NY Times: Ferguson Shooting Is Part Of Bigger Racial Problem In Democrat Voting Urban Areas

By William Teach August 13, 2014 – 7:49 am

Of course, they don’t actually mention that a good majority of urban areas around the country tend to vote Democrat, but they do attempt to turn the incident in Ferguson into a bigger issue. Here’s the Editorial Board, but, first, let me make it clear that I am in no way defending either the unnamed officer nor the police department. The officer should be afforded the notion of innocent till proven guilty, and we do need to find out exactly what happened before jumping the gun

The Death of Michael Brown
Racial History Behind the Ferguson Protests

The F.B.I. may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black student from Ferguson, Mo., who was a few days from heading off to college when he was shot by a police officer on Saturday. The shooting of Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, led to three days of protest, some of it violent, and several tense confrontations between residents of the St. Louis suburban town of 21,000 and the police.

“Some of it violent”? “Tense confrontations”? Do the members of the Editorial Board read the news? There were riots, which included theft, violence, assault, vandalism, and arson. Violent crime in Ferguson tends to be slightly above the US average, and property crimes well above the US average.

But it doesn’t take a federal investigation to understand the history of racial segregation, economic inequality and overbearing law enforcement that produced so much of the tension now evident on the streets. St. Louis has long been one of the nation’s most segregated metropolitan areas, and there remains a high wall between black residents — who overwhelmingly have lower incomes — and the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson.

Hmm, that’s interesting, because, at least at the county level (St. Louis county), the area votes heavily Democrat, like most urban areas. The county went 56% for Obama, and I’m sure if we had city data, we’d see a much higher Democrat support level.

As black families moved into Ferguson, the whites fled. In 1980, the town was 85 percent white and 14 percent black; by 2010, it was 29 percent white and 69 percent black. But blacks did not gain political power as their numbers grew. The mayor and the police chief are white, as are five of the six City Council members. The school board consists of six white members and one Hispanic. As Mr. Gordon explains, many black residents, lacking the wealth to buy property, move from apartment to apartment and have not put down political roots.

This is amusing when it comes from the NYTEB, since they feature just one Black on the board. Is that racism? Does the Times intentionally block Blacks from being on the Board? Are whites in Ferguson intentionally blocking Blacks from serving in government? Or, is that simply the things shake out, for both the EB and the Ferguson city council? That there’s nothing intentionally about it?

BTW, perhaps the EB could have mentioned that Dwayne T. James, one of the council members, is Black. The Ferguson city council has better Black diversity than the NYTEB.

The disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department, of which only three of 53 officers are black. The largely white force stops black residents far out of proportion to their population, according to statistics kept by the state attorney general. Blacks account for 86 percent of the traffic stops in the city, and 93 percent of the arrests after those stops. Similar problems exist around St. Louis County, where earlier this year the state chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. filed a federal civil rights complaint alleging widespread racial profiling by police departments.

As the EB pointed out, Blacks represent 69% of the population. Of course they are going to be stopped more. Strange, though, that there would be so much “racism” in a heavily Democrat area, wouldn’t you say?

What is not in dispute is the sense of permanent grievance held by many residents and shared in segregated urban areas around the country. Though nothing excuses violence and looting, it is clear that local governments have not dispensed justice equally. The death of Mr. Brown is “heartbreaking,” as President Obama said Tuesday, but it is also a reminder of a toxic racial legacy that still infects cities and suburbs across America.

Interesting. First off, they excuse the violence in Ferguson the past few days and nights as “permanent grievance” before saying “nothing excuses”. Again, in a heavily Democrat voting area. Second, this means that there is a “toxic racial legacy” in urban areas, which tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Democrats, heal thyselves before preaching. Instead of throwing out accusations, the Times could offer solutions.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Ferguson Shooting Is Part Of Bigger Racial Problem In Democrat Voting Urban Areas »

Posted in Wonky Media | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

You Stay Classy, Joe Romm!!!

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 6:53 pm

Why? This

Robin Williams In 2002: ‘It Is Beyond Global Warming At This Point. It’s Cooking!’

