« Don't know much about philosophy (NPhL Chinese, Curry and Caliphate division) open thread | Main | Your Thanksgiving Recipes Open Thread »

November 19, 2014

Comments

and on:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/03/1349088/-Denver-police-erase-video-evidence-of-them-flipping-7-month-pregnant-woman-and-pummeling-her-friend

The fetus should have shot the cop in the face.

Hasn't the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?

"Hasn't the Republican Party armed fetuses yet?"

Depends on their color, now doesn't it?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1349318/-In-2010-veteran-St-Louis-Police-officer-lost-lawsuit-for-800-000-after-hanging-noose-up-in-office

To the good Doctor's initial inquiry...(damn, that was a long time ago) is it not the reverberations of the past that continue to dictate the present? Is the violence we now witness a matter of unfortunate circumstance, or is it part of the design?

black middle class people don't have this problem

One member of the black middle class begs to differ.

So how do you argue against the eye witness account and the "forensics" in this instance?

Shame on the public for not appreciating on the spot capital punishment...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30323811
On websites catering to the law enforcement community, the mood was largely angry and defensive - reflecting a community that sees itself as under siege by an unappreciative public...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd
...Capital punishment in Mega-City One is rarely used, though deaths while resisting arrest are commonplace....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYrXd9ycA
the thing that almost always triggers the violence is that they felt like (she) was disrespecting the cops...
... disrespecting a police officer is not a capital offense...
... allegedly.

A countervailing voice of police sanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4

black middle class people don't have this problem

An interesting read from LinkedIn (I know, I'm shocked too). But the perspective of a black CEO:

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141204174020-261404895-it-s-time-to-revolutionize-race-relations

In short, no, simply achieving success in life doesn't normalize how people view black men.

This op-ed is still mind boggling.

"I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me."

the editor must've taken out the "Results may vary, depending on your skin color" disclaimer. for space reasons, probably.

An interesting read from LinkedIn

The comments are something else, though.

The comments are something else, though.

I would recommend browsing with NoScript. Pages load faster and you don't have deal with comments on most sites.

See the commonality of experience between the black Professor of Literature at Vassar cited by bobbyp at 10:06pm and the black CEO of Kaiser Permanante cited by thompson.

I've been to the Vassar campus a couple of times. It embodies liberal sensibilities, which is to say that the everyday racial bias that even black professionals marinate in in (two ins does make an outie) their daily lives, despite all of the formal strides made in Civil Rights in this country, exists outside liberal and conservative political categories and is invisible to blinkered white experience, regardless of our racial sensibilities.

It's what it is.

The middle class black professional is a couple of steps closer to a fatal choke hold from the authorities in his or her daily life than even a poor white, generally speaking.

I'm entertaining a thought experiment.

Let's say I now agree with the conservative meme (which remained satire for approximately a minute and a half before it became full-blown earnest bullsh*t reality) that the enforcement of cigarette taxes is the direct cause of Mr. Garner's death (although I now see that the guy who shot the video has been indicted on weapons charges some time after the fact, which is yet another post hoc justification for Garner being choked to death, uh hunh)

I need to fill my car's gas tank today, but I've decided to refuse to pay the gasoline tax because of its coercive qualities. Unlike Mr. Garner and Mr. Brown, I'm going to carry a weapon to protect myself, as prescribed by conservative deep thinkers, against these governmental oppressions and any interference by government agents that might ensue. I'll pay the amount in cash, subtracting the tax tax.

We'll see what happens.

When Brett and the rest of you hear about the result in the media (my thought experiment includes media coverage), as predicted here, I expect several outcomes: I'm not black so I will live through this. If I'm choked to death, I'm rather svelt and in great physical shape, so conservative commentators will be at a loss to explain my demise, and I'm armed and refusing to pay an oppressive tax, so if I live, I'll be assured of gainful appointment with Grover Norquist's octopus-like organizational conglomerate, NRA advertising spots, and my new show on FOX entitled "Taxes, Schmaxes". If I'm gunned down by oppressive government agents, I'll ascend to conservative martyrdom and the awful regime of gasoline taxation will begin to crumble like so many Eastern European communist potentates and you folks are free to use your driverless and apparently now roadless and bridgeless cars.

I'll keep you posted.


comments on LinkedIn are such a terrible idea.

next time i'm in the job market i'm going to go there and scan for comments from any execs from any potential employers.

that people are willing to let their racism fly under their real name, with job title and employer name attached is just astounding.

and then this proves that the system is perfectly fair, i'm sure:

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-south-carolina-police-chief-indicted-murder-charge-160946468.html

Off-topic, but maybe not .. in this thread:

http://seekingalpha.com/news/2163175-ft-leniency-expected-from-oil-creditors-amid-fall-in-prices

If only mortgage holders could be so lucky.

I wonder if loud-mouthed Tea Party pig Rick Santelli will let us know about these oilpatch deadbeats.

Some good news, now on-topic, from a bad news State:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/south-carolina-3-indictments-cops

I was diagnosed with schizophrenia (and months ago of penning word salad) by the fleeting here today, gone tomorrow psychiatrist on this thread, and I would like the opportunity to take that as a compliment since I'm in good company, though not comparable in stature by any means:

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Walser/e/B000APSK2A/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1417800149&sr=1-2-ent

Besides, I think, schizophasia is the more accurate term. I don't know what the psychiatric term is for feigned schizophasia, but I've a raging case of that.

Been reading an essay on Walser by W.G. Sebald, who everyone must read, or there will be choke holds.

I love when middle class black people complain about this stuff. If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.

But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.

the difference, Marty, is that you have to go somewhere specific to be insecure. for some people, it happens everywhere.

I wish I could say "I love it when Marty goes into his 'I've had it bad too, so nothing to worry about, folks, just suck it up and move along'."

But I just can't.

If I go to Dorchester in my sweats and wander around or, god forbid, run, lots of people will be watching me closely including the cops.

Marty, why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion that the CEO of a $55B company isn't exactly wearing sweats or doing anything else comparable to look ostentatiously out-of-place in the situations he's outlining? Well... except... you know.

I know you don't mean to be, but you're actually exactly making his point for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYrXd9ycA the thing that almost always triggers the violence is that they felt like (she) was disrespecting the cops...

I actually found that the best point in this was one that gets forgotten way too often: even if the suspect did something wrong and glaringly illegal, and it's an open-and-shut case against them... it is not in any way, shape or form the job of the police to punish them. That's not their role in the justice system, and when they take it upon themselves to do so, they're no more legitimate than a random civilian doing likewise (though obviously they're much less likely to suffer any ill consequences for it). Punishment is a prerogative of the courts, not of the police.

I just did a back of the envelope analysis. Black, Native American, White and Asian homicide rates (per 100k) respectively: 16.5, 3.2, 2.7, 1.6 Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06 Now the ratio of homicide to killed by police for Black, Native American, White and Asian: .02, .05, .04, .04 Given the rate at which they are involved in homicides, whites are killed by police at more than twice the rate (.05) of blacks (.02) and in fact more than the other racial categories. Blacks are killed by police by far the least relative to their participation in homicides. They’re getting off easy based on their level of violent crime. I assert that the racial meme re; police violence is junk science at best and, more likely, is designed to divide the people against each other such that it becomes more difficult to fight for justice for all against a govt that seeks to remove our freedoms.

NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I'm running while white. And there are plenty of places we could both run where no one would notice us. But, as someone noted above, since we live in mostly segregated neighborhoods, especially in the upper middle class, then, well, yes it happens. One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.

Oh wow. That's some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for "involvement in violent crimes"? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes? Asserting that police shootings are more justified because of the "collective guilt" of "blacks" as demonstrated by their higher homicide rates? And is that rates at which they're victims or perpetrators of homicide? Nope, definitely nothing junky about your presentation of those back-of-the-envelope calculations. I think we can officially declare this matter laid to rest.

NV, You mean running while black? Absolutely, and I'm running while white.

