The Christopher Lane case - the white Australian who was shot in the back by three bored teenagers - 2 black and one apparently half-black - is being discussed on the Hannity forums.
Some folks compare it to the Trayvon Martin case and wonder where Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and President Obama are.
Others say the comparison isn't valid because *these* three shooters are in jail, whereas Zimmerman was questioned for three hours but then let free because the police didn't think he'd done anything wrong, he'd shot Martin in self-defense, and probably would have done so regardless of Martin's skin color.
I'm in the camp that compares this with the Trayvon Martin case, just because of the media scrutiny. Where is it? Where are Al Sharpton, Jackson and the President on this issue? What would their reaction have been if the victim had been black and the shooters white?
Obviously, there is white on black crime. But not all white on black crime is racist. But it seems like when there is black on white crime, it is *never* considered to be racist. (By that I mean - the media never reports it that way, and Sharpton and Jackson never seem to point it out.).
How many innocent black folks have died in Chicago - killed by other black folks, since Trayvon Martin died? What is being done about that?
Profiling apparently goes on in a lot of American cities, and the African-American community is outraged. But the thing is - more blacks than white are poor, the poor more often commit violent crimes, so it only makes sense to profile them.
(Having said that, since more whites than blacks have jobs, it follows that more white collar crime - crimes committed by people who don't *have* to steal to survive but do it just because they want more money for more luxuries) are committed by whites. I'm not saying that *only* the poor commit crimes - we need only look to Wall Street to see that *that* isn't true!), just that when you're trying to combat crime certain methods are effective, if they were allowed to be used.
Want to stop profiling? Work within your community to stop it at the source!
As for stopping Wall Street Crime and white collar crime...well, who knows what solution there is there...perhaps no more country club prisons, for a start.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Where's the outrage over Christopher Lane's murder?
Christopher Lane was murdered by two black and one white bored teenagers.
Yesterday there was no mention of their race and no photos.
Today, still no mention of their race, or wondering if it was a hate crime, no, the teens were just "bored." I suppose since one of the three murderers was white, that proves that it wasn't a hate crime?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57599302/aussie-baseball-player-killed-by-bored-okla-teens-police-say/
If the situation were reversed, there'd be cries of racism, there'd be screams for the heads of these three teenagers...there'd be Time and Newsweek covers, etc. and etc.
Will we see that for this Aussie victim?
If not...why not?
Yesterday there was no mention of their race and no photos.
Today, still no mention of their race, or wondering if it was a hate crime, no, the teens were just "bored." I suppose since one of the three murderers was white, that proves that it wasn't a hate crime?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57599302/aussie-baseball-player-killed-by-bored-okla-teens-police-say/
If the situation were reversed, there'd be cries of racism, there'd be screams for the heads of these three teenagers...there'd be Time and Newsweek covers, etc. and etc.
Will we see that for this Aussie victim?
If not...why not?
Monday, August 12, 2013
Mocking a president who is black is still just mocking a president
If a clown at a state fair had put on a mask of Clinton and simulated sex, or a mask of Bush 1 and said, read my lips, etc. etc., there would have been no problems.
But he puts on a mask of Obama, who is black, so of course the mocking isn't due to Obama being mockable, no, it's because Obama is black.
Ridiculous.
But he puts on a mask of Obama, who is black, so of course the mocking isn't due to Obama being mockable, no, it's because Obama is black.
Ridiculous.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/08/obama-administration-using-housing-department-to-compel-diversity-in/
In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.
The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.
Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.
Specifics of the proposed rule are lacking. Now published in the Federal Register and undergoing a 60-day comment period, the rule, "does not prescribe or enforce specific” policies.
But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.
"This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people," said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. "It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”
Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD -- a weapon the department has already used in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.
One letter written by Cortlandt town attorney Thomas Wood expresses a common dilemma.
"Cordlandt is mostly residential and has only a few vacant parcels that could be developed for commercial use," he writes. "In order to stabilize the tax base amongst the most affordable in Westchester County, the Town Board needs to encourage the development of commercial property for commercial use."
Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive, recently said, "What they are trying to do is to say discrimination and zoning is the same thing. They are not. Discrimination won't be tolerated. I won't tolerate it. Zoning though, protects what can and can't be built in a neighborhood."
Also troublesome to critics is that the HUD secretary, in announcing this proposed rule, blamed poverty on zip codes – rather than other socio-economic factors that studies have shown contribute to poverty.
In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.
The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.
HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.
Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.
Specifics of the proposed rule are lacking. Now published in the Federal Register and undergoing a 60-day comment period, the rule, "does not prescribe or enforce specific” policies.
But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.
"This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people," said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. "It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”
Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD -- a weapon the department has already used in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.
One letter written by Cortlandt town attorney Thomas Wood expresses a common dilemma.
"Cordlandt is mostly residential and has only a few vacant parcels that could be developed for commercial use," he writes. "In order to stabilize the tax base amongst the most affordable in Westchester County, the Town Board needs to encourage the development of commercial property for commercial use."
Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive, recently said, "What they are trying to do is to say discrimination and zoning is the same thing. They are not. Discrimination won't be tolerated. I won't tolerate it. Zoning though, protects what can and can't be built in a neighborhood."
Also troublesome to critics is that the HUD secretary, in announcing this proposed rule, blamed poverty on zip codes – rather than other socio-economic factors that studies have shown contribute to poverty.
Civil rights activists remain silent on Florida school bus beating video
From : Civil" style="color: #003399;">http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/07/florida-school-bus-beatdown-goes-unnoticed-by-self-styled-civil-rights/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2bNzzkYxs">Civil rights activists remain silent on Florida school bus beating video
A viral video showing the beating of a 13-year-old white boy by three African-American youths in Florida has left hundreds of thousands of viewers horrified, but critics say the case doesn't seem to be attracting much sympathy from self-styled civil rights activists.
In the chilling video, three 15-year-old boys repeatedly beat and kick a victim police said was left with a broken arm and two black eyes.
Although Florida came under fire in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman's acquittal by activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - who called it an "apartheid state" - neither has spoken publicly about the bus incident. But one reason the case has not become as racially charged as other attacks may be that many news outlets have either not shown the first few seconds, before the victim goes down behind a seat, and others blur out his face to the point his race is no longer apparent.
The bus driver, 64-year-old John Moody, can be heard frantically calling a radio dispatcher for help, although he was criticized in some quarters for not physically intervening.
"No, you've got to get somebody here quick, quick, quick," Moody pleads on his phone as the assailants take turns landing windmill punches and vicious kicks on the cowering victim. "They about to beat this boy to death over here."
The attack took place July 9 in the St. Petersburg-area community of Gulfport. But the horrific cell phone and surveillance video only came out only recently. Police say the three youths, all African-American, attacked the boy after he told officials at their dropout prevention school that one of them had tried to sell him marijuana.
Most of the focus has so far been on Moody, who retired two weeks after the incident. Moody went on CNN earlier this week to defend himself.
"Me jumping in the middle of that fight with three boys, it would have been more dangerous for other students on the bus for as myself," he told Morgan. "There's just no telling what might have happened."
Moody stopped the bus, and police said the suspects used the emergency exit of the bus to escape. Joshua Reddin, Julian McKnight, and Lloyd Khemradj, all 15 years old, were arrested a short time later. All three were charged with aggravated battery and have since been released. Reddin is also charged with unarmed robbery.
Pinellas County school policy does not require a driver to intervene and prosecutors have said Moody will not face charges, but Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent told WFLA that Moody should have stepped in.
"There was clearly an opportunity for him to intervene and or check on the welfare of the children or the child in this case, and he didn't make any effort to do so," Vincent said.
A viral video showing the beating of a 13-year-old white boy by three African-American youths in Florida has left hundreds of thousands of viewers horrified, but critics say the case doesn't seem to be attracting much sympathy from self-styled civil rights activists.
In the chilling video, three 15-year-old boys repeatedly beat and kick a victim police said was left with a broken arm and two black eyes.
Although Florida came under fire in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman's acquittal by activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - who called it an "apartheid state" - neither has spoken publicly about the bus incident. But one reason the case has not become as racially charged as other attacks may be that many news outlets have either not shown the first few seconds, before the victim goes down behind a seat, and others blur out his face to the point his race is no longer apparent.
The bus driver, 64-year-old John Moody, can be heard frantically calling a radio dispatcher for help, although he was criticized in some quarters for not physically intervening.
"No, you've got to get somebody here quick, quick, quick," Moody pleads on his phone as the assailants take turns landing windmill punches and vicious kicks on the cowering victim. "They about to beat this boy to death over here."
"They about to beat this boy to death over here."- Florida bus driver John Moody
The attack took place July 9 in the St. Petersburg-area community of Gulfport. But the horrific cell phone and surveillance video only came out only recently. Police say the three youths, all African-American, attacked the boy after he told officials at their dropout prevention school that one of them had tried to sell him marijuana.
Most of the focus has so far been on Moody, who retired two weeks after the incident. Moody went on CNN earlier this week to defend himself.
"Me jumping in the middle of that fight with three boys, it would have been more dangerous for other students on the bus for as myself," he told Morgan. "There's just no telling what might have happened."
Moody stopped the bus, and police said the suspects used the emergency exit of the bus to escape. Joshua Reddin, Julian McKnight, and Lloyd Khemradj, all 15 years old, were arrested a short time later. All three were charged with aggravated battery and have since been released. Reddin is also charged with unarmed robbery.
Pinellas County school policy does not require a driver to intervene and prosecutors have said Moody will not face charges, but Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent told WFLA that Moody should have stepped in.
"There was clearly an opportunity for him to intervene and or check on the welfare of the children or the child in this case, and he didn't make any effort to do so," Vincent said.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Does a Single "Slur" Make Someone Racist?
Riley Cooper is still in trouble for shouting the "N-word", once, at a bunch of African Americans who were vocally harassing him.
The sports outlets seem to be doing their best to make a Federal case out of this, going around asking African American athletes what they think about Riley Cooper. Apparently using the word once, to a bunch of guys harassing him, means he's a died in the wool racist who thinks that all blacks are inferior and need to be driven off the planet.
It's just ridiculous!
Surely any white kid who has been in a football program in college any time in the last 30 years has been surrounded by 80% black players. As we know from Rap and stand up comedians, blacks call themselves the N word all the time, both common place and as an insult.
Is it too much to think that someone like Cooper who probably spent 4 years in college heard all this going on, was friends with his teammates, and the word just slipped out when he was angry?
Is using that word a single time - not going up to two blacks in a restaurant calming eating their food, for example, and calling them the "n-word' but rather using it towards a bunch of guys who were *harassing him* even if only verbally - does he deserve to have to grovel and apologize and go to "counseling" before his teammates accept him back?
Over on the Hannity message forums, there's a thread about some white college kid who wanted to start a Whites Only group on campus - which he was doing in response to the fact that there's a Black's Only student's group on Campus, and a Latino Only student group on campus. So if they can be exclusive and restrictive, why can't he have a White's Only group? But of course there was an uproar because *that* would be racist.
And someone on the Hannity boards, who *agreed* with that view, said "whites are under attack" in a joking manner. Since he apparently believes that it is only minorities who are under attack, and the whites that have all the power.
But really, do we? If we did, then Riley Cooper wouldn't be twisting in the wind right now because he used the "n-word" once to a bunch of guys who were harassing him. Michael Roberts' career wouldn't be over because of his -admittedly tasteless - lynching joke to a black heckler. Brian Griese wouldn't have been suspended for a week because in calling a college football game, he dared to suggest that a Latino player might be hiding somewhere eating a taco. (If he'd said it had been a hotdog, probably there would have been no repercussions. But to dare to say that a Latino player might actually be eating a Latino piece of food - racist!)
Yet Charlie Rangel can call the Tea Party a bunch of white "crackers" and there's no need for him to go to counseling. Rae Dawn Chong apparently called Oprah a "field N-word" and no one's calling her a racist because she's apparently a quarter black.
What is a "field-N-word" anyway? An African-American who speaks in an educated way with a Northern accent, interacts with whites as an equal and has accepted middle-classness (or in her case, of course, riches) .
Apparently 41% of young African Americans are unemployed. Is this because racist employers don't want to hire them, or is it because employers can't afford to hire people who can't speak properly, don't know how to do math, don't know any manners (a common complaint with all teenagers, admittedly), have tattoos everywhere, and go around looking angry all the time? (Although - it must be said that white teens are at 20% unemployment.)
There's a commercial on TV, some beer commercial, I actually forget the brand, but the black rapper Ice Cube, I think that's his name, is their spokesperson. Have you ever seen any of these commercials? He's done at least 3 of them,and in each one he's got this furious look on his face and struts around like he's angry and contemptuous and I'm, like, what have *you* got to be angry about? You're a multi-millionaire. Yet this is the guy, him and his vicious, angry attitude, that the beer companies are putting out there as normal behavior.
It may be one thing for a millionaire rapper to be able to go around looking like he'd like to stomp you into a coma all the time - he can still get a job apparently, but if a teenager does that, is it any wonder he's not going to get hired?
The sports outlets seem to be doing their best to make a Federal case out of this, going around asking African American athletes what they think about Riley Cooper. Apparently using the word once, to a bunch of guys harassing him, means he's a died in the wool racist who thinks that all blacks are inferior and need to be driven off the planet.
It's just ridiculous!
Surely any white kid who has been in a football program in college any time in the last 30 years has been surrounded by 80% black players. As we know from Rap and stand up comedians, blacks call themselves the N word all the time, both common place and as an insult.
Is it too much to think that someone like Cooper who probably spent 4 years in college heard all this going on, was friends with his teammates, and the word just slipped out when he was angry?
Is using that word a single time - not going up to two blacks in a restaurant calming eating their food, for example, and calling them the "n-word' but rather using it towards a bunch of guys who were *harassing him* even if only verbally - does he deserve to have to grovel and apologize and go to "counseling" before his teammates accept him back?
Over on the Hannity message forums, there's a thread about some white college kid who wanted to start a Whites Only group on campus - which he was doing in response to the fact that there's a Black's Only student's group on Campus, and a Latino Only student group on campus. So if they can be exclusive and restrictive, why can't he have a White's Only group? But of course there was an uproar because *that* would be racist.
And someone on the Hannity boards, who *agreed* with that view, said "whites are under attack" in a joking manner. Since he apparently believes that it is only minorities who are under attack, and the whites that have all the power.
But really, do we? If we did, then Riley Cooper wouldn't be twisting in the wind right now because he used the "n-word" once to a bunch of guys who were harassing him. Michael Roberts' career wouldn't be over because of his -admittedly tasteless - lynching joke to a black heckler. Brian Griese wouldn't have been suspended for a week because in calling a college football game, he dared to suggest that a Latino player might be hiding somewhere eating a taco. (If he'd said it had been a hotdog, probably there would have been no repercussions. But to dare to say that a Latino player might actually be eating a Latino piece of food - racist!)
Yet Charlie Rangel can call the Tea Party a bunch of white "crackers" and there's no need for him to go to counseling. Rae Dawn Chong apparently called Oprah a "field N-word" and no one's calling her a racist because she's apparently a quarter black.
What is a "field-N-word" anyway? An African-American who speaks in an educated way with a Northern accent, interacts with whites as an equal and has accepted middle-classness (or in her case, of course, riches) .
Apparently 41% of young African Americans are unemployed. Is this because racist employers don't want to hire them, or is it because employers can't afford to hire people who can't speak properly, don't know how to do math, don't know any manners (a common complaint with all teenagers, admittedly), have tattoos everywhere, and go around looking angry all the time? (Although - it must be said that white teens are at 20% unemployment.)
There's a commercial on TV, some beer commercial, I actually forget the brand, but the black rapper Ice Cube, I think that's his name, is their spokesperson. Have you ever seen any of these commercials? He's done at least 3 of them,and in each one he's got this furious look on his face and struts around like he's angry and contemptuous and I'm, like, what have *you* got to be angry about? You're a multi-millionaire. Yet this is the guy, him and his vicious, angry attitude, that the beer companies are putting out there as normal behavior.
It may be one thing for a millionaire rapper to be able to go around looking like he'd like to stomp you into a coma all the time - he can still get a job apparently, but if a teenager does that, is it any wonder he's not going to get hired?
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Morals of America
There's been a lot of discussion and op eds and stuff in the news in the past couple of weeks, ever since Anthony Weiner was revealed to have continued to "sext" women even after he'd stopped down from his congressman position in disgrace.
Now, he is trying to become mayor of New York and even though he must have known he was going to try to re-enter politics, he had been sexting yet more women.
And now this is known and he's refusing to step down.
Now, I haven't read any of the guy's interviews, and I haven't read any of the articles about him - I've just read the headlines and some of the op ed pieces.
But come ON.
Even if a person's sex life is their own business, and has nothing to do with politics, surely politicians must be ethical in that they mustn't LIE. They mustn't be STUPID.
How can anyone in this day and age who "sexts" and who is a public figure, think that he can get away with not being found out?????
Anthony Weiner is a stupid man, and we've already got too many stupid people in politics.
What puzzles me is why anyone continues to support this man. How can they not look at him and picture him taking a picture of his "junk" and then sending it - unsolicited, mark you - to women.
According to a poll Rush read a few days ago, women age 18-20 still support Weiner. Now that is a very sad statistic. Even if you're used to being "sexted" yourself - and I venture to say women "sext" men more often than the other way around - don't they see how demeaning that is?
Sadly, they don't.
Now, he is trying to become mayor of New York and even though he must have known he was going to try to re-enter politics, he had been sexting yet more women.
And now this is known and he's refusing to step down.
Now, I haven't read any of the guy's interviews, and I haven't read any of the articles about him - I've just read the headlines and some of the op ed pieces.
But come ON.
Even if a person's sex life is their own business, and has nothing to do with politics, surely politicians must be ethical in that they mustn't LIE. They mustn't be STUPID.
How can anyone in this day and age who "sexts" and who is a public figure, think that he can get away with not being found out?????
Anthony Weiner is a stupid man, and we've already got too many stupid people in politics.
What puzzles me is why anyone continues to support this man. How can they not look at him and picture him taking a picture of his "junk" and then sending it - unsolicited, mark you - to women.
According to a poll Rush read a few days ago, women age 18-20 still support Weiner. Now that is a very sad statistic. Even if you're used to being "sexted" yourself - and I venture to say women "sext" men more often than the other way around - don't they see how demeaning that is?
Sadly, they don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)