I’m not even going to bother excerpting beyond the headline, a bit of bat shit insane from Joe Romm, who sold his soul to AGW and George Soros. Suffice to say, Warmists (like all Progressives) use tons of events to push their insane cult. Holidays are their favorites. They also like blaming wars, earthquakes, volcanoes, snow storms, tsunamis, etc, on “climate change”. As Stephen Kruiser notes

A rational, compassionate human being doesn’t use a tragedy like this to make a political point. As many of us have pointed out over the years, climate change is a religious cult. These people know nothing but preaching their warped gospel.

But, then, Progressives/Warmists aren’t compassionate. Period.

Read: You Stay Classy, Joe Romm!!! »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Woman Files Complaint Over Being Kicked Out Of Pizzeria…For Changing Dirty Diaper At Table

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 3:12 pm

When even the hardcore radical Feminists (and baby haters, can’t forget that) at Jezebel won’t defend the woman in question, you know the woman is in the wrong

(UK Daily Mail) A mother was kicked out of a pizzeria for changing her baby’s diaper at her table.

But mother Miranda Sowers says she was forced into the situation since the restaurant doesn’t provide changing tables in their restroom.

The incident happened at Brother’s Pizza Express in Spring, Texas, where Sowers took her three daughters for a meal.

Upshot, she decided to change the poo infested diaper at the table, rather than going out to her car

“I thought you know what I’ve got my own changing pad, she’s tiny, she fits right here on the chair,’ Sowers told KHOU. ‘So I laid her down quickly and quietly changed her diaper.’

The pizzeria decided, after a bunch of complaints over the visuals and smell (yup, poo smell!!!!), to bring out her food to go and asked to leave. And the pizzeria is not backing down. So, of course

Sowers has since filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.

I haven’t found an article which states exactly what her complaint is.

Read: Woman Files Complaint Over Being Kicked Out Of Pizzeria…For Changing Dirty Diaper At Table »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon friendly city which everyone should be forced to live in, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Yid With Lid, with a post on anti-Semitism in Rome.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

New Warmist Excuse: Warming Happens In Fits And Starts

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 10:30 am

This comes within the greater context of stating that conservatives distort and misrepresent climate scientists, saying that global warming is not on hiatus. This is all part of the wider whining as to why people aren’t listening, why they don’t care, and about those mean “deniers” putting out disinformation, blah blah blah

Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist with NASA, gave a crash course in climate change science for the public at Virginia Air and Space Center on Tuesday. He talked about all the evidence that the planet is warming—like the fact that temperatures right now are the hottest they’ve been since record-keeping began in 1850. He also noted that the rise in surface temperatures has slowed considerably since 2000. This doesn’t contradict the theory of global warming, he explained. Land temperature regularly varies, and much of the warming in the last decade is happening unseen in the ocean.

Ah, the old “the warming is playing hide and seek”. [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

The key thing to understand is that changes in global temperature don’t occur at a steady pace. It’s why climate scientists don’t only look at a single decade’s worth of temperatures. Loeb explained all of this in his presentation. And the Daily Press, a local paper that actually attended the presentation, relayed the explanation correctly. Temperature change, the newspaper’s account said, looks more like a “stock market graph, with jagged ups and downs built into a long, upward trend.” The long-term trend is clear, despite the hiatuses.

Of course, their computer models say something entirely different. None predict any big pauses. They predict an ever increasing world temperature, as do their talking points, which are even more outlandish, yammering on about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Yes, there has been a long term trend. Global temps have risen since 1850. In fits and starts. The longer term trend over the last 7,000 years shows a warm period followed by a cool period followed by a warm period, and so on. Multiple Holocene warm periods have been warmer than the current one. What Loeb is trying to do is use the historical norms to continue propping up the blaming of Mankind.

We can add this all to the big list of 30 excuses, via The Hockey Schtick, with a new and updated graphic from C3 Headlines.

Read: New Warmist Excuse: Warming Happens In Fits And Starts »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

ISIS Has A Playbook. And It’s Ultra Violent

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 8:57 am

Good investigative work by the Washington Post’s Terrance McCoy

Last week, as the forces of the Islamic State crept within 40 miles of Irbil, fear settled over the urbane Kurdish capital. People had heard of the militants’ brutality — of the crucifixions, the beheadings, the mass killings. They were understandably frightened, Kurdish journalist Namo Abdulla told The Washington Post. Some began to flee. Others made for the mountains. The killers were coming.