And the CEO was citing his shopping-while-black. And his eating-out-while-black. And his checking-out-while-black. And his walking-to-his-car-while-black. Do you have similar "-while-white" stories to counter those? Your hypothetical running example says exactly nothing to that. Or to the Vassar prof's experiences. That you can in very constrained circumstances be subjected to a comparable level of scrutiny (we can generously assume with comparable consequences too) to an other does nothing to address the part where the other is subjected to that heightened level of scrutiny continuously in contexts where you would never be subjected to that same scrutiny if you dressed and behaved as they did. Or more succinctly, what cleek said.

The exception proves the rule. Spud Webb was a short basketball player.

well, to be fair, the definition of 'factoid' is :

"an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

so, it's a mistake to expect actual fact.

I just did a back of the envelope analysis.

That's an hour with the census website and a calculator, gone to waste.

One of the big differences is that when it happens to me I am not angry, I am pretty glad they are checking.

I get that you apparently had a kind of hardscrabble coming-up, but I'm not sure your experiences can really be equated to that of black men, in general, in the US.

Either a hell of a lot of black guys are puny-ass whiners, or they really and truly are hassled, for no good reason, on a routine basis.

I don't think that happens to a lot of white guys.

NV "continuously" this is where your argument breaks down. Occasionally, I could agree with, more often than white folk going to Vassar, ok, but I'm pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it's happened to him, at least as an adult. I Could tell three stories just about being harassed by cops. Young blacks in poor neighborhoods, particularly in parts of town "owned" by gangs or where there is a known street drug trade? Continuously may cone close.

"That's some pretty impressive definitely-not-junk science right there. I barely know where to start. Using homicide incidence as a stand-in for "involvement in violent crimes"? Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent ...."

As opposed to your emotionally charged unsubstantiated anecdotes that must be a true reflection of reality because you feel like it is so, I'd say my assumptions are pretty good.

all I can say is that it sucks to be an Indian.

Marty: but I'm pretty willing to bet the CEO described every time it's happened to him, at least as an adult.

Well then you'd lose, unless he's lying:

So you know I’m speaking from a realistic rather than theoretical standpoint, here are a few personal examples I’ve experienced in the past couple of months:

Let me see if I've got "factoidal" right. Your brother is shot by the police. That's bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother's death only half as bad?

Wow. That doesn't even rise to the level of bullshit.

it's that new math

"Asserting that there is perforce a causal connection between incidence of police shootings and incidence of violent crimes?"

Let's try this: Police, rationally, ought to be deployed where there is a lot of crime going on, particularly violent crime. And they're not going to be shooting people where they aren't deployed. So, yes, they're is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.

Brett, my apologies for being less verbose than usual. I incorrectly thought in context it was clear I meant: "...incidence of police shootings [where the victim is a member of demographic X] and incidence of violent crimes [where the victim is a member of demographic X]..."

That doesn't hold up quite so well as the general case.

"Wow. That doesn't even rise to the level of bullshit."

Again I ask, what does have left have to offer other emotional anecdote molded into a "just so" story?

"Your brother is shot by the police. That's bad. But then your other brother is shot by someone else, so that makes the first brother's death only half as bad?"

So let me see if I have you correctly, you are saying that all police shootings are of innocent people minding their own business?

For your "narrative" to be correct, you have to show that police are killing people without good cause and, overwhelmingly these are black people. I submit to you that, quite to the contrary, police are shooting dangerous felons and in a very justified manner. I just read an account of two recent fatal shootings of black teenagers in Chicago. They happened on the same night. In both cases the shot blacks were committing crimes and then pointed loaded handguns at police. Having read the statistics, these are typical incidents for both blacks and whites getting killed by police.

When it comes to cases of apparent police abuse of lethal power, I am not seeing statistics that support the idea that the victim is more likely to be black than white.

Perhaps you have these specific statistics handy and would like to share them.

I'm pretty sure factoidal is just mighty whitey and just sayin by a different name, and that evolution of handles demonstrates how this works, you start off with some really putrid racism, then you move to the 'I'm just pointing this observation out' to the implication that it is based on facts and calculations. I guess the observations on chokeholds didn't pan out...

can't you ban by IP?

So, yes, they're is a causal connection between the incidence of police shootings and the incidence of violent crimes.

care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?

Black, Native American, White and Asian killed by police rates (per 100k) respectively: .33, .17, .12, .06

I squint at those numbers and come up with the following hypothesis: Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types, then it would appear that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be assassinated by the police while committing similar offences.

The obvious solution is to deploy more police on Wall Street (where the real violet crimes take place) and gun down an occasional banker once and a while just to keep them on their toes.

A rather funny (and telling) finding of mine today: In (post-classical) Latin 'to shoot (with) a gun' is 'eiaculari sclopeto'. Freud would have a field day with that.

"care to try to prove that the cause only goes one way ?"

Now, why would I care to do that? Causal relations going both ways is hardly unheard of. But there clearly is a causal connection between rates of violent crime, and rates of police shootings, and it's fairly obvious: The police go where there is crime, and don't shoot people where they aren't.

" Assuming those who are assassinated by the police are pretty much engaged in the same types of behaviors (i.e., not good behaviors) across all racial types,"

I take it, you mean, assuming they're engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates? Yes, given that assumption, the conclusion follows. But is that assumption at all defensible? I think not.

The police go where there is crime, and don't shoot people where they aren't.

and, for some reason, they stop, arrest, try, convict and convict for longer in those places than any other place.

it's as if they aren't just following crime. it's as if there's something else going on here. and there is.

but y'all don't want to acknowledge that, for some reason.

What, you're saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime? Who would have guessed?

I take it, you mean, assuming they're engaged in the same types of behaviors at the same rates?

No. I am engaging in factoids.

But if there are more police per capita out on the streets in these 'high crime' areas, then your chances of getting shot 'at the same rate' are higher, yes?

So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops.

This assumes I am giving this matter more thought than I gave this morning to my belly button lint (innie).

Consider another peculiarly American institution of violence nurtured and proselytized over the last half of the 20th century to the very present by a political and economic movement of psychopaths poised to destroy the country:

http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Pig Paul Ryan, meet William Edward Hickman, the model for every piece of legislation you've conceived.

This cracks me up:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/massive-785-million-recall-for-popular-us-gun/ar-BBgoPPI

Now, if we could have a recall for every single gun in America because they are designed to fire on purpose, as well as accidentally.

"No. I am engaging in factoids."

I'm entirely open to the possibility, likelihood even, that race is "a" factor in these differences. What I'm fighting is the determination to identify it as "the" factor in them, as though there weren't any other reasons for it, and some of them entirely justifiable.

"So if we desire to get the white kill rate up to snuff (pardon the pun), then we need to flood low crime areas with more cops."

Wouldn't work. Because the cops in the low crime areas, knowing they were in low crime areas, would behave differently. They'd know they didn't need to be looking on a hair trigger for muggers and robbers. They'd be more in a "keep an eye out for lost kids to help find their parents" mode.

I think in high crime areas cops are going around with an entirely different mindset. And shouldn't they? The facts they're surrounded by are different, are they supposed to ignore them?

What, you're saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems,

i'm not. and you know i'm not.

You're saying they DON'T behave differently when they know they're in high crime areas?

What, you're saying the police behave differently in places with bad crime problems, than they do in places that have little crime?

Actually, what he is saying ist hat police behave differently in places where they make more arrests. Whether there actually is more behavior that breaks the law in those places is, at best, unproven. In fact, that is precisely the question at issue: are more blacks arrested because they commit more crimes? Or because they get arrested at a higher rate for the same rate of commission?

And then we get into the question of the rate at which they are killed by police (police behaving differently), relative to the number of arrests. But that is two removes from the number killed relative to the number of crimes committed.

Don't much believe in victimization surveys, do you? I don't think it's unproven at all. Just inconvenient to acknowledge for people who desperately want the entire difference to be pinned on racism.

Of course, some might say it would be inconvenient for me to acknowledge that Ferguson didn't have a hugely high violent crime rate, at least prior to the riots. But I'll acknowledge it anyway, and propose another reform:

No monetary penalty should ever go back to the government unit that levied it. Not traffic fines, not penalties for failing to show up in court, not proceeds from civil forfeiture. (Which should be largely abolished anyway.)

It clearly is too much of a conflict of interest for them to cope with, to be able to get money by charging people with crimes.

Those last two paragraphs are another thing we could agree on but even more difficult to achieve since corruption is not limited to the individual unit. E.g. if the fines would go to the state instead, it could put pressure on the police to fine more and threaten to cut the budgets, if not enough revenue is produced. And departments could collude for profit-sharing ('our fines go to you and yours to us, so if you fine more, we will too and we both benefit'). Not that this would be unknown even today and also in the private sector.

You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it. Since, theoretically anyway, all these fines are levied in the interest of the people, not the state. Don't let the government keep any of it.

"You could simply divide it up by the population of the state, and refund it."

It could work like Alaska's Windfall Oil Rebate to the hard-working taxpayers.

The hard-working taxpayers would be incentivized to encourage their government to increase crime production, especially on public lands where crime is now discouraged and practically non-existent, thereby increasing the return of capital to themselves each year.

In New York, thug Eric Garner, instead of being strangled by police thugs who are merely carrying out the will of thug politicians, would be held up as a top producer of rebates to the thug taxpayers and perhaps awarded via a series of further tax incentives to his behavior for his contributions to the interests of the people.

Instead of his demise via chokehold, the bystander video would feature Garner and the police cooperating arm in arm in yet another of his arrests and instead of his last words ("I can't breathe"), he would smile into the camera as he was happily volunteered to head down to the station to pay his fines, with the words "Breathe easy hard-working taxpayer, because I work hard every day to increase the size of you annual crime rebate checks. Drill, baby, drill."

The hard-working taxpayer, watching this on the TV at home, would call his wife into the living room (because otherwise she's not allowed in the living room in most libertarian households) and say "Honey, Garner's doing his part overtime. Our rebate check is going to be enormous this year. Let's put an addition on the house. And tell the kids to step up their shoplifting and speeding on the roads, because I'm telling ya, there is a shortfall in their college funds."

Ah, but why should the proceeds be divided equally among the population, when garner, we're told, is doing all the work?

Simply.


But, both examples here are subjected to nothing more than the attitude I have certainly been subjected to in my day. The difference is how upset they get about it.

This statement has been bugging me for the last few days.

We live in a nation where the common emotional thread running through one of the two major parties - its life-blood and invigorating juice - is the festering, undying resentment of millions of people who feel that "liberal elites" are "looking down on them".

They see a conspiracy in every arugula salad.

In that context, Marty - and when I say Marty, he's just standing in for about eleventy-million other folks with the same complaint - wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they're hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.

The thing you feel, other people are likely to feel. If it bugs you that other people treat you differently because of how you dress, or what your accent sounds like, or whether you hunt, or whatever other cultural identifier happens to attach itself to you, imagine how it would bug you if you went through the same and worse because of the color of your skin.

It really should not take much of a leap of the imagination.

You're saying they DON'T behave differently when they know they're in high crime areas?

The relevant comparison, which doesn't appear to be on offer in your or anyone else's comments here, is how cops behave when they're in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.

Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white.

Unless your argument is that black neighborhoods are inherently high crime neighborhoods, while white ones are not.

I suspect that last is not a claim you would make.

wants to b*tch about the facat that black people complain when they're hassled for shopping, dining, calling cabs, or just plain old walking while black.

No Russell, I don't need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn't be happier for them to complain. I don't want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don't want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.

russell, don't bet the ranch on it.

Marty might not, but others that I have read in the past week certainly have made exactly that argument: that black neighborhoods are inherently higher crime neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, all else being equal.

don't want their complaint to drive government policy decisions

Then absolutely nobody's "complaints" should drive government policy decisions? Well, I guess that settles that.

I don't need or want to b*tch about this.m, I couldn't be happier for them to complain. I don't want their complaint held up as some proof of ongoing racial issues. I don't want their complaint to drive government policy decisions. I know lots if people, white and black with real problems.

That's all good, Marty, but what I don't understand is how the experience that all of those black people describe is anything other than evidence of ongoing racial issues.

Is it all in their head?

This isn't unique to blacks. Rural whites are, in fact, looked down on by folks in other parts of the country who view them as unsophisticated rubes.

It's not in their heads, it's a reality.

And all of those folks should be pissed off about it. And, to the degree that other folks' perception of them as unsophisticated rubes has an effect on public policy that they don't like, they very much ought to apply whatever influence they can bring to bear to drive government decisions.

They should, *and they do*. All the time.

Likewise, all the folks in the dreaded liberal enclaves who get to listen to an unending stream of drivel about how they are a bunch of addle-brained nosy parkers who have no idea how the "real world" works.

Likewise, all of the brown folks who get hassled every time they mispronounce an Anglo vowel.

All of those folks should be pissed off, and all of them should do whatever they feel they need to do to push back when they feel they are being abused.

Including all of the points at which that touches on public policy.

Just because folks other than black folks bear the brunt of ill use doesn't mean that blacks don't *also* bear the brunt of ill use, nor does it mean that they should just suck it up.

Thats a lot of pissed off, accomplishing what?

(looks like the software has something stuck on again.)
Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior. Which, in turn, may lead to a change in perceptions.

Culture change is not easy. But simply throwing up our hands and saying "nothing can be done" will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And since cultures DO change, there's no reason to assume that they cannot be successfully changed deliberately.

"The relevant comparison, which doesn't appear to be on offer in your or anyone else's comments here, is how cops behave when they're in high crime areas that are predominantly black, as compared to high crime areas that are not predominantly black.

Or, if you like, low crime areas that are black vs white."

Right, that is the relevant comparison. To the extent that you do not attempt to disentangle these variables, you risk spurious correlations. You risk attributing to race what is driven by crime rates.

For what it's worth, I live in a largely black, low crime neighborhood. Nobody seems to have any problem with the way the police behave here, any more than we had a problem with the way the police behaved when I lived in Michigan, in a low crime, mostly white neighborhood.

This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I'm open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.

Accomplishing, with luck, a change in behavior.

Yes, exactly. Thanks wj.

But I'm open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.

More than fair enough.

The word "peculiar" doesn't begin to describe American violence these a days.

I'm traveling and using the I-pad so linking is a mystery, but go to TPM and read "concealed carry activist charged with shooting ex husband and stepdaughter".

But "lowest level in decades" does describe American violence these days, which is good.

I don't suppose anybody on my side ever claimed that CCW permit holders have a precisely zero rate of crime, (Just lower than the police.) and if anybody is claiming that domestic violence is exclusively perpetrated by men, they're probably on your side.

But, I'll give you this: For a while yet, until the MSM finishes its death convulsions, a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape. That's just part of the headwind the Right has to cope with in this country.

This drives me to believe that the relevant difference is the local crime rate, not the local racial composition. But I'm open to data to the contrary, if it actually separates these variables.

Is the New Jersey Turnpike a neighborhood? What's the local crime rate?

...a concealed carry activist wrongly shooting somebody IS going to get more coverage that, say, a major Obama donor committing pedophile rape.

Such a donor clearly should be contributing to some number of the many pro-pedophilia candidates instead of Obama.

Perhaps in 2015 a gay activist Obama donor will murder two people with a firearm and an open carry activist in Texas will perform sodomy and rape on an under aged individual via the puréed hummus gambit and you will have even more to laugh about in 2015.

I'm hoping the MSM will cover your rash of hilarity next year so all of us hear about it, on an equal par with, say, something trivial, like 20 kindergartners blown away in their classrooms by a gay, open carry activist wielding an automatic salad shooter and your frown lines will be erased altogether.

He who laughs last laughs longest, but sometimes suffers from sports hernias.

NB:

"pureed hummus" is redundant.

That's exactly what the torture victim said to the CIA's colon feeding crew, contractors no doubt, as they turned the blender on and inserted the colostomy hose.

But, did they listen?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad