Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, March 13, 2015

Just Can't Take Them Seriously Anymore

Over the past year or so as I've become more and more careful about my analyses of events and sources of information, places I used to go to for information and views are failing to pass even the most basic integrity tests. I understand that opinion pieces are not scholarly journal entries. It is unlikely that such pieces are going to be accompanied by charts, graphs and heavily footnoted. Indeed I have to say that there are times here where I don't even bother with images or links to references because I've already established the factual basis of my claims in other posts on the subject matter. The reader, if so moved can search the over 10 years of posts to check the references if they like. When you provide absolute proof of your points you gain a reputation for accuracy and generally you can be allowed such leeway. However when one habitually gets actual facts wrong then your credibility is shot and your readership becomes less informed if not misinformed. Other readers will simply stop tuning in. I'm going to cite two recent examples of this phenomenon:

Counterpunch. I used to follow Counterpunch religiously. During the Bush years there were a lot of hard hitting pieces. Then Obama got elected and a lot of the regular people posted there basically lost their minds. It got even worse when Cockburn passed. But the worst came when the Michael Brown incident occurred. The number of posts on that publication in which people asserted as fact information that was completely contradicted by the available evidence was, to me, shocking. A person might be entitled to their own opinions but one certainly does not have the right to up and make up "facts" in order to support some fantasy one wishes was the case. I also would expect that the persons who run the website would exercise some editorial control in the form of fact checking. I'm not saying they should endorse or censor a particular piece, but rather they should either not publish pieces with obvious factual inaccuracies until they are corrected by the author or they should note at the head or tail of the piece that x,y and z statements are incorrect. If the writer want's to commit reputation suicide by misrepresenting the facts, let them, no need for Counterpunch to put the knife to their own throats as well.

So long after the facts of the Michael Brown shooting have been on public display I see this by Ishmael Reed who I have become so disappointed in that I do not even bother to get upset when he once again makes dumb claims:

When the report about the misconduct of the Ferguson police was issued, CNN was able to find two black men to defend the Ferguson police. One accused the Attorney General Holder of carrying on a vendetta against the force. Maybe Mark O’Mara, another CNN regular, wasn’t available. He was George Zimmerman’s Attorney. He promoted false information about Michael Brown and intimidated the white women on the Zimmerman jury by raising the specter of the black rapist.
There are a lot of black people who are bright enough to read the document created by the DOJ and then gather evidence to see what is and is not supported by the facts. I know that in far too many black circles such behavior is considered "not black" and "selling out" . Oh well. I would call that, being honest. So for example, we find that Ferguson PD's arrest rates are on par with the county and state. We also find that the arrests rates, and use of dogs are also concurrent with the level of violent crimes (which bring about the dogs and cuffs) committed by black folks in the city, county and state.

Last weekI asked the readership what was conspicuously absent from the DOJ report. If you answered that the data of criminal conviction rates by race you won the prize. You see, unless you have an idea as to who is doing what and at what rate, you cannot discuss whether something is "disproportionate".

As for the court using tickets as revenue generation, firstly how is it people haven't figured this out nation wide? Look. The national speed limit was put into place for the reasons of saving fuel during the OPEC embargo. Once that was lifted, speed limits stayed in place. Why? The go to answer was "safety" but it really wasn't that. It apparently never occurred to people that most people on highways are doing at least 10MPH *over* the speed limit and in many cases 15-20MPH. You try doing the speed limit on the southern portions of the NJ Turnpike or I95 in Conn. and see how many people blow by you. The fact is that if you are doing the speed limit on most highways, YOU are a safety hazard because people have to slow down for you.

So why is it that even though the majority of the population has voted with their right foot and travel at speeds in excess of the so called "safe" speed limit, do the states continue to ticket people for speeding? Revenue. Firstly they do it because the federal government will withhold DOT monies from the states that fail to enforce the speed limit and the various towns that these highways cut through get a cut of revenue generated from speeding tickets.

So by and large, the entire country's speeding ticket racket is just that, a racket. So how is it that Ferguson's is more egregious than anyone else's? Because the ones caught with infractions are reflective of the general population.

Also nowhere is it discussed that Ferguson, having transitioned from a 95%+ white, middle class neighborhood unto a 70%+ black neighborhood with over 30% of it's residents in section 8 housing, has a rapidly decreasing tax revenue. What do little, near broke towns do when their population cannot support their municipal government? They use tickets to generate income. Some towns make their own main street a speed trap and write tickets to hapless drivers passing through. Since it appears that most people with money simply bypass Ferguson, that option isn't available.

Does that mean Ferguson should prey on their citizens for revenue? Nope. But I wouldn't call it racist. AS for the "expensive" tickets. Let me give a personal example:

Many years ago I got a parking ticket that I thought I didn't deserve. So I decided I wouldn't pay it. I got letters from the city. I tossed 'em. Then I got a letter from the DMV. My license was suspended. Oh and the fine was now $1,000. So I had to take my butt to the local DMV. Pay a huge fine upstairs, then stand in line downstairs to get my license back. Mind you, I COULD have also gotten a ticket on the way to the DMV since I was rolling on a suspended license.

All of that could have been avoided by either paying the fine or at a minimum contacting the city by the date due. Fortunately I *had* the revenue to pay that fine. Do you think I'm going to let that happen again? I'm certain that the report of a police officer making a false claim of an out taillight is true. I've had it done to me. Shouldn't happen but I'm certain that happens across the country and not just to black folks.

