Found it on Facebook: Margaret Sanger’s ultimate goal

If you’ve been educated in the American school system at any time during and after the late 1960s, you’ve been taught that Margaret Sanger, had her emotions terribly wrung when she saw the terrible suffering poor women (mostly immigrants and blacks) experienced because they had child after child after child under the most appalling economic circumstances.  To the extent Sanger was one of the major forces helping women break the cycle of annual pregnancies that destroyed their health and well-being, I have to applaud her.  I don’t do pregnancy well and I’m not exaggerating when I say that a third might have killed me.

What I’ve learned since leaving school is that relieving women’s suffering was only one of Sanger’s goals, although it was the only one that she was willing to discuss publicly.  When speaking with friends, she was more straightforward about her ultimate plans for birth control and abortion:

Margaret Sanger

(I checked and that quotation appears to be real, rather than libelous and apocryphal. It comes from her comment on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939., a document found in the Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts.)

Sanger would undoubtedly be proud to learn that her beloved Planned Parenthood overwhelmingly targets African-Americans and other minorities.

Incidentally, it’s recently acquired knowledge such as this, all of which runs directly counter to the careful myths on which I was raised, that makes me increasingly hostile to America’s abortion culture.

Friday afternoon round-up and Open Thread

Victorian posy of pansiesThe Taliban has hit Marin County (indirectly).  Marin County is headquarters for Roots of Peace, an admirable charity that seeks to advance agricultural development in poverty-stricken areas.  It has an outpost in Afghanistan, where it seeks to enable the Afghani people to feed themselves.  The Taliban can’t have that kind of thing happening in its country.  It therefore sent off some foot soldiers to attack the Roots of Peace Kabul office, killing a child in the process.  If radical Islam had a cable-TV station, it’s motto would be “All war, all the time.”  One wonders if this will be a bit of reality that mugs that peaceniks who are so self-centered that they cannot envision cultures that have, as their core value, a desire for perpetual warfare.

***

David Clarke, Milwaukee’s Sheriff, made a splash when he encouraged Milwaukee’s beleaguered citizens to arm themselves:

Police chief get a gun

I think Clarke may have found a kindred spirit in Detroit Police Chief James Craig. During a press conference in which he discussed the rising numbers of homeowners (successfully) using arms to defend themselves, he had this to say:

Detroit Police Chief James Craig said at a press conference last week that in his 37-year career, he’s never seen as many homeowners defending themselves by shooting intruders. Craig told The News in January he felt the crime rate could be lowered if more “good Americans” were armed, because he said criminals would think twice about attacking.

“It does appear more and more Detroiters are becoming empowered,” Craig said. “More and more Detroiters are getting sick of the violence. I know of no other place where I’ve seen this number of justifiable homicides. It’s interesting that these incidents go across gender lines.”

We want more law enforcement like Clarke and Craig, and less like Marin’s Second Amendment-challenged sheriff.

***

I also want more of this:  An Ebony magazine editor went on a rant against conservative blacks; got called on it; claimed that the person calling her out was a white racist; when she learned that the person calling her out was black apologized for calling him white; and then doubled down on rants that were both anti-conservative black and anti-white.  (That’s not want I want to see more of.  It’s this next thing I like.)  Normally, Republicans would run away screaming from this type of confrontation, leaving the racist Leftist in control of the field.  This time, the RNC demanded an apology . . . and got it.

***

Speaking of the Left’s racial obsessions:  Any half-sentient being knows that Stephen Colbert’s shtick is that he created a faux-conservative character who is pathologically dumb, racist, sexist, etc., and that Colbert, a marginally-talented generic Leftist, uses this character to claim that all conservatives are pathologically dumb, racist, sexist, etc.  That’s why it’s hysterically funny that, when his show tried to  highlight (non-existent) Republican racism by having his character ostensibly tweet out a crude anti-Asian stereotype, the Asian community got riled and demanded that Colbert be fired for being an anti-Asian racist.  Asians should stop getting their knickers in a twist about stupid TV shows and should start looking at where their real politic interests lie.  (Hint:  It’s not the Democrat Party.)

***

Leland Yee has been around forever as a fixture in Bay Area politics.  As his name implies, he’s Asian, he’s hard Left, and he represents San Francisco and parts of San Mateo in the California legislature.  Since Sandy Hook, Yee’s been very vocal about being anti-guns.  He also just got indicted for gun running, including trying to sell arms to Islamist groups.  The MSM has been trying hard to ignore his story, as it’s been trying hard to ignore a bunch of other stories about spectacularly corrupt Democrat figures.  Howie Carr therefore serves a useful public service when he calls out the media, the Democrat party, and the crooks.

***

Speaking of crooks, Harry Reid claims never to have called Republicans liars when it comes to Obamacare, despite footage of him calling Republicans liars because of Obamacare.  There’s some debate on the Right about whether Reid’s gone senile or is just trying out his version of The Big Lie.  My theory is that we’re seeing malignant narcissism in play.  As I’ve said a zillion times before in speaking about Obama, malignant narcissists never “lie” because their needs of the moment always dictate the truth of the moment.  That is, if they need to say it, it must be true.  (It’s nice to be your own God.)

***

Keith Koffler identifies the four roots of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy.  I agree with him, although I would add a fifth, which is that Obama desperately wants to see America knocked down to size as punishment for her myriad sins.  Perhaps Obama should read the DiploMad, as he explains why Russia, the country before which Obama is now weakly doing obeisance, has always been much worse than America could ever be, both as a protector and an enemy.

***

Adm. Jeremiah Denton, Jr. has died at 89.  The public learned about Denton during the Vietnam War when, during one of the forced confessions that the North Vietnamese liked to televise to the world, he blinked out a Morse code message — “T-O-R-T-U-R-E” — thereby providing the first proof America had that the Commies were torturing American POWs.  During the same interview, he bravely said he supported his country, a statement that led to more torture.  Denton was also America’s longest-held POW, spending almost 8 years in the Hell that was the Hanoi Hilton, and various related prisons.  During that entire time, he was brutally and repeatedly tortured and he spent four years in solitary confinement (where he was tortured).  My heart bleeds when I read what happened to him.  But Denton came home and he got on with a full, rich life, including six years in the U.S. Senate.  If anyone deserves to Rest In Peace, it is Adm. Denton.

***

I don’t think much of Stanford.  It’s nothing personal.  I think all the big universities (and most of the small ones) have become intellectually corrupt.  However, Prof. Michael McConnell, at Stanford Law School, has somewhat restored my faith in Stanford by writing one of the clearest analyses I’ve yet seen of the problems facing the government in the Hobby Lobby case.  Of course, law and logic will not sway Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer, all of whom are activists much more concerned with making policy than with applying law.  As happens too often, Anthony Kennedy will cast the deciding vote — a reality that places way too much power in the hands of a man who seems too often to blow, not where the Constitution takes him, but wherever his fancy for the day alights.

***

And to end on a light note, two more ridiculously funny Kid Snippets, offering an inspired combination of kid wisdom lip synched by some remarkably talented adult actors:

 

What I would say to UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs about Free Speech, blacks, and abortion

Michael YoungNational Review’s Alex Torres has unearthed a really disgusting example of academic-think over at UCSB. That’s where Mireille Miller-Young, who gets paid to teach students about porn and sex work, with a little bit of “black culture” on the side, not only aggressively stole a sign from a pro-Life display in a Free Speech area, but also physically attacked a teenage girl who tried to recover the sign. Michael Young, UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, finally waded into the fray and . . . attacked the pro-Life people who had properly set themselves up in the university’s oh-so-limited “Free Speech space.”

To do Young justice, he did say that the Founders, despite being slaveholders, had the right idea with Free Speech.  It’s just that he really doesn’t think that people who disagree with his world view should exercise it.  It’s so . . . rude of them!

After reading the claptrap and tripe emanating from Mr. Young’s computer, I sat down and, in a fine frenzy, wrote him the type of letter that he’d never read and that I, after read it, realized that I would never send.  It’s a very brutal letter, and I’ve learned the hard way that the brutal letter is the first draft that never actually goes out. I still want to say what I have to say, though, and that’s why we have blogs.  So — here is the letter that I would have sent Mr. Young if I were a less polite person than I am in real life:

***

Mr. Young:

I don’t usually pay attention to what goes on in America’s campuses, having been fortunate enough to have walked off the last one almost 30 years ago. However, your recent email to UCSB students regarding Mireille Miller-Young’s decision to physically attack a teenage girl with whom she disagreed is so extraordinary that I believe you deserve to hear from one of the people who pays your salary (i.e., a California resident).

I couldn’t help but notice that you’re black. Did you happen to know that New York City and Mississippi abort black babies in numbers far in excess of blacks’ representation in those respective populations? The number of black babies aborted in New York in 2012 (that would be 31,328) was greater than the number of black babies born in New York in 2012 (a mere 24,758). Moreover, although blacks are only 25% of the New York population, 42% of all New York abortions were black babies.

Meanwhile, down in Mississippi, between 1994 and 2010, black women aborted 39,000 fetuses. Over the same period, white women aborted 14,500 fetuses. Put another way, over a 16 year period, black women had abortions at a rate more than twice that of white women. While blacks make up 37% of Mississippi’s population, they accounted for 72% of its abortions.

Did you know that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, was a eugenicist who promoted abortion primarily as a way of ridding America of blacks and other “undesirables”?

Knowing all this, are you sure you want to attack as divisive those people who are shocked that the most dangerous place in America for a black child is the womb?

One of the things that consistently amazes me about black Americans is that they embrace policies that have been manifestly disastrous for them. Welfare, by making black men unnecessary, destroyed the black family structure. Being a university type, you probably know that study after study shows that the surest way out of poverty is a traditional family. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if it turns out that you would rather be run over by a truck than turn your back on the welfare state, despite the appalling damage it has wrought.

I’m willing to bet you were horrified when Paul Ryan said that people of good will need to work on the disastrous pathology of inner city neighborhoods in which young men — almost invariably young black men — prey on each other and on all the men, women, and children unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire. I’m equally willing to bet that you were not horrified when President Obama said that the federal government needs to work on the disastrous pathology of inner city neighborhoods. Considering that these deadly pathologies escalated dramatically with LBJ’s great society, I’d be much more scared of Obama’s threatened federal help than I would be of Paul Ryan’s suggestion that a societal change would be a good thing.

Frederick Douglas accurately predicted what the Great Society would do to black society:

“What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

And so it goes. You’re not the only group in America that has sold its soul to a political ideology that is profoundly damaging to its best interests. As a Jew, I’m equally appalled by the way in which American Jews consistently embrace political parties and politicians that are hostile to Jews — and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per family at campuses rife with blatant antisemitism. The Democrat party is kind of like the mafia: once you’re in, you don’t leave, even when it becomes deadly to you and yours.

All of which gets me to your utterly appalling attack on pro-Life people. First of all, you should be agreeing with those pro-Life people, since the Democrats who so rabidly support abortion are the same Democrats presiding over the slow extinction of the black race in America. Second of all, as a high level functionary in a university, you should be embracing people who challenge the stifling orthodoxy of American academia. It’s this groupthink that has rendered you and Miller-Young incapable of using anything other than violence and invective to challenge ideas with which you disagree. My strong suspicion is that you’re deeply afraid that, if you had to confront these disagreeable ideas on their merits, you might have to rethink your own values.

