rule Land

NAACP leader of Washington state chapter lied about being black, parents say

Dolezal’s parents, who are both white, provided a birth certificate and childhood pictures of their daughter to the Coeur d’Alene Press to back up their claims she has been grossly misrepresenting herself. The birth certificate confirmed she was born to the white couple, and the pictures show Dolezal as a pasty, blonde child — a complete contrast the darker skin and curly brown hair she has now...

A black man who Dolezal has publicly claimed to be her son is in fact her adopted brother, they said — a fact Dolezal confirmed to the paper.

Dolezal also lied about growing up in a teepee, hunting for her own food with bows and arrows, being abused by a stepfather and once living in South Africa, her parents said.

When you accept One Drop Rule you inevitably get stuff like this.

I will say this though, She either was keeping some tanning salon in good business or has stock in a spray tan company.