Thomas Sowell on the folly of assuming that "disparate impact" equates to "intentional discrimination."
Thomas Sowell explains that we are a nationa of cowards, but not in the way that Eric Holder meant.
WND on media hypocrisy on race.
I don't mean to make this blog entirely about race, but I've had some of these tabs open for a while and I wanted to post on them, even though I don't feel like adding any of my own commentary at this time.
I'll try to find a non-racial issue to blog about soon.
That is all.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Thoughts on George Zimmerman
I think it is pretty clear that at worst, this was an accident; meaning that George Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill someone when he went out that night, or when he followed Trayvon Martin. As Martin's mother said on the Today show, things got out of control.
That does not mean that Zimmerman is not guilty of unjustifiable homicide, although I can't see any reasonable charge greater than manslaughter.
The real question here is whether Zimmerman is culpable and to what degree for the fight he had with Martin. If Martin attacked him on his way back to his vehicle, then he is innocent. If he accosted Martin and Martin responded by hitting him, then he is responsible - it should be pointed out that it is possible that Martin acted in an inappropriate, or even criminal way without Zimmerman being entirely innocent; if Zimmerman escalated the encounter and then Martin escalated it further, neither would be completely non-culpable (at least as I reckon it, I don't know enough about the relevant law to offer a good legal opinion, but I assume that two people can get into a fight without either being considered innocent).
It seems to me that the people on both sides of this (as a political issue, I am not talking about people directly involved with the case) are taking positions somewhat based more on fear and resentment rather than on trying to determine the truth.
Those who insist that Zimmerman was just a hothead and that Martin was a choirboy are, I think, terrified of being accosted by a non-cop and not knowing how to respond; should they run in case it's a mugger, or should they stand still for fear that the police will side with the accoster? And I suppose some blacks are genuinely scared that we are going to see legitimized lynchings by overzealous neighborhood watches.
On the other hand, those who want to completely trash Martin are scared ultimately that if Zimmerman is not acquitted, that it will send the signal that it is unacceptable to defend one's self. The great fear is that people under attack by thugs (and let's be honest, in particular black thugs) are now going to hesitate to defend themselves and get killed, or are going to be sent to prison for self-defense. Moreover, thugs will be aware of this and use it to intimidate people.
I personally think that the best thing to do in this case is to try to find the truth, regardless of what narrative it fits.
That is all.
That does not mean that Zimmerman is not guilty of unjustifiable homicide, although I can't see any reasonable charge greater than manslaughter.
The real question here is whether Zimmerman is culpable and to what degree for the fight he had with Martin. If Martin attacked him on his way back to his vehicle, then he is innocent. If he accosted Martin and Martin responded by hitting him, then he is responsible - it should be pointed out that it is possible that Martin acted in an inappropriate, or even criminal way without Zimmerman being entirely innocent; if Zimmerman escalated the encounter and then Martin escalated it further, neither would be completely non-culpable (at least as I reckon it, I don't know enough about the relevant law to offer a good legal opinion, but I assume that two people can get into a fight without either being considered innocent).
It seems to me that the people on both sides of this (as a political issue, I am not talking about people directly involved with the case) are taking positions somewhat based more on fear and resentment rather than on trying to determine the truth.
Those who insist that Zimmerman was just a hothead and that Martin was a choirboy are, I think, terrified of being accosted by a non-cop and not knowing how to respond; should they run in case it's a mugger, or should they stand still for fear that the police will side with the accoster? And I suppose some blacks are genuinely scared that we are going to see legitimized lynchings by overzealous neighborhood watches.
On the other hand, those who want to completely trash Martin are scared ultimately that if Zimmerman is not acquitted, that it will send the signal that it is unacceptable to defend one's self. The great fear is that people under attack by thugs (and let's be honest, in particular black thugs) are now going to hesitate to defend themselves and get killed, or are going to be sent to prison for self-defense. Moreover, thugs will be aware of this and use it to intimidate people.
I personally think that the best thing to do in this case is to try to find the truth, regardless of what narrative it fits.
That is all.
Sunday, April 08, 2012
A Little Good Friday Ritual
Yesterday I ate a meal with my mother (my father passed away on October 5 of last year) for Good Friday - I tried to make a little bit of a ritual out of it, looking at the transition from Passover to the Passion.
For the first course, we said grace, then I read Leviticus 23:4-8 and then Mom and I ate matzo balls with soup.
After that, we brought out some lamb (shoulder blade, I think) which I had baked in the oven in glass with aluminum foil over it, an approximation of a Passover Lamb. Then I read Exodus 12:1-16, after which I poured a little pomegranate juice into two cups, and took some and dabbed it with my fingers on the side of my plate and had Mom do the same (to represent the Passover Lamb's blood). Then we ate the lamb.
Afterwards, I read I Corinthians 5:6-8 and Hebrews 11:24-28, which compare Christ to the Passover lamb.
Then I read Matthew 26:26-29 and Mom and I drank some more pomegranate juice (we should have had some bread as well, but this was the first time doing this, so it wasn't perfect).
Then we took out the second course, which was ham. I read Acts 10:9-16, 10:27-28, and 10:34-43, poured some pomegranate juice on my mother's ham and my own, quoted 10:15 again, and then we ate the ham.
Anyone else have a new tradition they are trying to start or an old one they are trying to continue to celebrate Good Friday or Passover?
That is all.
For the first course, we said grace, then I read Leviticus 23:4-8 and then Mom and I ate matzo balls with soup.
After that, we brought out some lamb (shoulder blade, I think) which I had baked in the oven in glass with aluminum foil over it, an approximation of a Passover Lamb. Then I read Exodus 12:1-16, after which I poured a little pomegranate juice into two cups, and took some and dabbed it with my fingers on the side of my plate and had Mom do the same (to represent the Passover Lamb's blood). Then we ate the lamb.
Afterwards, I read I Corinthians 5:6-8 and Hebrews 11:24-28, which compare Christ to the Passover lamb.
Then I read Matthew 26:26-29 and Mom and I drank some more pomegranate juice (we should have had some bread as well, but this was the first time doing this, so it wasn't perfect).
Then we took out the second course, which was ham. I read Acts 10:9-16, 10:27-28, and 10:34-43, poured some pomegranate juice on my mother's ham and my own, quoted 10:15 again, and then we ate the ham.
Anyone else have a new tradition they are trying to start or an old one they are trying to continue to celebrate Good Friday or Passover?
That is all.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Gabrielle Giffords v. Allen Coon: Does Rhetoric Lead to Violence?
Any conservative who had to put up with the constant refrain that the Tea Party was responsible for the Giffords shooting, or that small-government types were responsible for the "murder" (later determined a suicide) of census worker Bill Sparkman, might want to read this piece by Selwyn Duke on The American Thinker on the role that "anti-racism" might have played in the setting on fire of white 13-year-old Allen Coon by two black teenagers.
Of course, don't expect this to be part of the media narrative even if this story ever gets mainstream coverage.
That is all.
Of course, don't expect this to be part of the media narrative even if this story ever gets mainstream coverage.
That is all.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wikipedia
Nicholas Stix suggests that on issues touching on race, Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda outfit.
Wikipedia can often be useful as a source for finding out general, non-controversial information. But it is fair to note that it will be biased on any issue where there is room for bias, and that bias is usually left-wing.
Always be careful of your sources.
That is all.
Wikipedia can often be useful as a source for finding out general, non-controversial information. But it is fair to note that it will be biased on any issue where there is room for bias, and that bias is usually left-wing.
Always be careful of your sources.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Quick Disclosure
Dear Readers,
I may be doing a little advertising on this blog in the future. So if some links take you to services rather than to other articles, do not be alarmed. Also recognize that I am scrutinizing the links personally, so I will only put in links that I feel comfortable with.
That is all.
I may be doing a little advertising on this blog in the future. So if some links take you to services rather than to other articles, do not be alarmed. Also recognize that I am scrutinizing the links personally, so I will only put in links that I feel comfortable with.
That is all.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Infanticide
This is an interesting issue. Whether it was a real suggestion or just a through-provoking thought experiment, it still brings up the main arguments for abortion, and raises the question of to what extent convenience and utilitarianism are the proper basis for morality.
I, of course, think that infanticide is horrible, and that there is a reason why it gets such a visceral response, and that we need to listen to that response rather than try to reason ourselves away from the aversion. Put another way, that this type of thing still shocks us is a good sign. This may not always be the case. What liberals today scoff at as a straw man position of the right may be the liberals' actual position tomorrow.
That is all.
I, of course, think that infanticide is horrible, and that there is a reason why it gets such a visceral response, and that we need to listen to that response rather than try to reason ourselves away from the aversion. Put another way, that this type of thing still shocks us is a good sign. This may not always be the case. What liberals today scoff at as a straw man position of the right may be the liberals' actual position tomorrow.
That is all.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Morality is Evil, Say the Feminists
Does anyone else find the feminist-discovered sin of "slut-shaming" to be a ridiculous label for people exercising normal moral discernment? Apparently, behavior that used to be called "sin," and that used to be considered unacceptable, even amongst those who argued for non-discriminatory sex (i.e. homosexuality), is now considered a protected class, if it is not absolutely lauded.
It is in this vein that Emily Roiphe criticizes liberals for not being far enough on the sexual liberation bandwagon.
Fortunately enough, Cassy Fiano at Pajamas Media actually puts up a defense of slut-shaming, pointing out the various problems that sexual promiscuity causes.
Of course, there are less immediately obvious problems that Cassy did not touch on, but are important to note, so that the liberals and feminists do not simply bleat "condoms, vaccines, and cures will solve all of our woes so that we no longer need self-restraint!" Most obviously, there is the fact that the rise of the slut also presages the rise of the pick-up artist. Those who hate Roissy had better be aware that if sluthood is the future of women, the cad is the future of men.
Sluts dislike this, of course, because those who would embrace sluthood would probably rather that the non-desirable men simply disappear and die, or else turn gay. Unfortunately for their desires, men will not roll over and play dead so easily.
Either way, though, the reason we slut-shame is that female promiscuity leads to sub-Saharan Africa. And no one, no matter what they say, actually wants that.
That is all.
It is in this vein that Emily Roiphe criticizes liberals for not being far enough on the sexual liberation bandwagon.
Fortunately enough, Cassy Fiano at Pajamas Media actually puts up a defense of slut-shaming, pointing out the various problems that sexual promiscuity causes.
Of course, there are less immediately obvious problems that Cassy did not touch on, but are important to note, so that the liberals and feminists do not simply bleat "condoms, vaccines, and cures will solve all of our woes so that we no longer need self-restraint!" Most obviously, there is the fact that the rise of the slut also presages the rise of the pick-up artist. Those who hate Roissy had better be aware that if sluthood is the future of women, the cad is the future of men.
Sluts dislike this, of course, because those who would embrace sluthood would probably rather that the non-desirable men simply disappear and die, or else turn gay. Unfortunately for their desires, men will not roll over and play dead so easily.
Either way, though, the reason we slut-shame is that female promiscuity leads to sub-Saharan Africa. And no one, no matter what they say, actually wants that.
That is all.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
On Abu Ghraib
I forgot where I was referred to this, but I think it is interesting.
It's an article about Abu Ghraib, the attempts to shift blame there, and the little slimeball Lindsey Graham.
That is all.
It's an article about Abu Ghraib, the attempts to shift blame there, and the little slimeball Lindsey Graham.
That is all.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Debate About Syria
The thing that worries me the most in this debate about Syria is that none of those advocating that we try to help the opposition overthrow Assad are asking what will replace him. Do they really think that those who are fighting Assad would be more friendly to our interests than he is?
And what about the Syrian Christians? Do they think that they would survive whoever replaces Assad? Or do they not care if they get slaughtered? Someone should ask that.
The general idea seems to be "Assad is bad. He is an ally of Iran. Therefore, whoever opposes him is necessarily good." This replaces serious thought about what the consequences of actions will be. Now, of course, there is the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but when, individually, both of these would be your enemy, the question becomes, "which enemy is the enemy and which is the enemy of the enemy?"
In other words, in situations like World War II, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be used either to support Stalin against Hitler, or Hitler against Stalin. You actually need to evaluate which enemy is more dangerous to you and your interests.
I wish that Ron Paul had pointed that out in his response.
That is all.
And what about the Syrian Christians? Do they think that they would survive whoever replaces Assad? Or do they not care if they get slaughtered? Someone should ask that.
The general idea seems to be "Assad is bad. He is an ally of Iran. Therefore, whoever opposes him is necessarily good." This replaces serious thought about what the consequences of actions will be. Now, of course, there is the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but when, individually, both of these would be your enemy, the question becomes, "which enemy is the enemy and which is the enemy of the enemy?"
In other words, in situations like World War II, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be used either to support Stalin against Hitler, or Hitler against Stalin. You actually need to evaluate which enemy is more dangerous to you and your interests.
I wish that Ron Paul had pointed that out in his response.
That is all.
Why People Oppose Anti-Bullying
I think that Lawrence Auster makes an important point about the Dharun Ravi case:
As USA Today explains it (via John Derbyshire), the prosecutors’ case is weak, but they are going ahead with the trial anyway, because Ravi has been found guilty of Clementi’s death in the court of public opinion (led by loudmouth Gov. Christie whom some mindless conservatives still consider a conservative). If found guilty on all counts, Ravi could be sentenced to ten years in prison, basically for videotaping his roommate in the room they shared. As lawyer/observers point out, if Clementi had kissed a girl, there would be no case, no trial. The trial is an expression of the rising power of the homosexualist lobby. We should add that the power of the homosexualist lobby is indistinguishable from the tyranny of the homosexualist lobby.
There is a fear that anti-bullying legislation, and the like, are ultimately going to be used to make any criticism of homosexuality a punishable offense, and to make it so that crimes that would be considered minor when committed against heterosexuals will become serious felonies if the victim is gay. In other words, creating a privileged class.
This is troublesome.
And Auster also makes a good point that the sexual revolution as a whole must be fought in order to fight the individual elements of it.
That is all.
As USA Today explains it (via John Derbyshire), the prosecutors’ case is weak, but they are going ahead with the trial anyway, because Ravi has been found guilty of Clementi’s death in the court of public opinion (led by loudmouth Gov. Christie whom some mindless conservatives still consider a conservative). If found guilty on all counts, Ravi could be sentenced to ten years in prison, basically for videotaping his roommate in the room they shared. As lawyer/observers point out, if Clementi had kissed a girl, there would be no case, no trial. The trial is an expression of the rising power of the homosexualist lobby. We should add that the power of the homosexualist lobby is indistinguishable from the tyranny of the homosexualist lobby.
There is a fear that anti-bullying legislation, and the like, are ultimately going to be used to make any criticism of homosexuality a punishable offense, and to make it so that crimes that would be considered minor when committed against heterosexuals will become serious felonies if the victim is gay. In other words, creating a privileged class.
This is troublesome.
And Auster also makes a good point that the sexual revolution as a whole must be fought in order to fight the individual elements of it.
That is all.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
We Waited in World War II - Good For Us!
Much has been made over these statements by Rick Santorum:
But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing.
Why? Because we’re a hopeful people... after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay.
I'm not interested in discussing the portion I elided, because to be frank, I don't think anyone thought that Hitler was a nice guy, or that such an assertion needs a point-by-point refutation.
What I do wish to comment on, however, is the implicit point he is making that we were wrong to wait as long as we did to get into World War II, and that our waiting made things worse.
Actually, it was a great thing that we waited as long as we did. First, let's be clear. Any claim that we (that is, the U.S.) could have and should have stopped Hitler early on (say 1937 or 1938, before he invaded Poland) is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that Britain and France were unwilling to do anything overt to stop him, and there is no way for us to get involved before Britain and France.
So what we are really discussing is whether we should have gone to war after the invasion of Poland, when Britain and France had already declared war.
It should be noted here that by the time Britain and France declared War on Nazi Germany, the Germans were already fairly powerful, powerful enough to conquer the latter and to neutralize any threat posed by the former. Germany was a formidable opponent.
However, Germany made one mistake. In 1941, after neutralizing the threat from the west, Germany turned its sights east and invaded the Soviet Union. A tremendous portion of its army was bogged down there.
This means that when we finally did declare war, Germany was overextended and we were able to let our "frenemy" the U.S.S.R., do all of the heavy lifting. I would imagine that if we had joined in the war effort in, say, late 1940 to early 1941, Hitler might have decided to put off the Russian invasion and the U.S. would have suffered three to four times the number of casualties that it did (remember, the vast majority of Germans killed in World War II were killed in the Eastern Front).
To argue that we should have declared war sooner is based either on the premise that Germany's strength had increased enough from August 1939-December 1941 so as to offset the drain the Soviets placed on them, or that Germany would have invaded the U.S.S.R. regardless of when we declared war on them.
While it may seem gauche to say so, the U.S. did well to wait as long as it did to declare war, because we got in late to face a severely weakened enemy.
That is all.
But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing.
Why? Because we’re a hopeful people... after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay.
I'm not interested in discussing the portion I elided, because to be frank, I don't think anyone thought that Hitler was a nice guy, or that such an assertion needs a point-by-point refutation.
What I do wish to comment on, however, is the implicit point he is making that we were wrong to wait as long as we did to get into World War II, and that our waiting made things worse.
Actually, it was a great thing that we waited as long as we did. First, let's be clear. Any claim that we (that is, the U.S.) could have and should have stopped Hitler early on (say 1937 or 1938, before he invaded Poland) is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that Britain and France were unwilling to do anything overt to stop him, and there is no way for us to get involved before Britain and France.
So what we are really discussing is whether we should have gone to war after the invasion of Poland, when Britain and France had already declared war.
It should be noted here that by the time Britain and France declared War on Nazi Germany, the Germans were already fairly powerful, powerful enough to conquer the latter and to neutralize any threat posed by the former. Germany was a formidable opponent.
However, Germany made one mistake. In 1941, after neutralizing the threat from the west, Germany turned its sights east and invaded the Soviet Union. A tremendous portion of its army was bogged down there.
This means that when we finally did declare war, Germany was overextended and we were able to let our "frenemy" the U.S.S.R., do all of the heavy lifting. I would imagine that if we had joined in the war effort in, say, late 1940 to early 1941, Hitler might have decided to put off the Russian invasion and the U.S. would have suffered three to four times the number of casualties that it did (remember, the vast majority of Germans killed in World War II were killed in the Eastern Front).
To argue that we should have declared war sooner is based either on the premise that Germany's strength had increased enough from August 1939-December 1941 so as to offset the drain the Soviets placed on them, or that Germany would have invaded the U.S.S.R. regardless of when we declared war on them.
While it may seem gauche to say so, the U.S. did well to wait as long as it did to declare war, because we got in late to face a severely weakened enemy.
That is all.
What the Hell is Up With Daniel Larison
I tried to comment on his blog, and it said I needed to login through WordPress. Well, I had forgotten my password, and so I reset it. For some reason, it took Wordpress several tried before it sent me a reset email, but even after I reset it, the blog did not recognize my password.
Anyone know what is going on here?
Rod Dreher doesn't have that stupid login to comment on his blog.
That is all.
Anyone know what is going on here?
Rod Dreher doesn't have that stupid login to comment on his blog.
That is all.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Everyone Has Sacred Cows
I was thinking the other day that it is probably more acceptable in our society to mock Jesus than Martin Luther King Jr.
I wonder how many people who think that religious folks should "just get over it" when their faith is mocked would be as sanguine when their secular idols are the subject of ridicule.
See this article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. on a strip club that uses Martin Luther King Jr. as a theme.
It brought to mind a question: how many people who think nothing of mocking Jesus Christ (I am NOT accusing Pitts of being among them) would recoil in horror if the same were done to the Reverend King?
And moreover, is the attempt to make it acceptable to mock Christ truly about letting go of taboos, or is it merely about replacing God with our secular gods?
That is all.
I wonder how many people who think that religious folks should "just get over it" when their faith is mocked would be as sanguine when their secular idols are the subject of ridicule.
See this article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. on a strip club that uses Martin Luther King Jr. as a theme.
It brought to mind a question: how many people who think nothing of mocking Jesus Christ (I am NOT accusing Pitts of being among them) would recoil in horror if the same were done to the Reverend King?
And moreover, is the attempt to make it acceptable to mock Christ truly about letting go of taboos, or is it merely about replacing God with our secular gods?
That is all.
David J. Theroux on Secular Theocracy
An excellent article by David J. Theroux of the Independent Institute pointing out how hypocritical the modern omni-state is regarding "separation of church and state."
The problem with our modern government is that it actually wants to set up a church to itself and to establish a form of secular humanism as the official state religion. That's why I don't trust most people who talk about the "Separation of church and state." A true such separation only exists when government is very, very small. If there is a welfare state, then separation of church and state is impossible. It is just a question of which church the government supports - and if it officially supports none, then it in reality supports its own.
This form of secular theocracy can be called "cratotheism" - the belief that government is God.
That is all.
The problem with our modern government is that it actually wants to set up a church to itself and to establish a form of secular humanism as the official state religion. That's why I don't trust most people who talk about the "Separation of church and state." A true such separation only exists when government is very, very small. If there is a welfare state, then separation of church and state is impossible. It is just a question of which church the government supports - and if it officially supports none, then it in reality supports its own.
This form of secular theocracy can be called "cratotheism" - the belief that government is God.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)