In the last week, images of the Islamic State’s savagery have been inescapable. News exploded yesterday of an image of a young boy, son to an Australian member other of the Islamic State, hoisting a severed head beside his proud father. (snip)

The glorification of extreme violence using social media is one of the defining aspects of the Islamic State. The Sunni militants wield savagery like a tool, analysts say. It’s neither extemporaneous nor undisciplined. It’s concerted. It’s tactical. It’s evil. And that’s the point. “There’s a strategic reason behind the executions,” wrote the Washington Institute’s Aaron Zelin. “And the gruesome pictures posted online for all to see.”

The seeds of today’s brutality were perhaps sown long ago in a 2006 book called “The Management of Savagery,” wrote expert Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker. One version of the book, written by a radical Islamist thinker named Abu Bakr Naji, details patterns of “abominable savagery” witnessed in both the Islamic State and its earlier incarnations. According to this English translation, it calls for an “administration of savagery” and merciless campaign to polarize the population, attract adherents, and establish a pure Sunni caliphate. “We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death,” the book says. (snip)

“In sum, the beheadings and the violence practiced by [the Islamic State] are not whimisical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate, considered strategy,” analyst Crooke wrote. “…The seemingly random violence has a precise purpose: It’s aim is to strike huge fear; to break the psychology of a people — and according to reports this is exactly what [it] has succeeded in doing.”

You should read the whole article as it details how this book is put into use by ISIS (ISIL), and what they are going for is an Islamic caliphate. When they threaten to raise the flag of Allah about the White House, this is not some empty bloviation: this is something they actually want to do, and will work towards. Whether we would stop them is a different story.

Let’s face it, though: there is another playbook being used. The Koran. Some see peace in the book, some see violence. They see spreading Islam at the point of a sword. They see giving infidels a choice: convert or die.

(TROP) The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

And you get passages such as

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Call it Islamaphobia, call it “hating”, attempt to make a false equivalence with the Bible, at the end of the day, the Koran gives all a jihadi needs to be barbaric.

And, yes, not all Muslims practice the violence. But, there are more than enough that do. Hardcores are streaming from around the world to join ISIS.

We’ll leave the discussion of how many radical Muslims are using peaceful methods to take over for another day.

Read: ISIS Has A Playbook. And It’s Ultra Violent »

Posted in RoP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Vacations As The World Burns

By William Teach August 12, 2014 – 8:31 am

Hey, don’t blame me for the headline: blame either Dana Milbank or a Washington Post editor for it, as Milbank notes that the optics of Obama playing golf and vacationing are not particularly good

(Washington Post) President Obama must really be teed off.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, his once-loyal secretary of state and his likeliest successor, has gone rogue, criticizing his foreign policy as too timid.

Obama responded with not one but two rounds of golf.

Clinton, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published by the Atlantic over the weekend, offered a withering comment on the Obama doctrine, described in shorthand by White House officials as “don’t do stupid s—.” Said Clinton: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

As the criticism became public, Obama was doggedly sticking with his plans to go on vacation — a decision that, if not in the category of stupid stuff, could fit under the heading of “tone deafness.”

Yes, yes, presidents always take vacations. And they do it as Big Things Happen. But, Obama takes this to new levels. He was on the golf course within an hour of arriving at Martha’s Vineyard after his brief, and late, TV appearance Saturday. He gave a brief, and, again, late, statement on Monday, and then took off for a fundraiser. He rarely lets himself be photographed while golfing, but, this time he did. As Milbank notes, the optics are bad. It shows him as detached. Here’s the thing: Obama has never cared what other people think, except in terms of getting himself elected. Since his re-election, he’s been freed from worrying about that, and he will do whatever he wants, regardless.

Yes, presidents take vacations. And a few hours off. Presidents will have their advisers and materials to make decisions. They are never really “off”. One has to wonder about Obama, though, and whether he is really engaged. It so often seems like he’s a squirrel, which has a remarkably short attention span. Or, a teenager, which also has an incredibly bad attention span. “Oh, look, a nut, I’ll do something with it” and then move on. There never seems to be any detailed planning or focus. Just a quick response, then move on. But, hey, what’s this? (via Ace and Weasel Zippers)

You have to understand that if you seek that office, then you have to be prepared to give your life to it. Essentially, the bargain that I think every President strikes with the American people is, ‘you give me this office, then in turn my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure, is gone. I am giving myself to you.’