To coddle students because they feel “outrage, pain, embarrassment,” etc., is a gross failing on your part. The world is a cruel place. (Indeed, I’m being intellectually cruel to you now by calling you on your ignorance, prejudice, and fear.) To take tens of thousands of dollars per student from parents and taxpayers in order to produce scared little bunny rabbits who are afraid to think, confront, challenge, and analyze is a form of fraud. You promise to educate and develop the young mind, even as you’re actively complicit in turning those same youngsters into bland piles of Leftist mush, swinging wildly between anger and hurt, with no pause in between for rigorous thought.

The most narrow-minded, stultifying place in America today is a university (or perhaps they would be better called monoversities, since the orthodoxy of group think permeates every department). Both you and the students under your care deserve more than the pabulum all of you are currently imbibing at UCSB.

Abortion and self-loathing blacks

black_babyThere’s a story out of Santa Barbara today about a UC Santa Barbara professor who went berserk in a campus free-speech area when she saw a pro-Life display with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses.  She tried to lead a mob against it, grabbed a display and ran off with it, and then got into a physical altercation with a 16-year-old.  And just who was this professor?

The professor at the heart of the controversy is Mireille Miller-Young, an associate professor whose area of emphasis is black cultural studies, pornography and sex work, according to her faculty webpage. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday by The College Fix.

A check at her website confirms that she’s not a white person dabbling in black cultural studies but is, instead, a black person.

So, to recap:  A black woman who’s entire intellectual life revolves about being black violently attacked an anti-abortion display.  Gawd, she must really hate herself.  And no, she doesn’t hate herself because of her lack of self-control; she clearly hates herself because she’s black.

Just to clarify what seems like a rather blithe conclusion, let me add some other facts to the mix:

The number of black babies aborted in New York in 2012 –31,328 — was greater than the number of black babies born in New York in 2012 –24,758.  Moreover, although blacks are only 25% of the New York population, 42% of all New York abortions were black babies.

Between 1994 and 2010, black Mississippi women aborted 39,000 fetuses.  Over the same period, white women aborted 14,500 fetuses.  Put another way, over a 16 year period, black women had abortions at a rate more than twice that of white women.  While blacks make up 37% of Mississippi’s population, they accounted for 72% of its abortions.

In 2011, throughout  the entire US, 7,380 blacks were homicide victims.  So yes, these posters are correct:

MostDangerousPlace1

Most dangerous place for a black

We often speak of self-loathing Jews, people such as George Soros or Noam Chomsky, who are deeply hostile to Judaism and Israel. We don’t speak often enough about self-loathing blacks. Only someone deeply conflicted about herself and her place in society would violently attack members of an organization that are working hard to save tens of thousands of black children annually from a premature death.

You know that I’m not hardcore pro-Life.  Instead, I’m a former abortion supporter who is finding it harder and harder to carve out any legitimate moral and intellectual ground to support America’s abortion culture.  People such as Professor Miller-Young are facing the cognitive dissonance of abortion, not be sitting back and reevaluating the facts and revisiting their values, but by engaging in violence so that they can avoid that kind of reevaluation.  (It is, I should add, a painful process.)

The Richard Sherman kerfuffle reveals the real racists among us

This is not polite behavior, and I expect better from all people.

This is not polite behavior, and I expect better from all people.

Words have always changed their meaning over time.  Some of the ones that used to have neutral, descriptive meanings came to be seen as insults because of their association with disfavored people in society.  For example, a spinster used to mean a woman (usually single) who spun wool or flax into thread.  It came to mean a desiccated, embittered, lonely single woman.  A bel dam was the French phrase for a beautiful mother.  It eventually devolved into “beldame,” meaning an ugly old hag.

Words for people who originated in non-Northern Africa (notice my carefully non-racial phrasing) have long had a similar problem.  Southern whites used to call them “colored” or used the “N-word.”  People who were not racist came to reject both those words.  The former pretty much vanished; the latter has now become more toxic than the formerly toxic F-word.  (While “nice” people once used the “N” word in polite company but not the “F” word, that distinction has been turned upside down.)

The next descriptive word to come along was “Negro” (from the Spanish word for the color black), a word that was considered polite and respectful.  It too was eventually seen as being a demeaning insult, so the word “black” cropped up.  After that, I kind of lost track.  There was African-American, which confused my kids who thought it referred to all people with dark skin.  They’d see a Ugandan or Nigerian on television, shown in his home village, and lisp “Look, it’s an African-American.”  Then there was the phrase “person of color,” which I’ve always thought is unpleasantly close to the Jim Crow appellation “colored person.”  In any event, I avoid it, because it’s too non-specific, applying almost randomly to blacks (my preferred word), Asians, Hispanics, Polynesians, East Indians, etc.  As a person of pallor myself, I find that vague appellation confusing.

The one constant in the past when it came to blacks and neutral/respectful appellations, was that, as time went by, blacks, supported by Leftist whites (usually in the media and academia) would tell the rest of us that words once used to describe blacks were verboten, and then offer up a new word they preferred.  This cycle played out every ten years or so.

In Obama’s America, however, we’re seeing something new.  Blacks are now taking any negative word and saying “You can’t use that word any more, ever, because to the extent it’s a negative word, you must be applying it to us.”  The latest example of this involves the kerfuffle about Richard Sherman, who voiced a short, boorish tirade against Michael Crabtree.  People looked at Sherman’s behavior and sought adjectives to define it.  Words such as “gracious,” “thoughtful,” “kind,” and “clever,” just didn’t seem right.  Instead, looking at his foam-flecked, maniacal rant, people who cared enough to comment decided that the noun “thug” and its adjective version “thuggish” were more accurate.  I would have used “boorish” (as I did above) or “ill-mannered” if I’d been asked.

By using the words boorish or ill-mannered, I would have been commenting on verbal behavior that was the antithesis of gracious, thoughtful, kind, or clever.  The same presumably holds true for those who thought “thuggish” more accurate than “gracious.”  I doubt it occurred to any of us — it certainly didn’t occur to me — that, by accurately labeling Sherman’s conduct, we were all engaging in dog whistle racism. It’s amazing that we’re all so naive.

You see, it turns out that all of the people who thought that Sherman, an African-American, verbally misbehaved when he shouted out maddened insults at Michael Crabtree, who is also an African-American, are racist.  So, if I get this right, people who reasonably expect a well-paid, professionally successful black man to conform to ordinary social standards, and who therefore express surprise when he doesn’t, are racist.  From which one can reasonably conclude the opposite, which is that the non-racist approach is to look at Sherman’s hysterical rant and say, “Yup, that’s totally normal behavior for one of those black-toned people of color.”

I am not making this up.  According to everyone from Charles Barkley to Bill Maher, being surprised when blacks behave badly means we’re racists.  Well, Messrs. Barkley and Maher, I have news for you:  You’re the racists and, to put it bluntly, you’re disgusting, low-down, dirty, thuggish, debased racists.  My expectations are that people of all races, color, creeds, countries of national origin, genders, and sexual orientations can behave graciously, even when under pressure.  I look at content of character.  You revolting race-mongers have made it painfully clear that you believe that color is destiny, and that the darker the skin color the more people are destined to behave badly.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves!  There is absolutely nothing to distinguish your views from the views expressed by the mid-19th century trader auctioning slaves off under the broiling Southern sun.

Professional race activists “demand” redistribution on behalf of American blacks

Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS_6I admit that I am not a Reverend Martin Luther King scholar.  As is the case for every American educated after 1970, though, I am reasonably conversant with his speeches and writings.  My memory is that his crusade was one to remove barriers that society had placed in blacks’ way.  He was the ideological heir of Frederick Douglas, who said that white America needed to remove hindrances to black accomplishment, and then leave blacks alone:

“What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

King’s own views appear in that famous line from his “I Have A Dream Speech”: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, stop looking at our skin color and let us get on with our lives, just as the rest of Americans do.

The Left, however, has latched onto King’s legacy and converted it into one that sees Blacks as helpless creatures who can succeed only if white America supports them. That’s why the professional race activists created the following chart to “celebrate” Reverend Martin Luther King’s birthday:

Black demands on Americans

Upon whom are the agitators making these “demands”?  It seems pretty clear to me that they’re not saying to African-Americans “we demand that you clean up your communities; we demand that you raise your children with Judeo-Christian values that do not include gang banging, drive-by shootings, and knock-out games; we demand that you make high achievement in school a cultural value; we demand that you marry before you have children because the single biggest indicator of poverty is single motherhood; and we demand that you raise children who are such well-behaved, self-disciplined students, that people bang down the door to get into their schools, just as people beg to get into schools with high Asian and East Indian populations.”

Per this chart, African-Americans are passive victims, destined forever to float randomly upon a sea of existential despair and violent poverty.  That’s precisely what Reverend King counseled against.  He envisioned a world in which the barriers to entry were removed and African-Americans could take their place shoulder to shoulder with all other races.  Today’s modern blacks, however, seem to envision just another form of enslavement, only one that doesn’t bare its teeth as openly as the old system did.

Comedians Key and Peele — there’s reality and then there’s Leftist reality, and it’s always about race

key-and-peeleBecause I have a high-energy young dog and a bad knee that precludes more vigorous exercise, I walk a lot.  I happen to find this very boring and am grateful for whatever entertainment I can get on my iPhone.  A lot of trial and error has revealed that the best app is the one for NPR radio.  Using this app, it’s very easy to assign radio segments to a playlist and then to listen to them, one-after-another, on demand.  The downside, of course, is that I have to listen to NPR, which I no longer find as entertaining as I did back in my Democrat days.  Still, it’s rather fascinating to see from an intellectual distance the Leftist shibboleths that once seemed so normal to me.

The segment that caught my interest today was an interview that Fresh Air’s Terry Gross did with Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, a comedy team on Comedy Central.  They are two very talented young men whose entire awareness of self and raison d’etre seems to be race.  Both have black fathers and white mothers.  Wait!  I said that wrong.  Terry Gross was oh-so-careful to say “African-American” fathers and “white” mothers.  Frankly, I was offended by her skin-color obsession with Key’s and Peele’s mothers.  What she should have said if she was going with the skin color was “darkish brown” fathers and “sort of pale peach colored” mothers.  And if she was talking continent of origin, of course, she should have extended to the mothers same courtesy she extended to the fathers:  “African-American” fathers and “Euro-American” mothers.

Yes, what I just said is totally nonsensical, which is my point.  The Left’s racial obsession, as well as the insane racial “sensitivity” Leftist white folks try to show when discussing race, makes all racial interactions uncomfortable.  All I could think of was Basil Fawlty, who after being warned not to talk about the war to German guests at his B&B, banged his head and then obsessively (and hilariously) focused on the war.  (Imagine my shock when I learned that, in modern Britain, the government almost banned Winston Churchill from a bank note for fear it would offend Germans.  The Germans lost that war, but I think even most Germans would agree that, ultimately, if losing wasn’t actually a good thing, Naziism was so foul that they deserved to lose.  Churchill helped save them from themselves.)

But back to Key and Peele. . . .