The point being that just like the water shut offs in Detroit, when we look deeper into the situation we will inevitably find that the majority of cases were absolutely valid regardless of how much bellyaching the complainant does. And this is what is missing from the discussion. The report relied on some fantasy that the various racial populations in Ferguson and elsewhere do the same things at the same rates. The data simply does not support such an assumption. And the "two blacks" noted by Reed are one of many who know this.

As for Holder. He did in fact have a vendetta. The report about Ferguson reminded me of the Ken Starr prosecution of Clinton. When they couldn't get Clinton on what they wanted to get him on, they just kept digging and digging until they could get something. Similarly when they couldn't get Wilson they turned on the city.

Soon after Michael Brown made headlines, Holder, the top law enforcement agent in the land, took a trip to Ferguson and declared that there should be a trial. That the top law dawg would issue such a biased (and biasing) statement when no information had been out was the lowest point of his employment. That he went around talking about how he was a "black man" as if that was relevant for his job was another. Could you imagine a white AG going to the place where a white person got killed by a black person and said "I'm a white man..I got you"? It's one thing if it's a "wink and nod" understanding. It's an entirely different thing to up and declare your bias in public.

As for this:

Maybe Mark O’Mara, another CNN regular, wasn’t available. He was George Zimmerman’s Attorney. He promoted false information about Michael Brown
I'm not entirely clear as to the purpose of this. What "false information" is Reed referring to? He speaks of it as if it's a known fact. Cause the only "false information" out there about Brown was that he had his hands up and that he didn't assault the officer. Reed (or Counterpunch, I'm not sure) uses this as his evidence:

Well that settles it then right? A statement not made under oath. I'm fairly certain Reed is a literate man and therefore could read the various witness testimony available to the public in the form of the GJ report. Why does he think that the word of this contractor is better than the words of those who were right across the street from the incident? Why does he think the word of a contractor is better than the forensic evidence that shows Brown moving towards the officer?

Because Reed, like a lot of black folks live in a fantasy land where if white people are involved a black person could not do wrong. Or if he or she did it was because of slavery or white supremacy acting on their brains. Reed like many of his compatriots cannot even bother to note that Brown had just robbed a store and assaulted the owner. I have not seen a one of these folks even offer an apology to that man. Who also had his store looted by Ferguson residents for "snitching". Move along people. Nothing to see here. Such is the utter moral bankruptcy of much of the black left. Speaking of 2) Black Agenda Report

I'm a long time reader of BAR. In fact I was following BAR before it was BAR. When the owners were a part of the Black Commentator website. They fell out and BAR was created. I didn't quite understand why BAR fell out. But now I do. There is something called integrity that BAR has simply decided to toss out the window in order to "keep in black". For example:

On August 9, 2014, police officer Darren Wilson shot unarmed Michael Brown in his eye and in the top of his skull and the Barack Obama Justice Department (*link DOJ) thinks that is not a problem, having officially stated that the shooting was justified. They also designated as “not credible” the people who witnessed the killing and stated for the record that Brown posed no danger to Wilson. The only witness they felt worthy of regard was the killer cop.
If you didn't know better, and apparently that includes a LOT of people. You would think that Wilson just walked up on Brown and shot him in the eye and head just because he was black and walking in the street. If you do know better you recognize that paragraph for the shit representation that it is. Simply put, there is no excuse for such a paragraph to have even made it onto the website. The author of the site is presumed literate and therefore could read the GJ report that is widely available to the public which makes it very clear what actually happened.

We know from that report that Brown, having just robbed a store and assaulted its owners (not even mentioned in BAR, 'cause it apparently doesn't matter) decided he didn't like how Wilson was speaking to him and decided to punch Wilson in the face repeatedly and tried to shoot him with his gun.

None of that was mentioned by BAR. Again, none of that seems to matter.

Brown then decided to flee, and after hearing at least one shot stops and goes back towards Wilson. The trajectory of bullets show a bent over Brown consistent with a charging person. I suppose that BAR would also like for us to imagine that after shooting Brown, Wilson, without anyone noticing, dipped his gun in Brown's blood and returned to his vehicle to smear it on the door in order to complete the cover up. I mean, we know how these devils do right?

Lets be clear here, such shit-tastic writing as presented in BAR on more than one occasion has gotten at least three people killed. Two police officers (not even white!) and a Bosnian. I do not quite understand how people like those discussed here, can sleep at night knowing that they have (and continue to) promote false information about Michael Brown and that information has lead directly to dead innocent people.

Lastly let me deal with this "unarmed" thing. The other part of this is the media's false narrative that someone who is unarmed is not a threat to someone's life. How many people have been pushed off train platforms and killed? No weapons there. How many people have been severely injured or killed by a single punch or kick to the head? Every time I hear about "unarmed" so and so was shot as if "unarmed" means not a threat I shake my head. I know, and police know full well that an unarmed person can be just as deadly as one who is armed. The only difference that weapons provide, particularly firearms is the ability to wound or kill from a distance. This ability gives those who are less equipped to kill with their hands (either mentally or physically) the ability to do so. But anyone who tells you that so and so was "unarmed" as if that makes much of a difference is telling you that they are a total fool.

And you just can't take them seriously.