Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ann Coulter shatters her silence, and weighs in on GatesGate. She proposes another "national conversation." Heh.
That said, I believe Eric Holder. I doubt there is a middle-aged African-American who has not been stopped by police for, well, no good reason.
Perhaps, but what's the percentage comparison to whites, Asians, etc - usually male - also stopped for no good reason? I have no criminal record, but I have been stopped for no good reason at least three times.
I am not trying to deny racism in America. I am trying to prevent leaping to conclusions about it.
My contention is the "national conversation" does not happen because certain explanations cannot even be hinted at without eliciting outrage. The people calling for the national conversation about race are the ones preventing it. They don't want a conversation, they want to lecture us uninterrupted.
Mindreading? Maybe. My view is not without objective evidence, however.
"That said, I believe Eric Holder. I doubt there is a middle-aged African-American who has not been stopped by police for, well, no good reason."
This is an absurd belief. Self-deluded. And an insult and a smear of all police officers in the country.
You've been great across time but have fallen through the cracks in your own head on this one.
Now, this is totally off the subject, but I know that there are many rational thinking neocons, like anonymous here.(That's a compliment) I am dying to know what the heck is the attraction of Glenn Beck. The guy, in my opinion, is a nut job. Do any of you actually believe anything he says? This is totally serious. Even his bosses at Fox disavow about 85% of what he says.
I can take Beck in small doses like most of these talking heads. Listening to them can make one sick-emotionally disturbed. I think that's part of the game. To hook one in emotionally. Sick.
But for the life of me I can't figure out how you knew I was a neo-con. Absolutely true.
Maybe because I'm a devoted reader of TIGERHAWK?
Do you actually have any idea what that means? Or is it just a catch-all pejorative?
"I am dying to know what the heck is the attraction of Glenn Beck."
Beats the hell out of me. I don't, and have never, listened to him. Nor do I plan to. But from what I hear, the same criticisms of him can be fairly extended to Keith Olbermann. (to whom I have listened and I know to be a vicious little rage-junky who contributes nothing to serious political debate beyond spittle)
The whole format is unattractive to me. The only political commenter to whom I ever enjoyed listening (when I was stationed in California) was Dennis Prager because he was actually an intelligent person who allowed and encouraged reasoned debate on his program, and would concede points when he was wrong or admit ignorance if he didn't know something. Amazing.
In 2007, the NYPD stopped about 469,000 New Yorkers, which equals about 1,300 people a day. Of these 469,000, 88 percent were not charged. African-Americans, who represent 25 percent of the City's population, represent over 50 percent of those stopped; 30 percent of those stopped were Latino. Non-Latino Whites, who make up about 35 percent of the city's population, only represent 11 percent of those stopped. In both 2006 and 2007 African Americans and Latinos made up over 90 percent of those stopped
Since 88% of these people are not charged with any crime, there is no blame to be placed on blacks and Hispanics for just being there when a cop feels compelled to give them a toss.
Under New York law, before a police officer can lawfully stop and frisk an individual, he must have an objectively reasonable belief that the person has committed, is committing or will commit a crime
and yet 88% are not charged
the only ones who make it to the courtroom are the 12% of individuals subject to stop and frisk who are charged with an offense as a result. The other 88% simply disappear into the mist, happy to be allowed to go on their way after this baseless assault on their dignity. The system never hears from them again. No one is held accountable. It's as if it never happened.
The fact that there are a lot of blacks stopped by the police for no reason is not inconsistent with the fact there are a lot of "race hoaxes", as Ann calls them. In fact, there may be a cause-and-effect relationship.
As for "neocon", of course vicki has no idea what that means - does she ever? In many cases (e. g. Pat Buchanan) "neocon" is a coded antisemitic slur, though that is of questionable accuracy. It would be consistent with vicki's politics, though, since polls show that Democrats are markedly more antisemitic than Republicans:
You'd think with evidence like that my coreligionists would wise up. Of course to be fair it's not exactly shouted from the rooftops of the MSM.
I grew up in NJ, white as casper the friending freaking ghost. I've been hassled by cops on multiple ocassions for no good reason, other than perhaps that the cop was bored. They're trained that little old greatgrandmothers can still be up to no good, and they're right in that respect. Sometimes they guess wrong, or you just encounter a bad one. They make the news sometimes.
I've seen cops throw trash from cars, shy away from hassling punks who've committed a crime under their nose, and hassle a wealthy guy for seemingly nothing, while a black guy pisses in the middle of a street. I know cops who laughed about kicking the shit out of people, because they could, and looking the other way when their 'brothers' broke the law. It's an organized crime network for some of them, and it tarnishes the representation of the majority of good cops by association.