What gave Key and Peele recognition outside of Comedy Central was the first in a series of sketches they did that showed Obama giving a speech in his usual pinched way, with his Luther, his “anger translator” standing behind him saying what he really means.  They felt bad for Obama that, because he was black, he couldn’t have a temper tantrum when faced with the slings and arrows of outrageous GOP and Tea Party attacks.  This racial view of history ignores pale-peach-colored George Bush handling gracefully the unendingly vicious attacks and lies that came his way.  Pale-peach-colored Clinton (aka “the first black president“) was also usually dignified in public, no matter his disgraceful private behavior.  To the racially obsessed Key and Peele, though, the black(ish) Obama is the only one who is forced to act dignified when addressing the people of the nation that elected him.

With that horrible handicap in mind, it’s obvious that the following pictures are mere tricks of the camera insofar as they show Obama being anything but dignified and restrained:

pb-130617-obama-putin-meeting.photoblog900
ObamaGivesHillaryTheFinger
obama gives us the finger_thumb[41]
obama_finger

obama-angry
Poor guy.  That kind of repression can’t be good for him.

Anyway, knowing how Obama suffers in silence, Key and Peele invented Luther, Obama’s “anger translator” (language warning):

Luther is both Obama’s and the Left’s Id. Luther says the truth that the Left dare not say. All Leftists know that when Obama, in his flat, clipped, angry tones is saying bland-ish things, he has a tiger waiting to get out. What’s fascinating about this tiger, as Key and Peele first voiced him in January 2012, is that everything the tiger says is wrong.  By that I mean that, when push came to shove, Obama either didn’t have the courage of  his alleged anger (the “anger translator” was in error) or he felt free to act upon it himself (the “anger translator” was unnecessary).  Need proof?  Here:

Obama:  First of all, concerning the recent developments in the Middle Eastern region, I just want to reiterate our unquenching support for all people and their right to a democratic process.

Luther:  Hey!  All y’all dictators out there, keep messing around and see what happens.  Just see what happens.  Watch!!

Hey, Luther!  Obama bowed down before the Muslim Brotherhood, a group open about its goal of denying the “democratic process” to women, Jews, Christians, gays, etc.  Obama told Bashir al Assad that he’d drawn a “red line” by gassing his own people.  The only problem was that, when Assad essentially said “So what, pretty boy?”, Obama hid behind Vladimir Putin.  Put another way, Luther, not only did nothing happen when Obama faced anti-democratic impulses in the Middle East, the reality was that he either sided with the bad guys or ran and hid.

Luther got it wrong about Iran too:

Obama:  Also, to the governments of Iran and North Korea, we once again urge you to discontinue your uranium enrichment programs.

Luther:  Oh, Mahmoud!  Kim Jong!  I think I already done told both y’all 86 your sh*t bitches or I’m gonna come over there and do it for y’all.  Please test me and see what happens.

Uh, Luther!  We’ve got another little problem here.  In fact, when Iran tested President Obama, he told them to go right ahead with their enrichment — but to be sure to stop just a few minutes before creating the nuclear warhead with Israel’s name on it.  To help this program, Obama un-froze a whole bunch of funds the absence of which had been helping to destabilize the Mullah’s regime.  Obama pretty much failed that test. (With regard to North Korea, the whole world is watching in fascinated horror as an allegedly drunk Kim Jong Il nukes his own family.)

Obama didn’t do so well at home, either.

Obama:  On the domestic front, I just want to say to my critics, I hear your voices and I’m aware of your concerns.

Luther:  So maybe you can chill the Hell out for like a second, and maybe then I can focus on some sh*t, you know?

“I hear your voices.”  Really?  Does anyone remember January 2009?

After listening to a critique of the nearly nine hundred billion dollars stimulus package from Republican Congressional leaders, along with some helpful suggestions on how to fix it, President Barack Obama had a two word answer.

“I won,” President Obama said, indicating why the Republicans were not going to have any significant input into the bill. President Barack Obama was echoing sentiments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had explained by the House Democratic leadership version of the stimulus bill was going to pass with or without Republicans.

Funnily enough, Obama’s words don’t sound much like “I hear your voices.”  They sound a lot more like “Shut the eff up!!”  Luther, Obama lied to you, his beloved anger translator.

But wait, there’s more:

Obama:  That goes for everybody, including members of the Tea Party.

Luther:  Oh, don’t even get me started on these motherf*ckers.  Right here (slamming a fist into his palm).

Obama didn’t need Luther to call the Tea Partiers nasty names.  When someone recently wrote Obama a letter complaining about his treatment of a group the author called “Tea Baggers,” the President didn’t blink.  Instead, he called them “Tea Baggers” too.  For those out of the loop, the MSM’s beloved Anderson Cooper (who told the world about the time he proofread his mother’s ruminations about oral sex) coined the term soon after the Tea Party first appeared on the political scene (although he was only one in a long line of immature gay Leftists sniggering about the Tea Party’s name).  Given the giggles with which his words were received, it was clear that Cooper, who is gay, and his fellow TV folks all knew that he was referring to a gay sexual practice involving oral sex and testicles.

And so it goes with the rest of the comedy sketch.  You can watch the last minute of the video, which is pretty much more of the same.

As fascinating as the video is the reason that Key and Peele felt compelled to give voice to Obama’s id is just as interesting:

We know we’re frustrated when a person like [Rep.] Joe Wilson had , when he was like, “You lie!” to the president. And we were like, “The president can’t react the way millions of Americans right now are going, ‘Ugh!’ He can’t say anything. He can’t rail at this man, he can’t get upset. What if we had a surrogate who could get upset for him?” And that was the embryonic state of creating Luther [the anger translator].

Peele: The way we’ve described it before is that he couldn’t come off like an angry black man, especially early on, so what Luther says are things that ring true to us, and we felt like we were giving the truth a voice in a lot of ways.

First of all, let me say again that Obama isn’t the only president who has to suffer insults in silence.  It’s part of the job.  He’s not special.  Second of all, to the extent that Key and Peele appear upset that Obama had to stand silent as he was being slandered, they’re a little confused.  Joe Wilson called out “You lie” when Obama promised that the monies from Obamacare (which Key and Peele, per Democrat party directive,  now call “the ACA”) would never go to illegal aliens.  The problem (for Key and Peele, at least) is that, while Wilson was rude, he was also accurate. Obama did lie:

Now [August 11, 2011], Wilson’s indictment seems to have been proven right.

On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was awarding a $28.8 million Obamacare grant to 67 community health centers, many of which offer free care to ‘migrant workers,’ in other words…illegal aliens.

HHS spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com that “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers.”

Andrews continued: “Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center. The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status.”

In other words, while Obamacare ostensibly excludes illegal immigrants, the HHS has already handed out Obamacare money to organizations that serve illegal immigrants.  Obama’s lie wasn’t white, so much as dark grey.

Watching Key and Peele perform, it’s obvious that these are two extremely talented men.  They’re also one-dimensional.  To them, the world is solely about race.  That’s why Obama gets a pass. Better to lie about his policies and spin fantasies about his accomplishments than to acknowledge that the man is dishonest and inept.  A black (darkish brown) president cannot be seen as less than perfect.

This race-obsessed duo is as boring as my once-dynamic high school friends who, when they came out of the closet, defined themselves solely by sexual practices.  All their friends were gay, they only went to gay themed entertainment, their politics boiled down to their bedroom proclivities, etc.  It wasn’t “Hi, I’m a dentist, and I have two children, and my hobby is archery.”  It was “Hi, I’m gay.”  Key and Peele don’t introduce themselves to the world as creative thinkers who are talented mimics, wry observers, and quick-wits.  Instead, the Fresh Air segment title says it all: “For Key And Peele, Biracial Roots Bestow Special Comedic ‘Power’.” Gawd, how dull!

In a healthy society, race is an incidental, culture is something interesting, and natural talent and hard work are what count. To the NPR crowd, though, it’s all about a person’s “biracial” African American-Euro American status (or, as linguistic purists should be saying) their “biracial” darkish brown-pale peachy pink status. The way in which two talents have been compressed to do service to a party’s continuing racial obsession proves more clearly than anything I’ve seen that the Democrats have had a straight-line racial continuum from the KKK crowd to the NPR crowd. When all is said and done, they are defined by (and, eventually, one hopes undone by) their unsavory racial obsessions.

Man who lived under a rock for the past 50 years gives positive review to “12 Years A Slave”

The WaPo’s Richard Cohen wants you to know that 12 Years A Slave is an extremely important movie because it gives Americans a surprising new message that they need to hear:  Slavery is bad.

I don’t know under what rock Cohen has been living, but the last major American movie to suggest that slaves didn’t have it all bad was Gone With The Wind, which came out in 1939.  Cohen was born in 1948, nine years after Gone With The Wind hit movie theaters.  He presumably graduated from high school in about 1965, by which time the Civil Rights movement had changed America’s racial paradigm.  His education, moreover, didn’t take place in Ole Miss, or some other bastion of Southern-ness.  Instead, he was educated in New York all the way.

Since leaving college (Hunter College, New York University, and Columbia, none of which are known for their KKK sensibilities), Cohen has lived enveloped in a liberal bubble.  He first worked for UPI and has, for a long time, been affiliated with the Washington Post.

Somehow, though, up until he recently saw 12 Years A Slave, Cohen always believed that slavery was a good thing for American blacks.  No, I’m not kidding.  Yes, that’s what he really said:

I sometimes think I have spent years unlearning what I learned earlier in my life. For instance, it was not George A. Custer who was attacked at the Little Bighorn. It was Custer — in a bad career move — who attacked the Indians.

Much more importantly, slavery was not a benign institution in which mostly benevolent whites owned innocent and grateful blacks. Slavery was a lifetime’s condemnation to an often violent hell in which people were deprived of life, liberty and, too often, their own children. Happiness could not be pursued after that.

Steve McQueen’s stunning movie “12 Years a Slave” is one of those unlearning experiences. I had to wonder why I could not recall another time when I was so shockingly confronted by the sheer barbarity of American slavery.

Instead, beginning with school, I got a gauzy version. I learned that slavery was wrong, yes, that it was evil, no doubt, but really, that many blacks were sort of content.

Slave owners were mostly nice people — fellow Americans, after all — and the sadistic Simon Legree was the concoction of that demented propagandist, Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Her “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was a lie and she never — and this I remember clearly being told — had ventured south to see slavery for herself. I felt some relief at that because it meant that Tom had not been flogged to death. But in the novel, he had.

I have no idea whether 12 Years A Slave is a good movie or a bad movie.  Aside from the fact that I almost never set foot in movie theaters, going only when I need to chaperone children or when friends want a Mom’s night out, I have sworn off most movies, especially Hollywood history movies.

Sure Hollywood occasionally gets history right.  Mostly, though, Hollywood gets it wrong, with the wrongness ranging from Oliver Stone’s delusional JFK, to the old-time biopics that had Cole Porter as a nice straight guy (Night and Day), to the saccharine anti-war stuff of Tom Hank’s war movie Band of Brothers.  Hollywood is never interested in truth and never has been.  It’s selling entertainment with an undercurrent of propaganda.  In the old days, it sold entertainment with a wholesome, moralistic twist.  Since the 1960s, Hollywood’s entertaining versions of history simply hate America, and that’s true whether Hollywood expresses that hatred in booming Technicolor or small nuances in Indy pictures.

Without having seen 12 Years A Slave, I willingly concede that slavery is a bad thing.  It was a bad thing when Pharaoh enslaved the Jews and it was a bad thing when the British and, later, the Americans enslaved the blacks.  It’s still a bad thing throughout the Muslim world where devout Qu’ran followers enslave Filipinos, Christians, blacks, and anyone else unlucky enough to end up in their clutches.

But unlike Cohen, I’ve actually paid attention, not just in school, but in subsequent years, so I don’t need to have Hollywood preach the obvious to me.

“Obamacare is racist”

When I think of elderly people, including the ones naive enough to have believed Obama’s lies (at their age, they should have known better), my heart bleeds as I try to imagine them navigating Obamacare, and that’s true whether the system works or is broken.  No matter what, a generation that wasn’t raised on computers, and that may be further hampered by physical disabilities, is not going to find even the best possible site easy to navigate.

My mother, who was born in the very early 1920s, is a very bright woman, but she was never able to master computers.  The is true for all of her friends, both the ones I’ve known my whole life and the ones I’ve met since she moved into a retirement community.  My father, my mother-in-law, and my father-in-law, alav ha-shalom, all had the same problem.  They were old dogs, and computers were a new trick.  This cartoon pretty much sums it up:

Mom's keyboard

If you’re laughing, it’s because you know someone — probably a person over 70 — who views the computer precisely that way. Obviously, this isn’t true for all older people, but it’s certainly true for a greater number of them than you’d find in the 50-70 cohort. Moreover, in the under 50 cohort, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t have at least some familiarity and comfort with computers.

For the older people, dealing with Obamacare is going to be a nightmare — and they are the some of the ones who will be most intimately connected with it.  After all, I doubt that many, if any, of them have insurance with pregnancy benefits.  That means that, if they don’t get insurance through some retirement fund, their policies will be cancelled and they’ll be pitched into the Obamacare marketplace.  Once there, they’re going to have to figure out the Obamacare exchange.

Robert Avrech, at Seraphic Secret, reminds me that I’ve forgotten another cohort of people who can’t handle the difficulties of Obamacare.  Unlike the elderly, who are limited by vision problems or arthritis or dementia or unfamiliarity with a new technology, these people are limited by . . . race, and only by race.

Yes, race.  To see why, check this out.

Thomas Sowell on the fact that black and Hispanic leaders betray young people by preaching hopelessness

I do believe that this is one of Sowell’s best articles ever.  It’s a very simple one, really, as his articles so often are.  This one looks at the way black and Hispanic leaders have sown hopelessness amongst the young they claim to lead and definitely influence.  It made me quite sad to read it:

Some people try to explain why Asians [non-English speaking immigrants], and Asian-Americans, succeed so well in education and in the economy by some special characteristics that they have.

That may be true, but their success may also be due to what they do not have — namely “leaders” who tell them that the deck is so stacked against them that they cannot rise, or at least not without depending on “leaders.”

The Democrats’ “Taming of the Shrew” strategy for American blacks

kkk-rally

It’s all good, guys.  I’ve finally figured out what’s been going on.  We’ve just been reading history dead wrong.  The operating historic premise is that the KKK and the Democrat party parted ways during the Civil Rights movement.  When the KKK guys realized that northern Democrats who supported civil rights now owned the Democrat party, they walked out en masse and became Republicans.  That way, they were free to indulge openly in their hateful racism.

What really happened is something much more subtle.  The KKK guys became sleepers in the Democrat party.  Instead of attacking blacks head on with burning crosses and lynchings, they decided to use a mainstream political party as the engine by which they destroyed blacks.  As Petruchio did in The Taming of the Shrew, they set out to kill the blacks with kindness.  The degradation of American blacks under fifty years of ostensibly well-meaning Democrat social and economic policies isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

(Bear with me here, ’cause I’m on a roll.)

Despite the horrors of the Jim Crow South, not to mention the pervasive racism across America, blacks in America were actually showing steady, albeit slow, upward mobility.  When the government left them alone, blacks started colleges, grew businesses, got married, and had families.  Although they were poorer than whites, had more out-of-wedlock children than whites, and had more run-ins with the law than whites, they were moving towards a middle class model.  Undoubtedly, this trend could have continued and even accelerated with the passage of civil rights laws that banned discrimination.  (And it’s worth remember that the Civil Rights Act didn’t require affirmative federal action; it only banned discrimination.)

Frederick Douglas Do Nothing With Us

Whenever they were left alone, blacks in America proved that Frederick Douglas was right all along when he insisted that the best thing that America could do for blacks would be to leave them alone.

Here’s the interesting thing, though.  The moment that the Civil Rights movement seemed to have defeated Jim Crow, the Democrat party swung into action — and refused to leave blacks alone.  It gave them affirmative action, which meant that, for fifty years, blacks have been placed in jobs and schools where they cannot perform at the same level as other people (both whites and minorities) who achieved those positions on merit.  This gave blacks an inferiority complex, and created in non-blacks the false belief that blacks cannot achieve without a sizable handicap.

The Democrat party also did everything it could to ensure that blacks got government handouts, whether or not they wanted them.  Instead of being free people, blacks became junkies dependent on ostensibly “free” money.  It sapped initiative and pride.

Worse, welfare made men unnecessary.  Black women got a better deal from Uncle Sam, especially if they had lots of children.  Black men were reduced to the status of sperm donors.  (For many women, men who don’t bring in money are burdensome creatures who leave dirty laundry on the floor and forget to put down the toilet seat.)

With the new welfare status quo, sex for black men was easy, but their entire sense of their manhood was reduced to a biological level dependent on a single organ in their bodies.  They were no longer judged by their accomplishments, their earning ability, their status as community role models, or as helpmates and companion.  Black men were denied the opportunity to develop honor, loyalty, and morality.  Instead, instead, in the hierarchical world of men (and all men are, to a greater or lesser extent, hierarchical in how they view the world), the only measurements by which to judge black men was to look for the biggest gun, whether the man carried it gun in a holster or tuck it into his Calvin Klein whitey-tighties.

So we have a generation of black men who have been cheated of an education and a well-fitting job, whose children and family no longer need them as support, and whose lives revolve around their firing power.  It was inevitable that these socially and economically disenfranchised — men disenfranchised by a Democrat-enacted policy — would create a culture centered on themselves and their instant gratification.  The engines for achieving these ends have been alcohol, sex, drugs, and violence.  These are manly pursuits untempered by the steadying influence of women and children or by a culture that values men.

And what did the Democrats do when black men, as a result of Democrat policies, devolved into a lowest-common denominator culture?  They “forgave” them.  Instead of exhorting them to rise up, to embrace morality, decency, family, stability, work, accomplishments, and education, the Democrats assured the black men that what they were doing was okay.  “Oh, black men,” said the Democrats, “you are not masters of your destiny and captains of your fate.  You are the helpless flotsam and jetsam floating about aimlessly on the great ocean of Republican racism.  You can’t do anything about your lives and therefore you are not responsible for the harm you do, whether to yourselves, your families, your children, your community, or your country.”

It is a terrible thing that Democrats have done to blacks — and all ostensibly in the name of love.

And that’s when I realized what’s really been going on for all these decades:  the Democrats have achieved what the KKK set out to do.  Just like Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew, they have succeeded in killing American blacks by kindness:

Taming_of_the_shrew

That is, to watch her, as we watch these kites
That bate and beat and will not be obedient.
She ate no meat today, nor none shall eat.
Last night she slept not, nor tonight she shall not.
As with the meat, some undeservèd fault
I’ll find about the making of the bed,
And here I’ll fling the pillow, there the bolster,
This way the coverlet, another way the sheets.
Ay, and amid this hurly I intend
That all is done in reverend care of her.
And, in conclusion, she shall watch all night,
And if she chance to nod I’ll rail and brawl,
And with the clamor keep her still awake.
This is a way to kill a wife with kindness,
And thus I’ll curb her mad and headstrong humor.
He that knows better how to tame a shrew,
Now let him speak; ’tis charity to show.
The Taming of the Shrew is a delightful and witty comedy.  We know that Kate and Petruchio are two headstrong people who must inevitably love one another, and we know too that Kate has lost control of herself and must be brought to heel, not just for her family’s well-being, but for her own.  That’s why we forgive the way Petruchio browbeats her under the guise of love and solicitude.
American blacks, however, are not Kate:  They are not women in the 16th century who must marry to survive and who must therefore be tamed.  It is unforgivable that the Democrat party has sought to kill them by kindness, not to uplift them and bring them to full equality, but instead to degrade and demoralize them.  This is not the act of a political party that welcomes blacks to the brotherhood of man.  This is the act of people who loathe blacks and want to ensure their continued poverty and debasement — which was pretty much the KKK’s plan from the get-go.

 

Zo and some friends take on the racism behind Sarah Silverman’s “‘Black NRA” video

It must be enormously frustrating for the Left that new media no longer means that the Democrat white power structure can be the official and the only voice for black America.  Because Democrats’ vested interest is in keeping blacks subordinate to the Democrat party, that Leftist voice has always worked full-time to tell blacks (a) that they are victims and (b) that they can find succor only within Big Government.

Sarah Silverman’s unfunny video about a “black NRA” is the perfect illustration of this paradigm.  It attempts to be a satire implying that the NRA wants to kill blacks.  The problem is that this world view is so grossly untrue that the video does nothing more than engaging in skin-crawling racism that tells the world that blacks are irremediably murderers who cannot be trusted with weapons.  (That is, the only way to save blacks isn’t to change their culture, it’s to keep all of them helpless.)  Ouch.

Last week, I posted Colion Noir’s rebuttal (along with Silverman’s video).  This week, the honors go to Zo and friends:

What I particularly like about this video is that it acknowledges a problem — black drug use and gun violence — but refuses to fall into the “we are victims, whites are racists, Big Brother is the savior” trope. Instead, it’s a video that speaks about true black empowerment, not by insulting whites into obeisance, but by raising blacks up to the full dignities of all Americans.

Hat tip:  Danny Lemieux

Thoughts on racism and race in America

You’ve already heard, I’m sure, about Delbert Belton, the 88-year-old World War II veteran who was beaten to death by two black teenagers.  The police are assuring everyone that there’s no need to get worried, because this wasn’t a race crime.  Instead, it was Delbert’s own fault.  According to the police, when the boys tried to rob Delbert, he had the temerity to fight back, leaving them with no other option than to beat an old man to death.

A friend of mine noted that, using this reasoning, if one assumes solely for the sake of argument that the race-hustlers are correct and it was Zimmerman who started the fatal encounter with Trayvon, then Trayvon was responsible for his own death because he had the temerity to fight back by climbing on top of Zimmerman, raining punches on his face, and trying to turn Zimmerman’s head into Silly Putty by smashing it repeatedly into the pavement.  My friend is right, of course.

But I’ll add something else to the mix.  The police are desperate to avoid saying that the white on black crimes that are flooding the news lately arise because blacks are — gasp! — not merely racist in Obama’s hystically race-conscious America, but aggressively so.  They don’t want to admit that the aggressive focus on race that surrounded Obama’s election didn’t destroy forever the linger vestiges of racism in America — the presumed outcome of a nation open-minded enough to elect a black man to its highest office — but, in fact, created an aggressive form of black-on-white racism.

