Pages

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Smelling the New Demographic Transition Coffee

While the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, are certainly distracting, and in some ways an anachronistic throwback to the civil rights heyday of 1960s-vintage race-conscious protests and demonstrations, they don't take away from the fact that conditions for black folks haven't really improved all that much since Detroit or Watts. Furthermore, I don't see them improving anytime soon. And while some are inclined to externalize the reasons for the lack of real progress for the black community, perhaps some other reasons are at play. I posit three below: Sex, ideology, and mathematics.

Hobbled by Acceptance of Fornication, Illegitimacy, and Choice Mommyhood
One reason for this stagnation is self-inflicted--widespread rejection of marriage in the black community. In 1960, 24% of black babies were born out of wedlock. However terrible an indicator of social decay this one-quarter number was in 1960, in 2013 that figure had skyrocketed to a staggering 72%.  This climb has nothing to do with the dearth of employment for black men, as liberals are wont to suggest.  Nor can illegitimacy be attributable to a legacy of slavery, as author Herbert Gutman found in his 1977 book The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925 "five in six [black] children under the age of six lived with both parents".  And while liberals are quick to discredit Charles Murray's claim that welfare led to the decay in the black legitimacy rate, they also admit that it wasn't due to economic factors such as a lack of available jobs for black men.  No, this article from the liberalist Brookings Institution claims that illegitimacy was instead the result of the advent of contraception and legalization of abortion--the "technology shock" theory--coupled with changes in social mores that removed the stigma of single motherhood--"no more shotgun weddings"--to become the main drivers of the (black, white, and Hispanic) illegitimacy rate .

Limited by Marxist Thought
Another reason for the seeming lack of appreciable improvement in the socio-economic condition of the black community is ideology. Among other things, Marxism features a binary system of class oppression in which a victim class is depredated upon by an Other.  For decades in America, the "white establishment" and "white privilege", and "racism" served well as a too-convenient boogeyman, upon whose shoulders was placed blame for the ills of an entire population. Indeed, why "play by the rules" when the rules were written by a "class oppressor" dominant group, especially when this group could be effectively convinced that their collective guilt could be extirpated through transferring the wealth of its less-powerful contitutents to various "oppressed" classes?  Pretty good racket, if one could keep it going forever. So effective was this technique at delivering power, privilege and resources that it spawned all manner of copycats eager for their slice of the victimhood pie.  Thus I suppose it comes as a surprise by some that the entry of another, more numerous, more favored demographic threatens to depose the black community as the recipient of automatic "guilt legitimacy". Some are sensing a change in the wind, and sense in this breeze the loss of relative political power to another group (ht: Moonbattery).

The first video is from 2012:


This second video from about a month prior to the Ferguson riots:


The Cold Demographic Equations
While it's always dangerous to extrapolate forward into the future based on trends today, the math here is pretty simple...blacks are not the demographic into which a sane political party would stake its future. The data:

x Blacks lead all other racial / ethnic groups when it comes to murdering their unborn, responsible for obtaining 37% of abortions when they comprise a mere 13% of the population. This is far above that of whites (34%/62%) and even so-called "family values" Hispanics (22%/17%). In fact, a black woman is 500% more likely to abort her child than a white woman.  From the data collection arm of the infanticide  industry, the Guttmacher Institute:
Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion (40 and 29 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, respectively) than non-Hispanic white women do (12 per 1,000).[32] The higher rates reflect the fact that black and Hispanic women have high unintended pregnancy rates (91 and 82 per 1,000 women, respectively), compared with non-Hispanic white women (36 per 1,000 women)
x The fertility rate for blacks is 2.1, compared to Hispanics (2.4), whites (1.8), and Asians (also 1.8). The future belongs to those who show up for it--and while blacks are "showing up for it" in numbers equal to their share of the population today, thus far the most fecund demographic group is Hispanics

x By 2050, while America will be "majority minority"*, the share of the American population that is white, black, Hispanic, and Asian is projected to be 47%, 13%, 29%, and 9%, respectively, from 63%, 17%, 12%, and 5%.  Again, Hispanics are the largest-growing group.

x In 2012, immigrants already made up 12% of the US population.  Where do the legal ones come from?  Mexico.  Where do the illegal ones come from? 87% from Mexico, Central, and South America.

For the Democrat party, instead of investing in a portion of their constituency with comparatively diminishing influence (but legendary loyalty, even in the face of Democrat policies that make--and have made--blacks objectively worse off), they would do well to continue to solidify their popularity with Hispanics.  Even if this means abandoning blacks, whose wages have suffered in direct proportion to Hispanic immigration, to curry favor with illegal alien Hispanics, as labor unions (key Democrat component group) have decided.

As the demographic transition continues, how will blacks react as they are supplanted as the designated victim group in the left's Marxist calculus? Were they a means to an end, the accrual of power for left-wing elites, and now that they have served their purpose, are being set aside in favor of a culturally alien group with racial / ethnic interests of at odds with that of blacks?

* One wonders how long a viable resource-extraction strategy racial Marxism will remain in an environment where the demon white is no longer the numerically dominant group?

Friday, August 29, 2014

Considering Contempt for the Police

Note 1: This post, published at Return of Kings on August 21, 2014, is in response to the article "Why Americans Should Reconsider Their Contempt for Today’s Police", previously published at Return of Kings on July 3d, 2014.

Note 2: The image at right was taken by Jeff Robertson in Ferguson, Missouri, site of several days of rioting and protests over a fatal shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer on August 9, 2014.

Recently, a guest blogger at RoK opined that Americans should reconsider their contempt for the police, arguing that

(a) LEOs aren't trained to be bullies, that most are good guys doing a difficult job, bad apples give the profession a bad name and, besides, citizens just don't understand what it's like to be on the other end of a citizen-LEO encounter,

(b) Shielding from liability for mistakes, such as kicking in the wrong door or shooting an unarmed man reaching for a cell phone, is necessary to get anyone to sign up to be LEOs in the first place,

(c) The recent trend of shaming, challenging, or embarassing LEOs and posting the videos on the internet only serves to make LEOs more cautious, less aggressive, and less likely to intervene in gray-area situations. The author cites another LEO third-hand, who reportedly said: "If life and death situations could land me in a coffin or prison, I will avoid life and death situations".  The result is more crime, not less,

(d) Higher-quality LEOs are leaving the force due to the rise in street violence and lack of public support for LEOs, leaving lower-quality officers behind. Moreover, the aforementioned working conditions will likely attract a different sort of LEO candidate, one better adapted to higher levels of violence and less concerned with the lack of public rapport, support, or appreciation for their work.

Not a bad start as an apologia for the police, as apologias go. I can empathize with the author's sense of bewilderment as he observes a low level of support for law enforcement amongst the citizenry:
We used to enjoy the support of the educated, hard-working people of the community, but not so much anymore. The bad guys used to know that the cops were the extension of the values of the community and if you violated those values, you were on your own—and good luck with that. But those communities that upheld the values of the Ten Commandments for everyone now seem to only uphold the values of the Ten Amendments, and only selectively when it protects them or their group’s politics.
I myself wrestle with the tension created by my own natural empathies for police officers and my discomfort with media reports of LEO misbehavior and my own (mixed, some good, some bad) observations of LEOs in action. Thus, while I have been at times been both critical and supportive of police over the last few years, I do so out of a sense of love of country, of patriotism, and a hope that the citizenry will help the system right itself. As I wrote a couple of years ago, the American justice system
has gradually morphed over time from one that protected liberty to one that erodes it. Indeed, as individual LEOs became "professionalized", American law enforcement ceased being a system in which citizens secured justice for themselves, on a level playing field, facilitated by law enforcement and the courts, to a literal "us" versus "them" arrangement on a steeply tilted playing field where the massive resources of government are brought to bear against presumably innocent individual citizens. In other words, ownership of the laws and the law enforcement process shifted from individual citizens to an amorphous "the people", thus divesting individual citizens from the justice process except as a collective (when enforcing the law), or as an isolated defendant (when targeted by law enforcement). This divestiture is so complete that jury nullification, that foundational right whose pedigree extends back as far as the Magna Carta, is viewed with contempt and hostility by those in the justice system and those who publicly profess this right are persecuted, pilloried, and/or proscribed from jury service. It is in this context which LEOs, people just like any of us, find themselves at odds with the interests of their neighbors while simultaneously being exposed to the worst pathologies of their neighbors.
Clearly, few are happy with the present system, except perhaps the criminal class which happily exploits the widening gulf between police and the citizenry to its advantage. With that in mind, the remainder of this post will explore some proposals intended to restore some of the lost liberties of the American people, narrow the gap between the interests of the LEO with the citizen, and maybe do away with some of that contempt for police that Anonymous Cop complains about.

New York Times

First up is decriminalization / re-legalization.  Too many things are illegal, making full compliance with the law difficult or impossible.  Mayhaps this is by design.  Ayn Rand once wrote:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
While liberty is secured by a little bit of law, too much law threatens liberty. Of course, those who fancy themselves our masters, those who seek to grow government (and thus erode liberty), know this and write laws with the express purpose of controlling the lives of others (for example, Federal crimes are up nearly 1,500% since our nation's founding) and increasing their power and influence. If one is successful at reducing the quantity of laws, at making fewer things illegal, it follows that not only will there be more freedom and more responsibility but there will also be fewer criminals...and fewer opportunities for adverse interactions between LEOs and citizens.

Second, we should reduce the number of full-time LEOs, particularly at the local level where the bulk of law enforcement activities occur, and increase the quantities of part-timers, reserve deputies, and volunteers. The aim here is to shorten the psychological distance between citizen and LEO in a way analogous to the "citizen soldier" model of the National Guard, with an eye toward stemming a budding "us vs them" culture and mindset by making "them" more like "us".

Similarly, police should be hired from, and serve in, the communities in which they live. This may better invest the citizenry in the security of their neighborhoods, and transform their views of law enforcement away from alienated enforcers to neighbors assisting in maintaining law and order. Additionally, this would have the added benefit of reducing inter-cultural conflict (of the sort that the liberalist Left thrives upon and uses as a pretext to enact more "helpful" laws) and therefore increases the sort of interpersonal trust needed to effectively enforce laws.

Fourth, jury nullification needs to be re-legitimized as a check on government power and the arbitrary application of law by LEOs and attorneys general. It is right and proper for the citizens of the community to decide for themselves whether or not a particular law should apply to an accused offender, or even if a law is valid at all--not a judge or LEO or any other officer of the Court. Assuming a citizen is literate, they can judge the law for themselves, as well they should: After all, it is they who suffer the depredations of offenders, and not well-paid government officials safely ensconced in gated communities.

Fifth, the police need to resist the temptation toward militarization. They are not "blue infantry", they are not in a combat zone, should be discouraged from thinking that they are in a combat zone, should not dress as if they were in a combat zone, need not possess equipment meant for a combat zone, and should not frequently employ small-unit tactics as if they were in a combat zone. They are not, and more importantly should not think themselves as, to use Radley Balko's characterization, warrior cops. Moreover, the Founders considered a large standing army to be hazardous to liberty; I submit that LEAs would do well to avoid becoming what our Founders feared, if for no other reason than self-interest: Not only was Tsarnayev, the Boston Bomber, located by a citizen and not LEOs after the city-wide security lockdown was lifted, but life is very dangerous indeed for government forces of dubious legitimacy working in/around a disaffected populace.  Just as the US military about their experiences in Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.

These are but a few modest proposals. Perhaps it is too late to reverse the decades-long trend of alienation between the citizen and LEO. It is possible forced diversity and cultural Marxism has degraded the culture so much that rebuilding the trust necessary for citizenry-based policing will be impossible. Maybe Americans have become so infantilized, so comfortable in the outsourcing of law enforcement to paid professionals, that taking ownership for the enforcement of their own laws is fantasy.  I hope not.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

From Patriarchy to Matrilinearity

A recent post by Bill Price shows how the taking class has been financially incentivized to trade patriarchy--leadership by fathers, in other words, civilization--into a culture which at the very least is matrilinear, if not outright matriarchal:
Instead of some natural matriarchal love-fest, it is more properly termed “multi-generational female dependency.” It’s an insidious kind of charity, because it renders men socially superfluous even as it encourages women to depend on the state for support, which creates an entire community that is a net drain on the surrounding society. Of course, there are incentives built in all along the way.

For example, if a woman gets section 8 housing after having a daughter, then raises her to adulthood on public assistance, when her daughter has a child she can stay with her mother (who will provide daycare) and collect welfare while she waits to get her own section 8 voucher. The daughter then gets her section 8 apartment, and the cycle repeats itself. I’m sure there are many families today entering their fourth generation of this lifestyle. For the men, the choices are significantly more limited. A lucky few may hit it big somehow, a large fraction will be arrested and incarcerated for something or other, and a minority will finally escape through the military or a reasonable job. Many will be reduced to the humiliating, demoralizing state of “mooching” off women who are state-supported. Naturally, this has incentivized favoritism toward female over male children amongst the underclass. Poor urban women invest more time and money in their daughters than their sons. This is sad but rational, because state assistance flows toward the female of the species — not the male.

When I see writers for Salon or some similar publication declaring that working class women are better off going it alone, I don’t think they quite understand what’s happening here. Instead of taking a hard look at the incentives, they tend to focus on the alleged shortcomings of the male, and rarely bother to get his side of the story (a glaring omission considering that the women in question deliberately chose to be impregnated by a particular man). They assume that it’s a matter of working class women earning more money and being better providers than the males. Perhaps most stupidly, they assume that a working class woman can be a single, go-it-alone mother of an infant and a productive worker.

Back in the bad old days, women had two realistic choices when they got pregnant out of wedlock: marriage or adoption. The alternative – becoming a “single mom” – was not generally supported by parents, and for good reason — they usually ended up paying for it. But there has been a new development since then: a huge, comprehensive welfare state. Instead of having to buy groceries for the child grandma can now be added to WIC checks, use the EBT and sign up for a childcare voucher. Yes, states will actually pay grandmothers, if they take a couple remedial classes, to watch their daughters’ kids. With a little planning, mother, daughter and grandmother can all get a piece of the pie. Carl, for his part, is eligible for nothing, although as non-custodial father he may well be forced to reimburse the state for paying his child’s grandmother…

This puts the women’s willingness to eject Carl from the situation in some perspective. Why share with him if they don’t have to, and especially when on top of that he can be forced to pay them? Lily has zero financial incentive to create a traditional family, and her mother – a so-called Christian – has an incentive to discourage her from doing so. It all sounds very trashy, and unfortunately it is, but before we lay all the blame on Lily and her mother, we must remember that highly-educated people from “good families” came up with the legislation that created these incentives.

Instead of using welfare as a relief measure to help families through rough times, our brilliant leaders created a self-perpetuating single motherhood mill. Now, women have no incentive to become partners in productive nuclear families, and men have no incentive to be husbands and fathers.
Mr. Price's post lays blame for this situation at the feet of supposedly smart and well-intended social engineers who brought us welfare and related social spending in the first place.  And there is a lot to answer for, given the social pathologies subsequent to such redistributive interventions.  However, perhaps some larger entropic forces are at play here that push society toward grass-hut matriarchy than merely the unintended consequences of ideology run amok.

For instance, there is biology itself: Lactating cows evidently produce higher calorie, more nourishing milk for female calves than male ones. In addition, and for their part, human mothers under economic duress behave similarly to bovine ones, delivering fattier, higher calorie, and more nourishing milk when breastfeeding their daughters than with their sons--and this is before they then go on to feed them more frequently than their sons.

Furthermore, biology, at least in the West, seems to be supplemented by gynocentric social behaviors, which show a marked preference for girls over boys as suggested by the use of selection techniques such as Microsort to convceive girls, as well as the well-established preference for girls in adoption.  This girl preference is buttressed by studies such as the one Mr. Price cited that found lower investment in sons in single-mother families, as well as numerous articles such as this that suggest middle and upper-class families having girls will "pay off" more than having boys in the short, medium, and long-term.  And all this occurs inside a heavily fem-favored environment where a panoply of government spending and legal advantages--over and above the entitlement spending that Mr. Price addresses above--that accrue to girls and young women, yet are not available (or severely restricted) to boys and young men.

It has been said that fatherhood is a social construction, while motherhood is a biological reality. Thus if patriarchy really is the basis for a complex, functioning civilization, then civilization itself is both delicate and the result of deliberate choices made to redirect nature--and in some cases, directly against it--and our natural inclinations away from the Hobbesian and toward something a bit more comfortable.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Women's Spaces for Women, Men's Spaces for Everyone

Breastfeeding mother of a male infant ordered away from a women's-only pool owned by the city of London because she brought a baby with her, and especially since her infant lacked the requisite vagina:
‘She stood over me and, gesturing to Arthur, said, “Children under eight are not allowed here – especially ones with penises”. I was quite upset and shocked. Then she stood over us while we were packing up and escorted us out. ‘The comment she made was so unfair to Arthur as a little baby – he’s not a sexual being. Kenwood is supposed to be welcoming to women. I’m a breastfeeding mother – I can’t be separated from my son. I understand that they don’t want it to be a child’s playground, but we were just quietly sitting on the grass.’ She was disappointed by the way she was treated during the incident last month. ‘The worst thing was the way the lifeguard spoke to me. I felt that it was not the way to speak to a new mother,’ she said.

The site is owned by the City of London but is run by Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association, a voluntary group. Its website says the pond is supposed to be a ‘quiet, peaceful place for women and girls to bathe, swim and relax’.
While I can understand the desire to keep young screechy kids away from places where people just want to get away and relax, this double-standard sexism crap is irritating.  Moreover, it is yet another piece of evidence that shows that feminism is, and it was, never about equality, not at least since the First Wave where one can argue one way or the other. No, once again feminism is exposed as being about the craven accrual of privilege for one sex over another.

Friday, August 22, 2014

The Coming Idiocracy

Danish study, echoing others performed in the UK and in Oz, suggests that people worldwide are just getting stupider:
Now some experts believe we are starting to see the end of the Flynn effect in developed countries - and that IQ scores are not just levelling out, but declining. Some believe the Flynn effect has masked a decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, so that while more people have been reaching their full potential, that potential itself has been declining.

Some have even contentiously said this could be because educated people are deciding to have fewer children, so that subsequent generations are largely made up of less intelligent people. Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, calculated the decline in humans' genetic potential. He used data on average IQs around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point. Dr Lynn predicts that if this trend continues, we could lose another 1.3 IQ points by 2050.
This comes on the heels of studies that assert that Westerners have become less and less "clever" since the 19th century, with IQ dropping slightly more than 1 point per decade, or 14 points since Victorian times, as increasing urbanization and food availability changed reproductive conditions in a way more favorable to the left-hand side of the bell curve.

So this begs the question: Why the decline? Possible reasons include youth culture, social media, and drug use, which are thought to depress cognitive development, and political liberalism and its offshoots such as feminism. Personally, I find it more than a little ironic the dysgenic association between increasing female education and labor force participation and the overall decline in the cognitive ability of their children. Oh, what we have sacrificed on the altar of maximized individual autonomy.

Another possible contributing phenomenon to this observed cognitive decline is the welfare state, itself another daughter of liberalism which was borne into the West in the late Victorian era. Welfare and similar social redistribution schemes burden (and therefore depresses fertility) the clever and productive to subsidize (and therefore boosts fertility) the dim and less productive. In addition, the decline in popularity of patriarchal family structures in favor of ones preferred (and subsidized) more by liberalism--that is, families headed by women--impede the transmission of social and physical capital from fathers and paternal grandparents to the next generation. And finally, the socio-sexual "liberation" of women set aside restraints on, and consequences of, what was previously immoral sexual behavior. As a result, "chicks" are free to act upon their desire for "jerks" who, among other things, aren't likely to be inclined to invest in the children they sire.

So it seems that liberalism is not only a moral disease, but a social one as well. Mike Judge's 2006 movie Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, but sadly it appears to be predictive instead.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Never Unjustified

After Kenosha, Wisconsin, police killed his son and immediately ruled it as "justified" after a cursory internal investigation, this man found out something interesting--and took action:
Our country is simply not paying enough attention to the terrible lack of accountability of police departments and the way it affects all of us—regardless of race or ethnicity. Because if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy — that was my son, Michael — can be shot in the head under a street light with his hands cuffed behind his back, in front of five eyewitnesses (including his mother and sister), and his father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew in three wars for his country — that’s me — and I still couldn’t get anything done about it, then Joe the plumber and Javier the roofer aren’t going to be able to do anything about it either.

[A]s an Air Force officer and pilot I knew the way safety investigations are conducted, and I was thinking that this was going to be conducted this way. Yet within 48 hours I got the message: The police had cleared themselves of all wrongdoing. In 48 hours! They hadn’t even taken statements from several eyewitnesses. Crime lab reports showed that my son’s DNA or fingerprints were not on any gun or holster, even though one of the police officers involved in Michael’s shooting had claimed that Michael had grabbed his gun.

Wanting to uncover the truth, our family hired a private investigator who ended up teaming up with a retired police detective to launch their own investigation. They discovered that the officer who thought his gun was being grabbed in fact had caught it on a broken car mirror. The emergency medical technicians who arrived later found the officers fighting with each other over what happened. We filed an 1,100-page report detailing Michael's killing with the FBI and US Attorney.

It took six years to get our wrongful death lawsuit settled, and my family received $1.75 million. But I wasn’t satisfied by a long shot. I used my entire portion of that money and much more of my own to continue a campaign for more police accountability. I wanted to change things for everyone else, so no one else would ever have to go through what I did. We did our research: In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. There was one shooting we found, in 2005, that was ruled justified by the department and an inquest, but additional evidence provided by citizens caused the DA to charge the officer.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly. As a military pilot, I knew that if law professionals investigated police-related deaths like, say, the way that the National Transportation Safety Board investigated aviation mishaps, police-related deaths would be at an all time low.

And so, together with other families who lost loved ones, I launched a campaign in the Wisconsin legislature calling for a new law that would require outside review of all deaths in police custody. In April of this year [the law passed and] made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency.
Accountability can be a hard, uncomfortable thing. In the aviation world, if there is a mishap, whether or not people die, the incident is investigated by an outside agency and findings and recommendations are made to prevent future occurrences.  This includes administrative and criminal actions against the professionals involved if the evidence warrants.  Aviation as a whole is better--and certainly safer--for it.

I'd be curious to see the effect of this law on police-involved shooting deaths in Wisconsin. I would imagine that one change that has likely resulted is the transition away from lethal force toward non-lethal methods by police...and if that is the case, then this is the sort of positive change that outside inquests impose on professions.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Study: Nagging Shortens Your Life

Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife.

Proverbs 25:24
Danish study of 10,000 men and women between 36 and 52 suggests nagging significantly shortens life expectancy. Men, in particular, are at risk:
Ask any married guy on the planet and he’ll tell you, as one man told CBS 2, nagging is “not pleasant.”

But now a new study suggests husbands of nagging wives can actually be nagged to death.

Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen said having a nagging partner can significantly shorten one’s life, and could result in three extra deaths per 100 people per year. The study also said people nagged by their spouses are more likely to get heart disease and cancer.

“Sounds about right,” said Stephanie Cellitti. “I nag him a lot.”

The study also says men in particular are at risk. Men who said they faced ‘many’ demands from their partner or family and friends were more than twice as likely to die compared to women in the same category who were 34 per cent more likely to die.

“You know, you’re just hanging out, man, and it just starts coming – you know, you try to avoid it as much as you can, but you can’t forever,” said Celliti’s boyfriend, Terry Garcetti.
And Garcetti and Cellitti are not even married yet.
On a tip from Mindstorm.

Monday, August 18, 2014

THIS Is What the 2A Is For

Not for opposing a central government which has gotten too big for its britches--a very high-risk, low payoff option--but for situations like in Ferguson, Missouri, over the last few days.  Via SooperMexican:


As one commenter on SooperMexican's site waggishly put it, note how the woman doesn't seemed to terribly bothered by open display of semi-auto rifles at the ready.  As opposed to OC jokers procuring lattes with rifles at the ready, scaring the bejeezus out of the sheeple--with magazines in and everything--this threatening display is appropriate for the situation.  It's just too bad that it didn't happen on Day 1, not Day 7.



The 2A is about protecting your family, property, or neighborhood when the the police either can't or won't, or won't get there in time, from low-life opportunist scum who want to take your stuff and don't care if they hurt you in the process. In fact, they probably want to hurt you, as "you didn't build that" and their entitled hoodrat culture envies your "privilege".

I just hope these guys never have to seriously engage anyone. For if the looters don't get 'em, the present Administration's racialist Justice Department will want to indict them for their success.  The guy wearing the bandanna around his face is wise indeed.

As an aside, the fine fellow whose shooting at the hands of a white police officer touched off this predictable opportunity to loot and violently protest, was apparently a suspect in a convenience store robbery (after having been caught on video--both unbeknownst to the LEO who shot him) and thought himself quite the artist, crafting raps about murder, drug use, drinking, and fornicating with hos. Classy.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Legal Supremacy - Rights Exclusive to Women

Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch) lays out her case:
1. Women have the right to genital integrity...women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die...women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don’t.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood...[and] have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children...while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape. The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.

Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed.
While I'm not sure about #2, the link between suffrage and SS registry, I do note that SS registry is a requisite for many other things, like Federal financial aid and Federal employment.

To add to JudgyBitch's excellent list, I suggest:

6. Women have the right to a female sentencing discount, men do not.

7. Women have the right to have violence against them called out specifically in law for special focus and treatment

8. Women have the right to orders of magnitude more research funding for "women's diseases", even when the fatality rates between men's and women's diseases are roughly equal

9. Women have the right to Federally funded "domestic violence" shelters, men who claim that they are victims of IPV are turned away.

I'm sure there are more examples out there to buttress the assertion that feminism long ago ceased being about "equality", and instead is seeks to advantage one sex over the other.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Liberalists, Meet Irony

News crew robbed in NW DC while reporting on how racist some new apps were for enabling users to Notice that some neighborhood were 'sketchier' than others:
A Washington D.C. news crew says it was robbed in Petworth, Northwest D.C., while reporting on a controversial app that shows users where "sketchy" neighborhoods. The news crew said the app led them to the location of the shoot. While the D.C. news crew didn't specifically name the app they were reporting on, it sounds a lot like SketchFactor, an app that was recently featured in Valleywag, Business Insider and other outlets as an app with a racist connotation. "Smiling Young White People Make An App for Avoiding Black Neighborhoods," Valleywag's Sam Biddle wrote.

"We were doing a story on an app that describes ‘sketchy’ neighborhoods," WUSA 9 crew member Mola Lenghi told his network on air Friday evening. “It led us to the Petworth neighborhood of Northwest, and I’m not going to call it a ‘sketchy’ neighborhood, but as folks were telling us that it was a good neighborhood, and that not much activity happens around there — as that was being told to us, our van was being robbed."

Lenghi showed the van's destroyed lock and says a number of electronics and bags were stolen from the vehicle.
While the creators of the probable app in question, SketchFactor, have been widely accused of the crime of enabling others to publicly Notice, they point out that
"SketchFactor is a tool for anyone, anywhere, at any time," they wrote. "We have a reporting mechanism for racial profiling, harassment, low lighting, desolate areas, weird stuff, you name it."

They add that they tested the app with 100 people in various community groups in New York. The app was a finalist in a city-sponsored BigApps competition, and has several thousand dollars in investment. In addition to user data, the app also incorporates public crime data and trusted sources.

SketchFactor is just one of many products that aim to crowdsource safety information about the areas in which users live and walk - and it is not the first to be hit with the racism label.
Perhaps SketchFactor's creators' real crime was to base their app on subjective "sketchiness" evaluations. Apparently Noticing using cold, hard crime statistics, while just as "technically correct", is politically correct as well.

Monday, August 11, 2014

What Well-Regulated Means

Posted for the edification of hoplophobes and antis on the Left, and for the encouragement and rhetorical armament of civil rights types on the Right, this is probably about as comprehensive an apologia for what "well regulated" in the 2A means as I've ever read:
[Anti-gunners] would have us believe that “well regulated” means thoroughly bound by laws and strictures, but that’s a more recent interpretation of the phrase.
To find out what it meant in the 18th century, we turn to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (published in 1755). Johnson’s dictionary was considered by most to be the pre-eminent English language dictionary until the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary some 175 years later. Johnson defines regulate as:
  1. To adjust by rule or method
  2. To direct
If we look up adjust we find:
  1. To regulate; to put in order
  2. To make accurate
  3. To make conformable
And the definition of direct is given as:
  1. To aim in a straight line
  2. To point against as a mark
  3. To regulate; to adjust
Finally the Oxford English Dictionary itself defines regulated as:
  1. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard.
  2. Of troops: properly disciplined (Obsolete rare). [bolded emphasis mine - EW]
and gives the following example of its use in that sense:
1690 London Gazette No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great allarm in in Daupine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side.
Now that we’ve determined that “well regulated” means the militia should be properly disciplined and well-functioning, where can we look to find out who makes up the militia? The antis want us to believe the militia is merely an obsolete term for the National Guard, Hence the Second Amendment only applies to National Guardsmen and uniformed soldiers.
Fortunately there are numerous sources available to refute this. During the debates in Virginia on whether to ratify or reject the new Constitution which had come out of Philadelphia, George Mason (sometimes called the Father of the Bill of Rights) said:
A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
During those same debates Founder Richard Henry Lee (writing as M.T. Cicero to “The Citizens of America”) explained quite explicitly just who and what constituted the well-regulated militia:
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
In addition to these writings there is also legislative history, some contemporary to the Founding and some more recent, stating who is in the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 defined militia in Section 1:
 That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
In fact current U.S. Code contains a definition of the militia in Title 10-A Chapter 13 § 311:
a)     The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b)     The classes of the militia are—
  1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Which means that, well, pretty much everybody [Ed - all men, that is...women are not in the militia unless they are already Guardsmen] is in the militia, which in turn means that, in order to protect the country pretty much everybody should have military weaponry. But [anti-gunners have] an answer to that too:
When that was written the world was a far different place than it is now, and the Founding Fathers could never have forseen[sic] how far the development of firearms would come in the future.
After all, their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and many generations before that had never seen anything but old, slow-to-load, inaccurate muzzle-loading pistols and long guns.
Ah yes, the classic “the Founders were unimaginative morons” argument. The only problem is that we have many things which were not around when the Bill of Rights was written, like television, radio, high speed printing presses, the internet, cell phones, video cell phones, Mormonism and Reform Judaism. [Are anti-gunners] seriously going to try and argue that none of these are protected under the First Amendment because the Founders were too stupid to imagine their existence? Of course not! These things are all protected because the core right involved (freedom of the press and religion) is not affected by the instruments used to exercise it. Likewise the core right of keeping and bearing arms is not changed by changes in what constitute arms.
The author goes on to list various high-capacity firearms in existence at the time of the Founding, such as 9-shot handguns, 7-shot flintlock rifles, and 40-shot air rifles with ballistics resembling that of a .45ACP (the latter did much to aid in the success and survival of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805).  "Slow to load" they may have been, but they were certainly high-capacity and some variants were very accurate, even by modern standards.  

Clearly, "well regulated" means something much different than what the antis want us to believe it means, their modern readings of 17th-century texts or historical ignorance notwithstanding.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

About Bloody Time

...Congressional Republicans started calling out Democrats on their overt racial-political warfare:
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) on Monday accused Democrats of engaging in a “war on whites” in the current immigration debate. On conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, Brooks dismissed the idea that the more conservative GOP bloc's position on immigration is hurting his own party.

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” he said during the interview. "It's a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

Brooks said recent polls indicate every demographic group agrees that the rule of law should be enforced and border security must be improved. “It doesn't make any difference if you're a white American, a black American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American or if you're a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” Brooks said. “Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue," he added. "If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big. ”

Brooks accused Democrats of playing a “political game” and Ingraham said they’re “playing the race card.”
This has been obvious to anyone with eyes for the last 20, 10, 5 years, and certainly since the 2012 presidential campaigns, where there was explicit room for every group under the Democratic tent except for whites, particularly white males.

One gets the sense that we've passed the apogee of Peak Racism/Racialism. If not, it is good to see some return fire against the liberalist Left using their own bullets.  Here's hoping that this public figure has enough grit to go the distance, andn doesn't fold under the inevitable accusations of racism that are sure to come his way.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Correcting Others

Elspeth had some wise words to share not too long ago about correcting the behavior of others. What she had to say struck a chord with me:
Our culture has conditioned us to hate people “cursed” to be born with a sunny disposition in this age of snark and cynicism. But here is the worst part, from a Christian standpoint. We have actually convinced ourselves that the only way to speak truth or offer correction is from a place of pride, rudeness, and condescension. My kids can tell you that I’m as much a believer in tough love as anyone. I know that some people don’t respond to any other kind, but it shouldn’t be our way of first approach:
Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Galatians 6:1
We are inundated with bad news, dire predictions, and negative reports at every turn. No wonder there are so many grumpy, pessimistic people walking about. No wonder my little girl can’t even coax a smile out of half the people we meet from day to day. I’ve had to train myself to stop being so suspicious and be cautiously open instead, and make connections with other human beings, if only for a moment. (bolded emphasis mine)
Quick story: During this last summer visit, some long-running friction between S1 and Mrs. Wapiti came to a head. As one can imagine, dissatisfaction with this friction was not being expressed in a healthy way by my teenage son, and some words were said that were colored by some of the pride and rudeness that Elspeth mentions above.  Part of how this unhappiness was communicated was attributable to a skill deficit in how to express his feelings as a young person, the other part was a direct product of behavior shaped by the coarseness of the media he consumes (few to no limits imposed by the former spouse, much to my chagrin), and the rudeness-as-a-virtuous-art-form youth culture in which he is immersed as a public school student. In other words, he has had scant few opportunities to see constructive conflict resolution, and his role models actually encourage the opposite.

At any rate, it was an opportunity to counsel him on a couple of things I've learned over the years (slow learner, me): First and foremost, and Elspeth was right on the money with this one, is that making and maintaining connections with other human beings, in other words, relationships, is the key to getting along with others in this life. One can't just blunderbuss a heaping helping of  discontent at another person and reasonably expect a warm reception, let alone for that person to make the changes in behavior you seek.  If change in circumstances, or another's behavior, is what you want, you must first seek a connection, and establish that relationship.

Second, is to speak in love and humility, and not lash out in anger and frustration. If your message isn't framed in such a way as to be received by another in a manner that they'll accept your correction suggestions for improvement, well, at the minimum you are wasting your and another's time, and are likely aggravating the situation, not making it better.

The world is full of negative, an unfortunate state of being that I sometimes contribute to here at EW (and something that I'm working on improving, for I'm a reflexive glass-is-half-full kinda guy).  Speaking in kindness and love is not only more effective in my experience, but is something unusual in this world filled with encouragement to do the opposite.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Real Misogyny

The opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference:
The shops at the mall haven’t conspired to force young women to misuse their sexuality. Not too long ago we collectively decided that moral constraints on women’s sexuality were unfair, and tossed them aside. What we are seeing now is where this lack of moral constraint is taking us. Women are being tempted by the culture, but they are being tempted to do something any student of the Old Testament should understand. They are being tempted to do things our great grandmothers understood. We can’t even think let alone use the word harlot, yet we have sluts marching down main-street.

While it is true that it is a challenge for a modest woman to find suitable clothing, the reason for this isn’t because men or evil capitalists have colluded to keep modest clothing away from the rack, it is because the vast majority of women are choosing immodest clothing out of a desire to misuse their sexual power.

We don’t help women by denying all of this, or by repeatedly telling women they are beautiful no matter what and begging them to believe it. We don’t help women by adopting their own blind spot regarding their temptation to sin. We help women by manning up and helping them be honest about their own temptations to sin, and we help them by teaching them what God finds beautiful.

The problem isn’t that modern women want to be beautiful, nor is it that they aren’t told enough how beautiful they are, how special they are, or how perfect they are. The problem is that modern women aren’t focusing their desire to be beautiful in the right ways. They shouldn’t strive to be beautiful for the other women around them, nor for the men they meet in public. They should strive to be beautiful to the Lord, and to be beautiful to their own husbands.
I was listening to Family Life Today on the radio recently, and something that one of the guests said was quite interesting: One of the unintended negative effects of feminism upon women (and men) has been a profound sense of abandonment. Not only abandonment in the sense of physical and/or social isolation (which has been on the increase for both sexes), not only abandonment in the sense of a lack of intimate relationships (also on the increase for both sexes), but abandonment in the sense that precious few within the Church or without would bother to keep women from sinning. For various reasons, society and the Church readily lecture men as to the error of their ways, but are very reluctant to do so for women, with the effect that women are then "given over" more easily to their sin with nary a warning or worse, the active teachings of Churchian doctrine.

Dalrock's quote above seems to be of an operative example of the abandonment described by the radio guest.  Contra the bleating of feminist agitators and their cartoonish claims of misogyny behind every tree and under every rock, there is precious little "positive" misogyny (i.e., overt, conscious, intentional hatred of women) in our culture today. However, "negative" misogyny--indifference, reluctance to intervene, and / or speak the Truth when a woman or women is doing something patently stupid, detrimental, and harmful to their mental, physical, or spiritual selves--abounds.

That is real misogyny, the sort that does far more harm due to its insidious nature. Not the occasional catcall or other eruptions of the so-called "patriarchy".

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Please Stop Protecting My 2A Rights, OC Enthusiasts

Pretty much agree with this 100%:
Call me crazy, but I feel one of my responsibilities as a gun rights advocate is to show people that gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who aren’t a threat to the innocent. If I were to, say, walk into Chipotle carrying an AK at the combat ready, I’m pretty sure I’d accomplish the exact opposite. And I really couldn’t blame regular Joe for being afraid of me. Think about it, guys. If a cop walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If a soldier walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If some unknown guy walks into Chipotle with a rifle, especially if he’s carrying it at the combat ready, people are going to get scared. In America, carrying a rifle into a restaurant isn’t a normal act. Right or wrong, it scares people. And you won’t make people less scared of guns by intentionally scaring them with guns.

This has been explained by other writers already, but it’s worth repeating: if someone is carrying a weapon at port arms or low ready, it’s no different than walking around with a pistol out of the holster in a combat grip. Professionals carry their long guns in front when they’re prepared for imminent contact. When I was overseas and outside the wire, my weapon was either in my hands or hanging on my chest. You know, the way OCers carry their weapons inside coffee shops.

Statesman.com via chrishernandezauthor.com

Now, I’m going to do a little compare and contrast. Take another look at the totally non-threatening latte buyer above. Note how his weapon hangs by the sling on his chest. If I ever have a chance to ask him, I’m sure he’ll say nothing in the manner of his open carry suggests he’s a threat.

Now, check out this guy:

US Army photo via chrishernandezauthor.com

Notice that he’s carrying his weapon in pretty much the same manner as the latte buyer. But he is, in fact, one hell of a threat. Because the soldier, probably unlike the coffee shop customer, has been trained how to quickly raise his weapon and engage. The soldier carries his weapon up front specifically so he can shoot people with it. The fact that the open carrier apparently doesn’t know that he’s carrying his weapon in a combat-ready manner kinda suggests he shouldn’t be carrying it in a coffee shop.

I’m 100% pro-2nd Amendment. In fact, I actually support the legal right to open carry in private businesses. I support it the same way I support the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at soldiers’ funerals. I consider both acts to be the height of stupidity. I think the WBC and open carriers are only harming their own cause. Both acts are moronic. But this is America, and people have a right to be morons.

Peaceful open carry rallies where gun owners safely carry long guns slung across their backs on public land? I’m down with that. Blatantly ridiculous, orchestrated confrontations where open carriers walk into private businesses with rifles at the combat ready, just to piss people off, knowing that all they’ll do is create more enemies? No thanks.
There was once a time in our country where firearms were ubiquitous and used as tools of both defense and provision.  After all, one had to feed oneself and their family as well as maintain vigilance from existential threats (like the French, Indians, Redcoats, Redcoats again, Damn Yankees, bandits, Indians again, etc). Furthermore, there was no such thing as a professionalized police force, the culture was relatively homogenous (no diversity+proximity to engender war to contend with) with a resultant high level of interpersonal trust, and women married the soon-to-be father of their children and stayed that way--choice mommies and their criminal spawn were seen as shameful pathologies.  Those times are long gone and are not likely to come back anytime soon. Nowadays, the overt presence of firearms on anyone, to include police officers, is disruptive at minimum, and often quite disorderly, depending on the context. How then, in this cultural and social context, is one to interpret the intent of  OC advocates with combat-ready carries of ARs, AKs, and SKSs?

boingboing.net

Hmmm, not easy to tell apart.  Just as with active shooters, or masked men breaching your door at 2 AM, it is difficult to discriminate between good guys and bad.

The moral of this story is this: Not only do urban OC advocates unnecessarily rile up the hoplophobic sheeple with their aggro high-profile sheepdogging, and therefore pose a very real lawfare threat to the entire body of 2A rights--which as the quoted author suggests has been gaining traction of late--but they are really hard to distinguish from someone intent on causing harm.  On top of this, their demonstrations counter-intuitively expose individual OC advocates to more risk, not less, as they are highlighting themselves as a target, the first threat criminals neutralize. They are thus giving away the primary advantage that CCW holders have should they ever find themselves in the vicinity of a violent crime in progress, one in which the criminals by definition hold the initiative...surprise.

But the reason why I care about this issue is not that OC poseurs might get shot in the course of their posing, but that they stampede sheeple into the arms of tyrannical liberalists who are only happy to relieve the People of their God-given right to defend themselves. Their actions make my family and I less safe and less free, not more.