However, in spite of my concern that some are scumbags, and in spite of having been hassled by them CLEARLY because I'm White in America (sarcasm), I do NOT believe that this "professor" has a basis to whine here. If anything, it seems like he got off easy. If the lesson is "holler and bitch at Whitey when he arrests you', the the PBA across America should be instructing its members to vote against the D-team and Obama next go round.
When you look at a racial breakdown of NYC crime we find the following.
“Blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city, according to police records, though they are just 24 percent of the city's population.
According to data from victims and witnesses, blacks commit about 82 percent of all shootings and 72 percent of all robberies. Whites commit about 5 percent of all violent crimes, though they make up 35 percent of the city's population, and commit 1 percent of shootings and about 4 percent of robberies.”
When blacks commit 82 % of shooting crimes, it sounds as if NYC police might consider themselves justified in frisking blacks to find guns. Moreover, as blacks commit 82% of shooting crimes, but constitute only 55% of those stopped, NYC police are stopping blacks at a rate lower than the rate at which blacks commit crimes.
Crime in NYC has fallen 78% since 1990, so these methods appear to work.
....and so TH, do you then condone the use of the charge of "racial profiling" by the "perpetual victims league" as a weapon of political personal destruction, in a time when Orwellian speak is the norm......? In other words since somebody got profiled once he is forever entitled to special treatment now.....?
"Blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city, according to police records, though they are just 24 percent of the city's population"
Obviously, the solution to this problem is for other races to start selling "Crime Offset Credits" to Blacks.
As we all know from Congressional Logic, that will reduce crime by 50% over the next 25 years!!!
Dawn,Neo is new, con is conservative. Unless you have another definition. If you wanted to be pejorative I guess you could call con a con, not a conservative. I don't. MY lovely husband is a conservative and I love him with all my heart. We have many lively discussions. I am not a fan of Olberman either but I do like Rachel Maddow. (I will get many haters for that) She is measured ,reasoned and very intelligent.
vicki, my interpretation of "neocon" is more negative.
To a conservative, a neocon is a flawed individual who has comprimised his principles to move to the "middle".
To a progressive, a neocon is a conservative who has been partially re-educated for political expediency, but still cannot be trusted.
To a neocon, well...they rarely call themselves that since it condones some sort of illegitimacy. "Compassionate" conservative was another moniker that has now been overplayed. "Centrists" I guess is what comes close.
To me, they are just "Conservative-lite" - But with less taste and more filling.
Neo-cons are actually liberals (many of them Jewish) who joined with the Republicans to better promote their progressive International Democracy goals.
In short, 'neo-con' stands for 'paleo-lib'.
If everyone, including Beck,Coulter, and Gates would quit trying to calibrate who is racist and who is not, we'd all be better off. There is but one person who ever walked the earth that had no prejudice about others.
We can only strive to meet that standard and let our actions lead others.
This beer-fest deal is another futile public narcissistic display of what should be acted in private.
While the economy burns, N. Korea and Iran are working overtime building nukes, and terrorists are plotting, the leader of the free world is having the professor and the policeman up to the White House for a beer or two and a group hug.
The president is doing his keg party at the White House today as a public relations ploy to make white independents and southern Democrats voters forget that the president,without the benefit of the facts, immediately chose sides with a minority professor, who was arrested after causing a public commotion with a Cambridge, Mass., police officer. The professor is perceived by much of the public to have played the race card and to have intentionally caused a commotion with law enforcement to improve his street creds.
The president, thinking that the get-together might be too small to send the right message, will expand the guest list so that he can legitimately call the beer-fest a summit to improve race relations.
Overnight invitations went out from the White House yesterday to Al Sharpton, Don Imus, Michael Richards aka Kramer of Seinfeld, Rodney King, Tommy Hilfinger, Prince Harry, the most honorable Louis Farrackan, the president of Denny’s Restaurant, Tavis Smiley, former senator George Allen, and Tawana Brawley to bolster the creditability of the summit.
Meanwhile, Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller, tearfully stood before the cameras with her lawyer to say that she had been called a racist, because of the false report that said that she had called the police and reported that two black me were breaking in Gates’ home. The White House is considering sending out two more invitations, one for the caller and one for her lawyer.
The three Harvard University police officers who showed up as Gates was coming to the porch say that they too had their racial sensitivities offended. One is white and one is black and one is hispanic. Their Asian attorney says that all having having trouble sleeping since the incident, claiming that the entire racial thing is unconscionable. The White House confirmed that all have been contacted-three will come and one will be writing his memoirs, and cannot come.
The president, the policeman, and the professor will lead the singing of, “We Are Fam-i-ly” at the end of the summit after the closing remarks by Senator Robert Byrd.
Thanks, all. I guess, and maybe my bias is showing, I think of neocons more on the fringe than right in the middle. I think of centrists as in the middle, thus the center. I tend to be, depending on the cause, a little to the left of center. I tend to be a little more fiscally conservative and culturally liberal, more pro than con. The first election I voted in was the mayoral election in 1972 in Los Angeles, where i was attending college (go Trojans!!!). I voted for Tom Bradley and never, NEVER, regretted it.
As for the original post here, to me Eric "We're A Nation of Cowards On Race" Holder's singularly unhelpful reinjection of race into the current discussion with the AP story you cite, would be laughable, if it did not involve the top law enforcement official in the United States.
Note that his story to the AP recites the following -- Eric Holder claims to have been "racially profiled" because he was stopped ONCE -- while he was in college (which would have made it about 40 years ago) and told to open the trunk of his car! Oh, the horror!
However unlawful that stop may have been -- he did not offer any of the key facts -- one thing is certain. His was not exactly a recitation of an undeniably racially-tinged personal experience. Similar incidents have happened over the decades to many, many thousands of college students, and many, many thousands other young adults as well, regardless of the race of the individual "stoppees."
ONCE, he says. And, again, Holder offered no basis whatsoever for his claim that the stop was based on race, other than his apparent belief that it was.
So why did our top law enforcement officer plant the story with AP right now?
One strongly suspects it was because his President has been boxed into a corner over some uncalled for remarks about the GatesGate incident. So, Holder played the race card.
I think I'd be safe in concluding that he did not do it to distract from the fact that his Justice Department took their seemingly racially-tinged action in just abandoning a voter intimidation case that they had already won (and which you cited in a newer post)!
Where, by the way, was the judge in that matter? Why, given the fact that the case was won, would the judge in that case not ask for a detailed explanation for the actions by the Justice Department in inexplicably dropping the case?
Everyone should be demanding specific answers on that, especially in light of Eric Holder's entree into his top cop position, asserting, as he did, that they would be focusing on protecting civil rights, including voting rights.
Tigerhawk, you may be 100% correct about your assertion on the history of racial profiling, though I'd also suggest that it an easy issue to demagogue. And, it is one that is frequently used to mask issues liberals do not like to discuss -- such as, addressing the real tragedy over the years of black-on-black crime.
But I think you make an error in citing Eric Holder, or any comment that he makes, as a legitimate point in backing up your claim, when his Justice Department is simultaneously taking official action to bury a case of serious racial intimidation of voters.
And that, after recently reiterating his confirmation pledge to rigorously protect the fundamental rights, including the voting rights, of Americans.
What a phony the man is!
Let me see. Obama wants to restore the Honduran president who sought to usurp its constitution and install a dictatorship. Michele Obama tells us we have to change our history and culture. Obama wants a "civilian" army (America Corps) as strong as our military. Acorn (tax supported) should get out the vote and support democrats for reelection and conduct the census, which should be directed from the White House. Obama thinks our Constitution is outdated because in established "negative rights," what government cannot do to us. Obama thinks it should say what government should do to or for us.
Is there a pattern here? Glen Beck thinks so. Is he the canary in the mine? You decide.
Remember the early progressive movement (the 1920's), where Benito (run the trains on time) Mussolini was all the rage, even among Wilsonian and FDR Democrats?
Benito was such an effective dictator that every European country wanted one, Italy, Spain, Germany, Romania, Greece, etc.
Germany had its Hitler youth furthering the needs of the fatherland, etc, etc, etc.
Beck suggests we will have lots of change and no hope with this president. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter agree. We should all listen--especially Vicki.
Has there EVER been a black who was stopped or arrested by a cop who didn't KNOW it was really because he was black? This is black racism, much like, "It's whiteys fault..." and seems to be taught from birth.
Obama and Holder: Another "civil rights" shoe drops!
Debra Burlingame writes in the Wall Street Journal that, because of a handwritten complaint Richard Reid filed in federal court back in 2007, the following just occurred -- a voluntary abandonment of the case by the Justice Department:
On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., ... inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the "Shoe Bomber" — were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when "there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury" to others.
Gee, do Eric Holder and the President now believe that protecting the First Amendment rights of some -- like convicted "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid, who tried and thankfully failed to bring down an airplane and kill almost 200 crew and passengers -- are much more important than following through on the easy enforcement of cases against those engaging in blatant and outrageous voter intimidation of good American citizens?
And, what about the President's continued touting of Supermax as the "good alternative" to Gitmo?
Maybe not so much now?
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable!
Well . . . let's just hope that current polls are accurate, and that at least some of the 53% are now suffering from a case of buyer's remorse.
Sooner or later they will begin to separate their personal feelings about him as being a likeable chap, from their disagreements with many of the positions he holds.
Perhaps that has already begun to happen on a somewhat significant scale.
Some in the media seem content to chalk his current troubles up to a guy who badly needs a vacation.
But I think many of us tend to chalk it up to a feeling we've had about him for quite some time -- bad judgment!