Here’s the problem:  the new black-on-white racial motivation, although disgusting, is an intellectually recognizable reason for vile conduct.  If you deny its existence, all you have left is the admission that American blacks have become feral.  That is, they’re not killing for political reasons; they’re killing because they have an animal’s blood-lust, without a human’s self-control, morality, or reasoning skills.

And so, let’s talk about two recent local news stories that the MSM is assiduously ignoring.

In Anderson, Indiana, a 17-year-old black teenager assaulted and raped a 93-year-old woman.  This is what Iquise Taylor did to Amelia Rudolf:

Police say the youth lived within in a block of the woman’s house. Investigators say he broke into her home by kicking in the back door and then sexually assaulted her.

The 93-year-old had been sleeping at the time and awoke to find the youth in her bedroom.

Apparently elderly white women are quite the hot commodity amongst the non-racist blacks, because a similar event occurred happened in Poughkeepsie, NY.  That’s where 99-year-old Fannie Gumbinger had the misfortune to cross paths with 20-year-old Javon Tyrek Rogers, a black man who is a career burglar.  Well, Mrs. Gumbinger didn’t actually cross paths with Rogers.  It was more a case of his entering her house and killing her.  Why would one kill a frail 99-year-old lady (and believe me, because of my Mom’s retirement home I know precisely how frail 99-year-old ladies are)?  Well, it wasn’t a “hate crime,” of course, because blacks don’t commit hate crimes.  That means, as Wolf Howling put it, that it was a “feral” act.

The race hustlers have repeatedly put themselves in the position of conceding that black Americans are feral, whether it’s because they say that Damian King couldn’t help trying to beat Reginald Denny to death in the wake of the Rodney King riots, because he was “caught him the rapture” of the moment; or the two teens who couldn’t help killing an 88-year-old because he fought back; or a 17-year-old who couldn’t control his lust for an 93-year-old woman (who his lust for power over a 93-year-old woman); or a 20-year-old who had to murder a 99-year-old lady who was interfering with his burglary; or the five young blacks who tortured a random white couple to death in such a horrible way that I can’t bear to right about it.  If these young black people (and they’re all young products of America’s thirty years of institutional Progressivism) acted without a motive, no matter how disgusting that motive was, then the only thing left is to concede that they are either evil incarnate, which argues a certain moral knowledge that the actor deliberately ignores, or that they are so inhuman that they have become like animals.

Even likening them to animals, though, seems to me to be too generous.  Animals kill to eat or to control territory.  Animals do not waste their energies, nor do they put themselves at risk, simply to indulge in blood lust.  That type of act is seen only in rabid animals that have been rendered insane through infection.

So what disease has affected our black underclass to the point at which it has parted ways with humanity and entered dimensions in which, normally, only infected animals dwell?  I leave you to think up your own instance.

Incidentally, I do not write this post as an overarching indictment of blacks, God forbid.  I am not a classic racist, in that I do not believe that one race genetically inferior to another race.  I recognize differences (skin color, musculature, bell curve spread over such traits as book-oriented intellectualism or physical stamina, etc), but I consider those differences virtuous, insofar as they provide a wonderful range of human abilities, with no one quality trumping any other — although there are times, whether through natural- or human-caused events, when certain traits may help one group survive better than another group.  I consider myself a “values-ist,” meaning that I judge people by their values, not their skin color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.

So if it’s not genetics, it must be culture — and black culture is Leftist culture or, rather, black culture is the victim of elitist Leftist culture.  It’s the Leftist ruling class, in government, in the media, and in education, taht thinks so little of blacks that these elites are content to accept that young blacks normally exist in a diseased, feral state, because it seems right and natural to the affluent Leftist eye.  If, Gaia forfend!, they concede that blacks are endowed with the same moral and intellectual abilities as whites, then these same elites must also concede that blacks do not need to be perpetually dependent upon the states for all their needs, a status that assumes racial inability.

Is the mainstream media the spiritual descendent of Charles Manson?

Charles Manson

This post poses a very provocative, even inflammatory, question:  “Is the mainstream media the spiritual heir of Charles Manson?”  Will you be too surprised if I answer “yes”?

Let’s start with Charles Manson.  Manson had a goal:  he envisioned a new world order, with himself and his followers as the leaders.  To bring about this new world order, he first had to destroy the existing one.  He came up with an idea that he called “Helter-Skelter“:  he was going to incite race warfare because he was pretty sure that would bring America down, leaving room for him and his followers to take over.  He figured that the best way to start an apocalyptic race war was through violent murder.  He wasn’t going to do the murder himself, of course, but he did incite his dumb, sexually-opiated, often drugged followers to commit the deeds on his behalf.

Now, let’s think about the mainstream media.  The MSM has a goal:  a completely Democrat-dominated political machine, with the MSM and the politicians it’s created in total control.  Because this will be a statist new world, the MSM must first destroy completely America’s current, still vaguely capitalist market and individualist ideology.  To that end, the media has decided that it will incite race warfare, because it’s pretty sure that race warfare will destroy existing institutions and allow it and its political class to take over.  Media members figure that the best way to start this societal breakdown is to sow so much division between blacks and whites in America that the country becomes dysfunctional and, if necessary, bloodied.  The media elite are not going to sully their own hands, of course, but they will work hard to incite their followers to commit the deeds on their behalf.  (And sadly, to the extent they have followers in black inner cities, these are young people who are minimally educated, inundated with unhealthy sexual messages from movies and rap songs, and too often on drugs.  Just think of Trayvon….)

I can’t prove the MSM’s goal, but I can prove its tactics.

Exhibit A is the way the MSM has used Obama’s presidency to paint every single American who opposes his politics as “racist” — so much so that the MSM dictionary defines “racist” as “someone who expresses any disagreement with Obama’s policies or conduct while in office.”  Since roughly 50% of the country doesn’t like what he’s doing at any given time, 50% of the country is therefore by definition racist. (Here’s just one example, but it’s remarkably easy to cull dozens or even hundreds.)

This “opposing Obama” message is pounded home through relentlessly repeated and embroidered stories about rodeo clowns; Obama’s fellowship with murdered black teens; and even the obscenity of referring to Obama as “Obama,” rather than as President Obama.  By the way, this last one is a dilly, because Chris Matthews, rather than admitting that other presidents have been called “Carter,” “Reagan,” “Bush,” “Dubya,” or “Clinton,” compares the casual approach to Obama’s name to the way non-believers refer to Jesus Christ as “Jesus” or “Christ.”  Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Exhibit B is the racial incitement that permeated every bit of the MSM’s coverage of George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.  It began when NBC doctored Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound as if he was a racist; picked up steam when the media coined the phrase “white-Hispanic” to cover-up their problem when they discovered that Zimmerman identified as Hispanic; entered the world of farce when the media only reluctantly revealed, when trial court motions made it impossible to ignore, that Martin wasn’t a 12-year-old choirboy but was, instead a husky, drug-using, gun- and violence-obsessed, thug; and just kept rolling with homages to hoodies and Skittles.  Bill Whittle does the best summary I’ve seen of the media’s “hi-tech” lynching of a non-black man:

Exhibit C: Oh, I don’t know. Take your pick. How about the new movie “The Butler,” which takes a real man’s quite distinguished and interesting life, and turns a star-powered movie into a parable about white and Republican racism?  The director, incidentally, makes it clear that these racial accusations are no accident.  Or maybe look at the way Oprah, the PETA-admiring “woman of the people,” makes a national incident out of her claim that a Swiss salesclerk was “racist” for suggesting that Oprah might like something cheaper than a $35,000 animal-skin purse.

Or maybe, as Rush pointed out, you just want to notice how the media completely ignores any violence that doesn’t fit in the narrative.  Rush pointed to the recent murder of Chris Lane, a (white) baseball player from Australia who was shot dead by thug-addicted three teenagers because they were bored.  Rush points out that the media assiduously refrained from commenting on the killers’ race (two were black and one is white, or white-Hispanic, or white-black, or whatever).

The media did exactly the same thing, incidentally, with the even more heinous 2007 murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, Tenn.  That young (white) couple was so brutally murdered by five (black) people that it’s nauseating even to think about what was done to them.  The killers outdid animals in their savagery, since they added a fiendish human imagination to their feral brutality.  The national media said as little as possible about the murder and nothing about its racial implications.

Nothing restrained the media, however, when it went out of its way to destroy the lives of the (white) Duke lacrosse players after a (black) prostitute falsely accused them of rape.  The media played that every day, every way, on every air or piece of paper over which it had control.  When the players were vindicated, the media was remarkably silent, failing even to issue an apology for yet another “hi-tech” lynching.

The fall-out from the media’s relentless racial harangues is more racial tension in this country than at any time since the peak of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  Despite the fact that there are no racially discriminatory federal laws in America; that there are no overtly racially discriminatory state laws in America; that there is a black man in the White House who got reelected (although Gawd alone knows why); and that compared to other nations in the world (including the Europe the Left so loves) America is a remarkably inclusive nation, blacks feel deeply that whites are bad people.  By this I mean that blacks don’t simply note note that, occasionally and unfortunately, they have the misfortune to run into some idiot who spouts stone age nonsense.  Instead, with relentless prompting from the mainstream media, they feel very strongly that whites view them negatively and are their enemy.  As such, too many of them believe that whites, at most, destroyed and, at least, humiliated.

The MSM has worked its hard to convince blacks and many other minorities, including the LGBT crowd, Hispanics, and, increasingly, Asians that the status quo is bad for them, that there needs to be a new world order, and that the evil white people (excluding, of course, all the white people on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.), must be done away with.

And that is why I say that the MSM is the spiritual heir of Charles Manson.  It’s “helter-skelter” all over again.

The continued African-American death wish

Here’s a concept to keep in the back of your mind as you read this post:  Black people — especially black men — in America are murdered at a rate far greater than their representation in the American population.  While blacks make up less than 13% of the population, more than 50% of those murdered in America are black (and, if you drill even further down, you’ll see these murders happen primarily in Democrat-run cities).

And now to my post….

Ebony magazine has hopped on the Trayvon Martin bandwagon by using four different covers for its current edition, all of them showing famous black men wearing hoodies.

Ebony magazine covers

Trayvon, of course, was wearing a hoody the night he attacked George Zimmerman and died as a result of that attack.  The jury concluded that, given the undisputed evidence that Trayvon was attacking him, Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.  Importantly, Florida has a self-defense law called “stand your ground,” which means that, if someone is threatening your life, you don’t have to try to run and hide — you can fight back, even if it means you kill the attacker. Neither the prosecution nor the defense referenced that law, but it existed as a subtext to the case.

On the right hand side of each celebrity cover, you can see the phrase “Repeal Stand Your Ground.”  This reflects the fact that the race hustlers latched onto “stand your ground” as an inherently racist doctrine.  In the world view they’re selling to American blacks, “stand your ground” laws are actually official permission to lynch black people.

Logical minds (that would include mine, of course), see a problem with the race hustlers’ world view:  given that black man are proportionately more likely to be killed than any other group in America, it makes sense to give them the optimal ability to defend themselves against attempted murder.  Absent that right, they are sitting ducks.  The perpetrator thinks, “Hah!  I’m going to shoot you regardless of any laws, because I don’t give a flying f*** about the law.  But you — well, you might care about the law.  That means that there’s a good chance that, if you’re even marginally law-abiding, you either won’t be armed to defend yourself or, if you’re armed, you’ll hesitate to act for fear of getting in trouble yourself — which gives me enough time to shoot you dead.”

When we refuse to give law-abiding citizens arms, and we ensure that the laws fail to give them an affirmative right of self-defense, we’re committing a peculiarly Darwinian experiment, one that sees us, as a society, do whatever we can to stamp out the genes of law-abiding citizens in favor of those people who engage in feral, murderous, amoral, and immoral behavior.

I posted it yesterday, but I’m going to post it again today.  Please watch Elbert Guillory’s video on behalf of his Free At Last PAC, and please consider donating to the case.  It’s time to counter the racist Leftist Darwinism, one that sees African-Americans a helpless, albeit periodically murderous subspecies, with tidal waves of well-founded faith in the brotherhood and equality of all people, regardless of race, color, creed (if their creed rejects religious totalitarianism), or national origin:

Please consider contributing to the Free At Last PAC.

Elbert Guillory starts a PAC to fund black conservatives

I liked Elbert Guillory from the first time he crossed my radar, when he was still a Democrat.  I continue to like him, as you can see in his video introducing the Free at Last PAC, aimed at introducing blacks to conservative principles.

He’s remarkably good at explaining free market principles and explaining why they should matter to American blacks.  I also love the way he attacks Republicans for allowing themselves to be cowed by Democrats, especially when it comes to blacks.

Please consider contributing to the PAC.

Barack Obama joins the race-baiters following the Zimmerman verdict

As you’ve probably realized, I have very limited access to news and the Internet on this vacation. My shipboard Internet plan gives me about five (very expensive) minutes a day, which is just enough to make sure I don’t have any emergencies in my inbox, to write to my family, and to post one article. Today, however, I got hold of a Canadian newspaper and got to see how President Obama once again stirred the racisim pot with his Zimmerman trial comments.

First, I should tell you my point of view: the verdict was entirely appropriate. The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman did anything other than act in self-defense — and that was despite the judge’s decision to exclude all evidence about Trayvon’s thuggery, and the prosecution’s efforts to paint Zimmerman as a crazed, cop-wannabe racist.

The riots that followed the verdict were the logical outcome, not of a corruk racist jury verdict, but of the ground work laid by the professional race-baiters, Obama included. Obama continued that race-baiting with his comments following the trial.

You may recall that, when the killing went national, Obama opined that Trayvon, a drug using, gang-emulating slacker, could have been his son. I think Sasha and Malia were probably surprised to hear that, while they’ve been raised to be as good as gold and as pure as Ivory Soap, their imaginary brother would have been a thug.

Obama has now upped that rhetoric. In his latest foray, he announced that, 35 years ago, he himself could have been Martin. Apparently Obama’s youthful escapades with dope and “smack” were more serious than he let on. And maybe I wasn’t crazy when I surmised that, based upon pictures of Obama at Occidental, he had a coke nail.

As for the rest of his little talk, all Obama did was add fuel to the racial fire. He said that the judicial system is unfair to blacks, that there’s profiling, and that racism continues to corrupt our justice system. Way to go, Obama.

In a way, it seems that Obama is trying to finish the work Charles Manson started. As you may recall, Manson’s whole goal with that horrible night of Helter-Skelter murder was to start a race war between blacks and whites. He believed that war was a necessary predicate to a complete collapse of the American system, with Manson and his followers emerging as victors at the end. Obama, with his divisive talk, also seems intent upon sparking an America-ending race war, with the obvious belief that he and his apparatchiks will be the last men (and women) standing.

It’s going to be a long three and a half years until Obama’s reign of racial terror finally ends. I only hope that there’s something left standing when it’s all done.

Elbert Guillory explains why he is a Republican — and they are words that EVERY American should hear

I’ve already admitted to my crush on Elbert Guillory, a crush that formed when he was still a Democrat, although he must already have been planning to leave that party.  My political crush has just deepened into a full-blown, out-and-out case of political passion.  If you haven’t yet watched this short video Guillory made to explain why he switched parties, you must.  I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say it’s one of the most important videos I’ve ever seen.  The only thing that saddens me about it is that it won’t be run on MSNBC, or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or NPR, or on any other major media outlet.  I think everyone should see this video, no matter their race, creed, country of national origin, or gender identity.  It’s that good:

I don’t know about you, but I’m still cheering.

My political crush instincts were good — Louisiana state Sen. Elbert Guillory has gone Republican

You may recall that I developed an instant political crush on Sen. Elbert Guillory, a black Louisiana state Senator who castigated the “race card” as a cheap tactic.  It turns out my instincts were right on the money.  Shortly after refusing to play the Democrat “race game,” Guillory became the only black person on the Republican side of the state legislature — and the first black Republican in the Bayou State’s legislature since Reconstruction:

Democratic state Sen. Elbert Guillory said Friday he is leaving “the party of disappointment” to join the ranks of Republicans. With the move, the Opelousas conservative becomes the only black Republican in the Louisiana Legislature. Guillory made the announcement as he received the Frederick Douglass Award at a national conference of black conservative leaders in Baton Rouge. Douglass escaped from slavery and became a leader in the abolitionist movement in 19th century America.

What makes Guillory so particularly wonderful is the speech he gave stating his reasons for leaving the Democrat party:

“As of this day, I join Frederick Douglass as a Republican,” Guillory, 68, said as he wrapped up a speech blistering the Democratic Party. The move is a return to Republican Party registration for Guillory.

“Today the party of disappointment has moved away from the majority of Louisiana. They have moved away from traditional values of most Americans,” Guillory said in prepared remarks. “They have left us behind on crucial issues like abortion, vouchers, Second Amendment rights, union control of public jobs, school prayer, family issues.”

Guillory said the biggest disappointment for him has been the party’s role in the breakdown of families.

“Their support of dependency over self-reliance, of everything but traditional marriage, of abortion on demand, their policies have encouraged the high teen birth rates, high school drop out rates, high incarceration rates and very high unemployment rates,” Guillory said. “Our self-initiative and self-reliance are sacrificed in exchange for votes for the party of disappointment.”

“The list of disappointments is long,” Guillory said, noting “the lies and cover-up at Benghazi, the IRS harassing the tea party and wiretapping and spying on reporters.”

He decried federal Democratic initiatives to stop drilling after the BP disaster as well as efforts to “confiscate all guns.”

Guillory said under Republicans the black community has “gotten some pretty good deals.”

Among them, he said, are fighting for black rights during and after the Civil War, helping Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson pass the 1965 Civil Rights Act over the objection of most Southern Democrats, and Republican President Richard Nixon opening the doors to higher education and to government contracting for minorities.

I no longer have a crush.  This is love.  Every Democrat in America, no matter his or her color, should read Guillory’s words, which stand a scathing indictment of an ideologically corrupt political party.

Hat tip:  Hot Air

The homogeneity of Leftist thinking at American institutions and its effect on poverty at the ground level

I’ve written before about one of my favorite writers, Paul Fussell.  He wrote a wonderful essay entitled Thank God for the Atom Bomb, about the righteousness of dropping the atom bomb.  He was in the Army when Truman dropped the bomb, so Fussell wholeheartedly approved — and had the data to back up his personal opinion.  (More recently released data completely backs up his 30 year old hypothesis.)  I also wholeheartedly approve, as my Mom was a few weeks away from dying in a Japanese concentration camp when the bomb dropped.

Fussell also wrote what I think is one of the greatest books ever about WWI, The Great War and Modern Memory.  I just bought the Kindle version to reread because my copy, which I bought in college, has disintegrated. It’s a beautifully written book that looks at both the war and concurrent war literature to track a vast paradigm shift in intellectual thought during the four years the war lasted.  Young men went in imbued with Victorian ideas of chivalry and honor; they came out jaded, cynical, and completely unable to accept that aggression is sometimes necessary and could have been useful in preventing Hitler’s rise. It is a triumph of both military writing and literary writing.

What you might not know about Fussell was that this iconoclast was a university professor.  Nowadays, the phrase iconoclastic professor is an oxymoron.  Not so in Fussell’s heyday.  Wikipedia sums up his military and academic career:

Fussell attended Pomona College from 1941 until he enlisted in the US Army in 1943. He landed in France in 1944 as a 20 year-old second lieutenant with the 103rd Infantry Division,[8] was wounded while fighting in Alsace, and was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He was honorably discharged from the army in 1946, returned to Pomona to finish his B.A. degree in 1946-7, married fellow Pomona graduate Betty Harper in 1949, and completed his MA (1949) and Ph.D. (1952) at Harvard University.

He began his teaching career at Connecticut College (1951–55) before moving to Rutgers University in 1955 and finally the University of Pennsylvania in 1983. He also taught at the University of Heidelberg (1957–58) and King’s College London (1990–92). As a teacher, he traveled widely with his family throughout Europe from the 1950s to 70s, taking Fulbright and sabbatical years in Germany, England and France.

As his writing shows, Fussell was an entirely original thinker who didn’t march to the beat of anyone’s drum.  Indeed, he delighted in challenging what was already becoming stifling academic orthodoxy:

Fussell stated that he relished the inevitable controversy of Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (1983) and indulged his increasing public status as a loved or hated “curmudgeon” in the rant called BAD: or, The Dumbing of America (1991). In between, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (1988) confirmed his war against government and military doublespeak and prepared the way for Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (1989). The epiphany of his earlier essay, “My War”, found full expression in his memoir Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (1996), “My Adolescent illusions, largely intact to that moment, fell away all at once, and I suddenly knew I was not and never would be in a world that was reasonable or just”. The last book by Fussell published while he was alive, The Boys’ Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-45 (2003) was once again concerned with the experience of combat in World War II.

Fussell was never petrified or brainwashed by his academic career.  I wonder what Fussell would have thought if he’d been a teacher at Bowdoin in the last twenty years or so.  Bowdoin found itself in the news lately because of what David Feith calls “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.”  It all started when Barry Mills, Bowdoin College’s president, had a golf game with investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein.  During the game, the subject of academic diversity came up.  Both Mills and Klingenstein would agree that Klingenstein didn’t like it.  According to Mills’s retelling at a subsequent graduation ceremony, Klingenstein was hostile and, in a word, dumb.  Writes Feith:

In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”

Klingenstein got word of this graduation address, which implied that the anonymous golf-companion was a troglodyte and racist, and knew that Mills was talking about him.  Klingenstein decided to set the record straight.  Rather than just saying “that’s not what I meant,” or offering his opinion about diversity, Klingenstein took his money and funded a National Association of Scholars project that carefully examined Bowdoin’s curriculum, especially in the last ten years.  The results were eye-opening, to say the least — or, saying a little more than the least, eye-opening to anyone who hasn’t been paying attention to what’s going on in, and the product (i.e., graduates) coming out of, these academic “gatekeepers of civilization”:

Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.

The school’s ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the dedication to “sustainability,” or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to “global citizenship,” or loving all countries except one’s own.

The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.

One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens” (which “examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces”), “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.”

Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.

“A political imbalance [among faculty] was no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans,” sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect conservative views in classroom discussions is “intellectually bankrupt, professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate.”

This is an intellectual, academic paradigm shift of almost incomprehensible magnitude.  Since its inception, regardless of the reality on the ground, America’s self-image (which was sold to generations of school children and college students right up until the 1950s) was of an inclusive nation, a melting pot, dedicated to the principle that all American citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law; have a right to equal access to American opportunities (with it being up to the people whether to take that access); and are subject to the downside risks should they refuse to seize the opportunities or violate the law.  With slavery and Jim Crow, we deviated from the principles, but the principles were sound.

At Bowdoin, though, and others like it, the paradigm has shifted.  Young people are taught a new, ugly paradigm about their country:  America is composed of disparate groups, with a few select groups made up of white men (and, probably, Jews) controlling the nation and doing what they can to exploit, denigrate, and impoverish a never-ending, every-growing list of victim classes, ranging from women, to homosexuals, to non-white races, to Muslims, to fat people, to anything that can be brought under the umbrella of victim.  There is no such thing in this world as equality of opportunity.  There is only equality of outcome that can be attained by using the government to strong-arm the ruling class of white males (and, possibly, Jews) so that they redistribute their ill-gotten gains to the victims.

I was talking the other day to a friend who works at elementary schools in a large, urban ghetto.  These schools have no white children.  The schools are dreadful, and the children — innocent victims all — suffer terribly.  They grow up in abysmal poverty, and they don’t have role models within their homes showing  education or wealth.  Their neighborhoods are rife with crime (especially gun fire) and substance abuse. Almost all come from broken homes.Their streets are dangerous because of gangs.  The message one receives from those brave enough to work in those neighborhoods is that these children can succeed only if we pour government funds into their schools.  And if those funds don’t work, then we need to pour more in, and still more in.

In my mind, I compared these children — and they are so sad, since they are bright little lights that are blinking out — with the immigrants who came to this country between, say, 1850 and 1950.  They lived in ghettos; they lived in abysmal poverty; their parents didn’t speak the language of wealth (many didn’t even speak English); the streets were dangerous, not because of gunfire, but because of knives, disease, and starvation; there was significant substance abuse (alcoholism and opium); schools were grossly underfunded, etc.  And yet these children became working class, their children became middle class, and their children became upper class.  It wasn’t a 100% success rate at every generation, but it was a substantial rate at every generation.

They went from this:

Jacob Riis tenement photograph

and this:

Jacob Riis image of street kids

to this:

Suburban kitchen

What’s the difference between then and now? I don’t believe that it’s because American blacks (and it’s mostly blacks stuck for generations in ghettos) are forever developmentally disabled by slavery. John McWhorter points out that blacks were ascending rapidly, both socially and economically, before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society enticed them into welfare and single parenthood (welfare pays single mothers better than two parent families).  Starting in the 1960s, the increasingly Left-leaning white leadership in America told blacks that, the end of slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding, they are not created equal and they are not equal under the law.  They are different — they are needier.  Without Mama and Papa government, they are nothing.

I think it’s this paradigm shift, one that starts in the Ivory Towers by creating infinite victim classes, all of which that can be raised up only by government intervention and control, that trickles down into the streets. In the old days, you had to do it yourself, so you did. Nowadays, the government is supposed to rescue you. Homes don’t emphasize education, self-sufficiency, and upward mobility. They emphasize “Why isn’t the government helping?”  This is not about race, or slavery, or poverty — it is about an intellectual environment that explicitly educates future leaders that government needs race-victims, and slave-victims and poverty-victims to fulfill its purpose.  Without those classes, government is meaningless and by definition a vehicle of evil.

Paul Fussell, who thought outside the box, would not have approved.  (Or at least I like to think he wouldn’t have approved.)

Found it on Facebook: a story about a mass murder that didn’t happen

One of my high school friends is black, pro-union, devoutly Christian and (to my surprise, given her San Francisco upbringing) apparently pro-Second Amendment.  She passed this along from one of her Facebook friends (who is a big numbers conservative Christian Facebooker):

San Antonio police crime scene

San Antonio Theater Shooting

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

Just thought you’d like to know.

I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons.

As far as I can tell, the only thing inaccurate about the story above is the date — the shooting that was stopped by an off-duty deputy took place on December 30, not December 17.  Everything else is accurate — guy goes into theater, starts shooting like crazy, people panic, and then this happens (emphasis mine):

The gunman entered the theater, Antu says, where he fired a shot but did not hit anyone. An off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security then shot the gunman.

The best defense against a crazed, armed bad guy, is a heroic armed good guy.  End of story.

One more point:  the Facebook post says “I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons.”  Apropos the media narrative, it’s worth noting a point that Dan Baum, a pro-Second Amendment Progressive, makes in a Harper’s Magazine article he wrote after the shooting in Aurora:

Among the many ways America differs from other countries when it comes to guns is that when a mass shooting happens in the United States, it’s a gun story. How an obviously sick man could buy a gun; how terrible it is that guns are abundant; how we must ban particular types of guns that are especially dangerous. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded to the news with a gun-control petition. Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times has weighed in with an online column saying that “Politicians are far too cowardly to address gun violence . . . which keeps us from taking practical measures to avoid senseless shootings.”

Compare that to the coverage and conversation after Anders Behring Breivik murdered sixty-nine people on the island of Utøya in Norway, a year ago next Sunday. Nobody focused on the gun. I had a hard time learning from the news reports what type of gun he used. Nobody asked, “How did he get a gun?” That seemed strange, because it’s much harder to get a gun in Europe than it is here. But everybody, even the American media, seemed to understand that the heart of the Utøya massacre story was a tragically deranged man, not the rifle he fired. Instead of wringing their hands over the gun Breivik used, Norwegians saw the tragedy as the opening to a conversation about the rise of right-wing extremism in their country.

The problem in America isn’t the Second Amendment.  Instead, the problem comes about because the Progressive media creates a warped narrative that takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.  The result is that guns exist, but law-abiding people (a disproportionate number of whom are black) die from killers who know that there is no one and nothing that can stop them:

It is true that all countries in Southern and Western Europe had lower murder rates than the U.S. But it might be worthwhile to parse the U.S. number if we continue to make such comparisons.

In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, “Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels.”

It’s timely, as always, to remember that gun control in America began as a way to keep blacks defenseless and disenfranchised.  Progressives dress the whole thing up in prettier language, but their eugenic roots are starting to show.

 

The Leftist delusion of a world without danger

Thomas Hobbs, who was born into the waning years of the 16th Century and lived three-quarters of the way through the 17th Century, in his great work, Leviathan, characterized man’s life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He was not an optimist.

William Hogarth's Gin Lane

Hobbs may have been a pessimist, but he was also quite accurate.  In a pre-industrial, pre-scientific era, half of the children lucky enough to survive childbirth would die before their fifth birthday, with death usually resulting either from disease or accident (falling into an open fireplace or drowning in a well or waterhole were accidents common to the pre-modern era).

If one was lucky enough to survive early childhood, life still didn’t get much easier.  Even in stable communities, food supplies were unreliable; crime was prevalent; war had a nasty habit of breaking out all over; disease stalked everyone; childbirth was the scourge of young women; lightning and cooking caused deadly fires that swept through wood-built communities; and weather forecasts were nonexistent and weather deaths (cold, heat, lightening, floods, winds, etc.) were commonplace.  Old age was a rarity — or at the very least, was defined differently, with a toothless crone in her late 40s qualifying as “old.”

For those who managed to avoid premature death, life was dark indeed.  I mean that literally.  Except for the very rich, who could enj0y beeswax, the poor lit their homes (which usually had no windows) with smoky fires or tallow lights that left everything smelling like an old fryer at McDonalds.

Personal cleanliness was viewed with suspicion (as a sign of moral debauchery) so it wasn’t uncommon for people to go a lifetime without bathing.  Nor was this filth limited to the lower classes who had no access to running water.  James I of England was famous for his certainty that bathing would kill him.  Even the marginally clean English found his personal habits distasteful.  Streets and sewers were interchangeable, with people in buildings tossing the contents of their chamber pots into the streets, regardless of passing pedestrians.

Child Labor minor miners

The Hobbesian world began to change with the industrial revolution.  Wealth was no longer tied to the land and, therefore, finite.  It was suddenly infinite.  Although the initial transition from agricultural to industrial wrought appalling havoc for the poor, by chaining them to factory labor or coal mines in conditions that were little better than slavery, working their children to death, and herding them into filthy urban ghettos, overall the standard of living rose for everyone.  The rich, of course, benefited first, but the poor did too, to the point at which (at least before the endless Obama recession) even the poorest in American (unless they were insane homeless people) were able to buy cool shoes and disposable cell phones at Walmart.  Poverty became a matter of discomfort, not death.

Louis Pasteur

Things became even better when the scientific revolution picked up steam.  Suddenly, scientists and physicians had the comforting illusion that, when it come to the mysteries of disease, they could see all and know all.  Bacteria were visible and, with Penicillin, vulnerable.  Ailments originating within the body (a hot appendix, a bladder stone, even a damaged heart valve) could be fixed.  Viruses bowed down before vaccinations.  We were going to live forever.  Indeed, even though we 21st century residents haven’t actually achieved immortality, our modern lifespans would have been unimaginable only a century ago.

Battledore and Shuttlecock in 1845

One of the most stunning byproducts of the industrial and scientific ages was childhood, not just as a biological reality, but as an intellectual construct.  Past times recognized infancy and early childhood (until about 7 years old) as times of necessary development and dependency.  After that, though, right up until the Victorian age, children older than 7 or 10 years were regarded as mini-adults.  They were put to work in field or factory, indentured to trade, married in their mid-teens, and generally given responsibilities that, nowadays, we still consider too extreme even for “children” in their mid-20s.  Even twenty years ago, people would have laughed at the thought that “children” of 26 were dependents for insurance purposes.  Go back a time a few more decades than that, and the rules were simple:  if you survived childhood, you headed rapidly into adulthood.

These very positive historical trends have left us with one very wrongheaded delusion:  the belief that we can insulate ourselves and, especially, our children from all danger.

Old-time football player

Sometimes, the very act of insulation creates greater, counter-intuitive risks.  Those of us who don’t remember football being so dangerous in decades past are right.  It’s not just that we were less aware of the risks, it’s that football players had less protective gear.  It was a speed and passing game, one that favored smaller players and less aggressive contact.  Leather helmets provided some protection, but did not encourage players to pretend that they were big horn sheep who could engage in serious headbutting.  Once players became enswathed in protective gear — high-tech helmets and shoulder pads — they began to play a more aggressive game, one that favored big players and high impact tackles.  In other words, the counter-intuitive result of more protective gear in football is a higher, rather than a lower injury rate.

19th century boxers

The same is true in the boxing world.  When boxers were bare handed, they couldn’t land a hit harder than their own knuckles would bear.  As between a solid jaw bone and a knuckle bone, the jaw usually won.  Even with the advent of gloves, the early gloves were thin enough that the striker still had a risk about equal to that of the person on the receiving end.  It was only when the boxing world shifted to massively padded gloves, which successfully insulate the knuckles, that boxers were able to land such devastating strikes against their opponents’ jaws, eye sockets, and temples.

Tony Peitrantonio knockout

We’ve also over-protected ourselves is in the battle between antibiotics and bacteria. After a seventy year run in the antibiotics’ favor, the bacteria have regrouped and are coming back strong. One regularly reads upsetting stories about treatment-resistant bacteria.  Tuberculosis has the potential to become a scourge again; MRSA haunts hospital hallways; and many of us our digging out our grandmothers’ household hint books to find out how people treated garden-variety infections (cuts and ear aches) in the era before antibiotics came along.  In the same way, we’re facing the ugly truth that, due to a combination of parents resisting vaccination, and diseases resisting vaccination, old childhood scourges such as chicken pox, whooping cough, and measles are on the upswing.

We can’t win for losing.  Or rather, we have become so confident of our victories that we forget that the enemy — even one that lacks cognitive abilities — is as intent upon its own survival and is as adaptable as we are.

The above are, in a way, mechanical protective reflexes, where industrialism and science enable us to place barriers between us and objects or pathogens that are dangerous.  What is a peculiarly Leftist foible is believing that we can ignore entirely Nature writ large, human nature, or cultural pathology.

Going back to the topic of childhood mortality, the sad fact is that, while kids once fell prey to disease, they now fall prey to all sorts of other things, some new and some old.  Here’s a 2007 snapshot of the things that killed American children who survived congenital diseases in infancy:

Car accidents:  6,683 deaths
Firearm homicide:  2,186 deaths
Suffocation/strangling:  1,263 deaths
Non-firearm homicides:  1,159
Drowning:  1,045 deaths
Poisoning:  927 deaths
Suffocation suicide:  739 deaths
Firearm suicide:  683 deaths
Fires/Burns:  544 deaths
Firearm accidents:  138 deaths
Poisoning suicide:  133 deaths

What may leap out at you is how many children died in 2007. What leaps out to me, since I’ve always bathed my brain in history, is how few children died in 2007.  Although each of the above numbers represents indescribable grief, the percentage of child deaths is infinitesimal compared to the overall population of children in America.  Moreover, by far the largest number of deaths occurred in a peculiarly utilitarian way:  car accidents.  These were unintentional deaths that resulted from an object that is integral to our society’s functioning.

Bloods gang member with gun

The next highest number of deaths, as any Progressive would point out, is indeed from guns.  But here’s what the white liberals ignore until there’s a Columbine or Sandy Hook that makes them feel vulnerable  In that same year (2007) that 3,345 American children were murdered, here are the statistics for male youth deaths within the black community:

52.3% of black, male 15-19 year olds who died were murdered.
15.5% of black, male 10-14 year olds who died were murdered.
6.3% of black, male 5-9 year olds who died were murdered.
14.3% of black, male 1-4 year olds who died were murdered.

The situation is better, but not much, for black girls in 2007, as they are less likely to die as teens, but more likely to die as toddlers:

18.3% of black, female 15-19 year olds who died were murdered.
9.3% of black, female 10-14 year olds who died were murdered.
6.5% of black, female 5-9 year olds who died were murdered.
15.3% of black, female 1-4 year olds who died were murdered.

In other words, we don’t have a gun problem:  we have a black-children-are-getting-murdered problem. Those liberals who pay any attention at all to deaths that don’t involve white suburban children, never bothered looking at human nature in order to determine how to deal with the problem.

They didn’t look at the way welfare renders stable, earning males obsolete, thereby breaking down the family unit and forcing young men to find other ways than family and maturity to prove their “manliness.”  They didn’t consider that if you attack Judeo-Christian morality without providing an alternative morality, you end up with no morality.  They didn’t consider that advancing abortion in all-black communities is a subliminal message that black lives are disposable.  Instead, they ignored the human factor entirely and decided that, if they made weapons illegal, the communities would instantly become hippie-like communes of peace, with a little pot on the side.

Because Progressives thought they could bring a mechanical solution to a human problem, even more black children died.  Think of it this way:  Getting rid of bacteria doesn’t make them go away.  They come back stronger in different ways.  Likewise, getting rid of guns doesn’t make murder vanish.  Humans get creative with other forms of murder, and guns go underground and, removed from law and morality, get applied in ever more violent ways.

We cannot protect ourselves into safety.  The world is a dangerous place, albeit infinitely less dangerous than it has ever before been.  We are deluding ourselves if we believe that, either through hyper-safety mechanisms or bans (bans on bacteria or bans on guns) we can instantly make things safer.  In fact, it’s often the case that eradicating the danger entirely is either a delusion (bacteria are still out there) or creates worse dangers than that we originally sought to avoid.

What we can do is try to modify certain behaviors in order to decrease (although never eliminate) risk.  If antibiotics are becoming less useful, let’s wash our hands more often.  If violence is plaguing a community, let’s try to temper the community by giving people constructive purposes in life and by creating a sensibility that values life.  Getting rid of guns will not get rid of violence.  Valuing life might just diminish it somewhat, though.

Supporting gun-control is racist

In America today, especially in America’s media, the worst thing you can call someone is “racist.”  In our Obama-era people who oppose Obama are racist; people who support the Constitution are racist; people who use the word “Chicago” are racist; people who comment about the president’s lean physique (unless they’re drooling female reporters) are racist; and –here’s the kicker — people who oppose gun control are racist.

Why is opposing gun control racist?  Because blacks are proportionately much more likely to find themselves at the wrong end of the gun in America than are whites.  Even though blacks comprise only 13% of the population, in 2007 alone black death rates due to guns were more than twice white death rates.  Put another way:

Black teenager boy killed by gun

Young black males die from gun violence at a rate 2.5 times higher than Latino males, and eight times higher than white males. Gun injuries are suffered by black teens at a rate ten times higher than white teens.

Guns are an extraordinary scourge within the black community — a fact that also explains why America’s gun homicides are (a) high and (b) unequally spread geographically.  A vast proportion of gun crime is inner city crime.

Given these appalling statistics — black men being mowed down by a plague of bullets — liberals say that anyone who doesn’t want to remove guns from the street is a fortiori a racist.  The logic is simple:  guns kill black people; Republicans, who are disproportionately white, resist any form of gun control; therefore Republicans hate black people.

The problem with the above liberal analysis is that it’s an entirely false syllogism.  Here’s the truth:  what’s killing black men is gun control.  Black men live in dangerous areas and we have disarmed them.

Don’t believe me?  The numbers back me up.

Chicago protest Don't shoot I want to grow up

Chicago is now, and has long been, a deadly city for blacks.  The sweetness and light of non-stop Democrat rule has done nothing to make it safer.  At a certain point in this deadly trajectory, Chicago Progressives made an announcement:  a lot of the people who died in Chicago died from gunshots.  Thinking simplistically, they decided that the next step was to get rid of the guns.  Chicago therefore enacted some of the most repressive gun-control in the nation.  Had the Democrat logic been correct, the “homicide by gun” rate in Chicago should have plummeted in the wake of this legislation.  As John Lott explains, the opposite was true:

Since late 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns. Over the next 19 years, there were only three years where the murder rate was as low as when the ban started.

As shown in the forthcoming third edition of my book “More Guns, Less Crime,” before the ban, Chicago’s murder rate was falling relative to the nine other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that border Cook county, as well as the U.S. as a whole. After the ban, Chicago’s murder rate rose relative to all these other places.

In other words, banning guns killed black men.

Chicago is not anomalous.  Washington, D.C., showed precisely the same pattern.  Here’s John Lott again, looking at the way the numbers are, rather than the way Progressives think they ought to be.  When Washington banned legal guns, murder rates (and that would be murder rates of black men) shot up:

Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later — in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

In 2008, fed-up citizens, aware of their rights under the Second Amendment, sued.  A fairly conservative Supreme Court looked at the Washington, D.C., law, and concluded that it did indeed violate the Constitution.  At this point, with the gun-control ban lifted, if the liberals had been right, even more young black men should have died.  But, says Lott, the numbers showed that the opposite happened:

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence.” Knowing that Chicago’s gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were “outraged” by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people “are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute.”

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.’s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.’s population count is at about 590,000).

In words of one syllable (for any Progressives reading this): If you take guns from the good guys, bad guys kill them.

In Washington, D.C., and in Chicago, both good guys and bad guys were black.  When the Progressives told law-abiding black citizens that they would have to disarm, these same citizens died in greater numbers than before.  Keep in mind, too, that the gun ban also affected the bad guys.  Bans create black-market arms’ races, with the bad guys working hard to corner the market and, because they are working outside the law, having to compunction about  killing their competition.

The negative effects of gun control transcend race, of course.  In England, the BBC expressed genuine surprise when statistics showed that, despite a repressive ban on all types of guns, gun deaths increased:

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

At this point, people who are not blinkered by statist ideology and an irrational fear of guns are saying “Well, duh!” But the Leftists, God bless ‘em, are always driven by an unreasoning optimism that says, “If at first you don’t succeed, try imposing even more state control and spending more money.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to these Ivy League geniuses that exerting more control and spending more money make sense only if the gun ban sort of succeeded in the first place by slightly lessening gun-related homicides.  In that case, maybe trying harder might create greater benefits. However, if your actual outcomes are the exact opposite of the intended outcomes, it might occur to any rational person that you’re on the wrong track and should make a sharp, fast u-turn.

Lynching in the Democrat South

By the way, it’s reasonable to believe that, in America, the increase in black deaths isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Progressives have a long and ugly history of racism. In the years leading up to the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of slavery. In the years after the Civil War, right up until the Civil Rights Movement, they were the party of the KKK, lynchings, and Jim Crow. In the North, the Progressives weren’t crude enough to agitate for lynching. They aimed for scientific eugenics, with Margaret Sanger’s primary goal when it came to birth control being the eventual elimination of the black population. Abortion, which is one of Planned Parenthood’s primary services, also has a disproportionate effect on blacks.

And that brings us to gun control, the genesis of which wasn’t to prevent crime but was, instead, to disarm the black man:

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics “in their place,” and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as “suspect ideas,” analogous to the “suspect classifications” theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Nowadays, I acquit modern Progressives of active genocide, but there’s no doubt that, by following in the footsteps of their racist forebears, they are having equally racist outcomes.

It turns out that there’s one way to stop gun-crime:  more legal guns that are in the hands of law-abiding, rather than law-breaking, citizens:

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Concealed-carry works best in limiting the number of deaths in a mass murder scenario, but it also is very helpful in preventing crimes generally. A bad guy who thinks that the owner of House A might be armed is more likely to go to House B, as long as House B has this sign in the window:

No guns

Of course, if both Houses A and B have this sign in the window, I bet the bad guy will go away altogether:

NRA sign never mind dog beware of owner

So, the next time some condescending or faux-outraged Progressive asks you how in the world you can oppose gun control, tell him that it’s because, unlike him, you’re not a racist.

Found it on Facebook: Republicans are the party of slavery and Jim Crow

I don’t even know where to begin addressing this one:

Would any of you care to have it? A good start would probably be the fact that blacks are returning to the South because economic conditions are better there and they are better integrated, rather than being consigned to vast, dangerous urban ghettos in the Blue States.  We could also talk about the more conservative values southerners, including blacks, have that have nothing to do with slavery or racism.

UPDATE:  A map that shows votes by county reveals that the election split wasn’t slave versus free or north versus south or black versus white. It was, instead, cities versus suburbs and rural areas:  http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/eln.pdf