And the American people should have no patience through whatever’s going through your head [i.e., the President’s head] because you’ve got a job to do.

And so how I think about it is, that you don’t make that decision unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice.

Huh. But, times change, and the semi-retired president is entirely unconcerned about the optics.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Vacations As The World Burns »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Georgia Schools Not Impressed With Back Sale Restrictions

By William Teach August 11, 2014 – 3:43 pm

I think the operative word in the story is “asinine”

(EAGnews.com) Outrage is growing against federal restrictions on school bake sales and fundraisers.

“We don’t have enough teachers in our classrooms and now we are expected to hire some type of food police to monitor whether we are having bake sales or not. That is just asinine,” John Barge, Georgia state school superintendent tells WSB-TV.

Barge and the state Board of Education are attempting to get an exemption from the snack rules, which would allow only 30 sales per year per school. (snip)

“What an overreach this is for Washington to tell us what our school can and cannot sell to raise money in our schools,” Barge says, according to WSB.

These Big Government regulations (#ThanksMichelle) are causing lots of problems with fundraising for various school groups, events, teams, etc.

“The effect has been not what was intended,” says Jack Carter of Richland District 2 near Columbia, South Carolina. “The effect has been kids don’t eat in the cafeteria anymore, and that’s nationwide,” he tells WLTX.

Carter implied there will be a new type of segregation in schools – those that have good lunches, and those that have Michelle Obama’s.

https://twitter.com/Kelly_PaigeM/status/498639188167000065

https://twitter.com/zoe_mariee99/status/498543842677628929

Oh, then there’s this classic

Read: Georgia Schools Not Impressed With Back Sale Restrictions »

Posted in Democrats, Nanny State | Comments Off on Georgia Schools Not Impressed With Back Sale Restrictions | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 11, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful climate change believer friendly city, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on the world class screwup that is Barack Obama.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Aussie Warmist: Hey, Let’s Just Ban Stuff

By William Teach August 11, 2014 – 11:39 am

Perhaps they should start by banning the use of fossil fuels by Warmists. Oh, and the use of the Internet by Warmists, because it uses lots of energy. Here’s Crikey’s Paddy Mannington (via Climate Depot)

Screw consultation, let’s just ban stuff: how to really fight climate change

Here’s an idea. If the business community and the conservative side of politics are never going to embrace market mechanisms to tackle climate change — what our PM has derisively termed a “so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one” — then let’s stop pandering to them and go back to banning stuff.

Emissions trading schemes (ETS) or “cap and trade”, as the Americans call it, was meant to be a business-friendly, economically rational alternative approach to regulation and the command economy. It was used there successfully in the 1990s to stop acid rain by reducing emissions of sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. It is a strategy the US energy industry — as executives will tell you in a quiet moment — is extremely comfortable with.

But if the business lobby is going to go into hysterics about every sensible proposal to establish an ETS — or worse, jump into bed with the climate sceptics and abandon action on climate altogether, as they’ve done this year — then stuff ‘em.

Are the lobbyists and spinmeisters worried about red and green tape? Always. That’s their job. Let’s give them something to really worry about. All business wants is a level playing field. If the law establishes we are going to reduce emissions fast, companies will work within the law (ultimately, gladly, because you’d be mad to think businesspeople are not concerned about climate change). Australia’s economy will get what early-mover advantages the Germans and Japanese and Californians haven’t hoovered up.

Lest you think this is a joke, it’s not. Mannington is dead serious. He offers 4 ideas, which, surprisingly, do not force Warmists to live the carbon neutral lifestyle. Yeah, weird, right?

These direct actions are entirely compatible with our current system of government. No revolution is required: all we have to do to solve climate change is unplug fossil fuels, plug in renewables, and stop chopping down forests. If we can’t do that — as the sub-title for Naomi Klein’s forthcoming book This Changes Everything declares — it’s capitalism versus the climate, and there’s no doubt which will win.

OK, so, all Warmists need to do is to stop using fossil fuels and erect solar panels and wind turbines for their homes….as long as those homes aren’t built with wood from trees.

Read: Aussie Warmist: Hey, Let’s Just Ban Stuff »

Posted in Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove