Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts

Friday, February 3, 2017

If I am dangerous does that make Black men dogs? The curious case of Darryl Lynn Hughley

Some creature called Darryl Lynn Hughley or better known as DL Hughley, went on a rant this week regarding President Trump's 90-day immigration ban. This diatribe, while only three minutes in length, was all over the place and all those places were not good places.





Hughley doesn't hide his leftist leanings. He's ultra liberal and very critical of the right and white community. At the same time he's had his run in with his own ilk, so it's not like he's afraid to speak his mind regardless of how wrong or out of touch that mind may be.


Here was something I found astonishing:


“ISIS is supposed to be what we are scared of. The most dangerous thing in America is a white dude with an assault weapon and an attitude. If you wanted to really make America safer, you would ban assault weapons and not Muslims. What is more scary to you? A white dude that just got laid off with a gun? Or a dude reading a Koran?"


Now let's start out light. Assault weapons? What are assault weapons? How many white dudes who commit crime are doing so with “assault weapons”? Now, what about his claim about white dudes being dangerous along with said assault weapons? Notice how he follows that up with the talk of banning assault weapons but leaves out banning white guys? It would seem fair enough once is an inanimate object while one is a human being.

However, that's not the case because the very next sentence he points out banning Muslims doesn't make sense because they in Hughley's opinion are not the problem. Interesting he uses the word “thing” to describe the white man and the gun but doesn't include the white guy in his BAN DESPITE said white man being the most dangerous. Come on.

And yeah, reading the Koran can lead to suicide bombing. It does nothing for your argument when rational people hear this. Reading the Koran is like pointing out that someone reading Mein Kampf doesn't make them a threat. Of course it doesn't but in the wrong hands; that book and almost every religious book written 2k years ago can lead to things like.... Crusades. 9-11. Burning women as witches or stoning women in 2017 for being raped.


Just one minute later he doubles down:

“The most dangerous thing in America are white dudes… angry white dudes. Let's be clear.”


It's obvious DL Hughley is triggered here. But does that make him racist? I don't take the glee in making those distinctions. He is, however, a race baiter. A sensationalist in the mold of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All bark with no bite (spoiler alert). All hysteria with no logic. A race hustling pimp. His illogical - partisan race baiting is so pronounced it would make Emanuel (reparations) Cleaver of the Congressional Black Caucus fame weak at the knees.  


This is the same man who doesn't think Black on Black crime exists. No, he really thinks that. Despite places like Chicago, Baltimore, LA, NY... where the victims and offenders are almost exclusively Black; it doesn't exist.


"There’s more white on white crime than black on black crime…. crime is about proximity.. you hurt the ones you love because you are close to them … if you take any living organism and put it in a small space with limited resources it will kill anything around it… black on black crime a’int nothing but biology."


Now it's obvious DL Hughley isn't a deep thinker. He sees an FBI report, looks at some numbers and viola, there are more white people killing white people than black killing black people. That would be a valid point say if you lived in Flatland, where everything was in a two-dimensional reality. However, we live in a complex space and biology is rooted in mathematics. Just simple per capita data points out DL Hughley flaws.


77.35% of the US population as of 2014  identified themselves as White (including Hispanics who identify as White) or 246 million.


13.3% in America are identified as Black or African American.


Whites in this country are 6x the population of Blacks. So, for Whites to kill more than Blacks would not only make sense but it would be expected. And the numbers bear that. Whites do commit more murders than Blacks, barley but they do. Now if we are talking about the most “dangerous thing in America” there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically a young Black male. Because of, Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population commit 52% of all homicides and 59% of all felony murders on record from 1980-2008 according to the FBI as you can see below.




A piece written by the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley a few years back came out with these nuggets…


  • Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
  • Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s when black poverty was higher" and "racial discrimination was rampant and legal



There are also these bombshells from Edwin S. Rubenstein, M.A., New Century Foundation (courtesy of the American Renaissance)

  1. There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
  2. In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
  3. In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
  4. In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
  5. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
  6. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
  7. In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
  8. In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.
  9. Both violent and non-violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.



No reason to pile on, the case is pretty clear. Black folks, particularly young black men who might make up, what 2-55 of the population... are unequivocally more dangerous than a white man despite an attitude or any weapon he might have. He can denounce and ignore “black on black crime” as not being real but the truth of the matter is it's pure evasion on his part and others like him because when you look at the data it's black and white (pardon that glorious pun).


Now let me make an interesting analogy.


If Black folks commit such an exorbitant amount of violent crime despite such small numbers could it be reasonable for people to be leery of that demographic? Is it racist for police to be more cautious or leery of young Black males? Can you really blame someone from crossing the street at night to avoid crossing paths with said young Black men? It doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out, it just takes access to the local or national news.


I said earlier there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically 2-5% of the population or aka young Black males. You care to guess what's “the most dangerous thing in America” on four legs?


Pit bulls


Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they're responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention.




The correlation with Pit bulls and young black males is almost dead on and both highly disproportionate to their numbers of the US population in both dogs and people. There are people that will make the case that Pit bulls are only dangerous because they have bad owners. Pit bulls are good dogs in the right hands. Just like people on the left make excuses for the problems in inner cities with young Black males DESPITE the fact that before the 60’s under harsh conditions the Black community never had these problems. Remember, that was the days of the two parent household still - the Left has no time for that. Now, I know what you're thinking…. HE’S CALLING BLACK MEN DOGS.

That’s not it at all. I'm making the case that if you're going to go off hinge because you didn't like the election results and are triggered (still) then there is someone out there, despite being a nobody in terms of audience and notoriety is still going to take the time and check your ass. Because, I don't like being called dangerous without any empirical evidence to back it up; no more than does Darryl Lynn want to be compared to an animal that is bred to fight/maim/kill. Meanwhile, it was announced this week the gangs of Chicago want to meet with President Trump, while Darryl Lynn continues his SJW crusade fueled by false narratives and racial diatribes. This what it feels like to be winning again… 14 days and counting.

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Piers Morgan: dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.



I was going do something on our out of control debt and the "looming" fiscal "cliff" but I was distracted reading this piece written by Piers Morgan of CNN published 12-29. The heading states he may deport himself if "America won't change its crazy gun laws". Now given such a heading filled with hyperbole you can expect the rest of his viewpoint will be littered with more attention whoring exaggerations and boy does he not disappoint. 

He starts out with his experience with guns. This, being a singular event, was a trip to
Prague where he and some friends shot targets for a few hours and he said afterwards that the experience "quite demonstrably guns are killing machines".
I find that rather meaningless. For I, have never owned or shot a gun at any point in my life. I grew up in a single parent house with my mother and three sisters. Hunting is something I have never done either. But I don't have to hunt nor own a gun or to even have shot one to know guns are killing machines. After all, I have watched thousands of movies and played call of duty until the wee hours of the night (I’m just sticking with the meme). 

After setting up his "experience" he then proceeds to name drop his relatives who are employed in
England with exposure to weapons as some type of twisted street cred:

"Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards."


I find this rather humorous. I have an Aunt & Uncle who both work in one of the biggest state universities in Pennsylvania in science. Both have their PHD's. I have three other Aunts who are teachers. I have a grandmother who retired with an MBA in accounting and a step father who has worked in a foundry for 35 years. I have a brother in law that is a barber. Do you know what i know about what they do?? Jack-shit. I would also find it disrespectful to assume that i know about what they do, in what, conversations over Sunday dinner at Nana & Papa's house? Please. 

 Mr Morgan demonstrates his arrogance and obvious agenda to make the world England when he uses the reasoning for owning the AR-15 Bushmaster (used in Newtown)  

"The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’."


When you see someone cite "One guy I interviewed" as backing you know to take that not with a grain of salt; but probably a quarry. Because the bullshit meter is broken. And if you say the "only apparent" reason "anyone" seems to offer up is 'fun' without any evidence, it just compounds the fact that you are basically making it up. What’s next, an "anonymous quote" from a “high ranking official” in the NRA doesn't “really like guns”? Wasn’t  'ol Piers an editor at a newspaper one time in England
Well, that doesn't surprise me. Have you ever read a newspaper from England? Look at the link for his piece; it’s plastered in 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense. Hard news does not exist over there. How do I know? The paper 'has ads for other story's'. It 'apparently' must be devoid of hard news because I cant find a paper in England that doesn't cater to 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense... see this subjective, make it up as see fit game can be fun and effective!

So, we have established Mr. Morgan's experience and his relatives with guns are bunk or meaningless to the discussion and probably just a cheap way to fill a word count commitment. We also know he has no reasons why people own guns, other than he says, they said: 'its fun'. So there is no opposite side in this piece with relative viewpoints, just his opinions.

Pictured in this article is a picture of a gun show. It also has statistics with gun sales exploding after these last few instances. It has a picture of a man at a gun show holding an AR-15. There is also the statistics that Americans own more guns per person than anywhere in the world outside of Yemen. Do you see the link? These gun sales are going to create more crime. But is that really true? 
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
  • a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
  • a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
  • family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%     

During the offense that brought those offenders to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

This whole piece written by Mr. Morgan is centered on the use of semi-automatic weapons. So we are talking about 2% of felons using these types of guns. Two must be the magic number because only 2% of felons using a gun - get said gun, at a flea market or gun show. Talk about living on the margins? Maybe Mr. Morgan should spend some time in Switzerland where households pack fully automatic rifles and experience less crime than England, where he says there are only 35 deaths per year due to handguns.

Which I find odd considering this article written in the Wall Street Journal the day after Christmas by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School - who has written several books on the subject including: "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" 

In this article Ms Joyce points out that: 

"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."

 

If that wasn't enough Mr. Morgan points to a recent Gallup poll showing that: "58 per cent of Americans now support new gun-control laws, up from 43 per cent in 2011" He then says "that's a big jump"? 
You think? Does he even understand that his network is one of many that help perpetuate these acts by these deranged nut jobs and fears of the public by sensationalizing them at every waking minute to push their filthy ads? Mr. Morgan even takes aim at video games and movies... does he have no culpability in this? No of course not, because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday. You make the news. You're God
Now allow me to weave this all together all nice and tight for you, using Mr. Morgan’s own words:


"This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding. It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom"


Americans don't hate British citizens or look at them with disdain nor reject them simply because of their birthrights. We do have a problem thou with someone from another country telling us how we should change our laws and be more like the country that we fought from our independence from some 200+ years ago. Americans had to use guns to fight off tyranny in the form of the British government. Now you supported using guns to fight tyranny before:


" I’m not a pacifist. Guns win necessary wars and defeat tyrannical regimes like the Nazis"


I find it ironic you do not see the British government circa 1770 a "tyrannical" government. We agree the Nazi regime was just that. This, being the same Nazi regime that took the US and her (gun loving) involvement to keep England from being bombed into oblivion? You know what they say about history don't you, Mr Morgan? If its written by the victors and while we know who won WW2 and the Revolutionary War; maybe you're in need of a history lesson, chap?

Now i saved the best for last:


"Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one. He should also significantly increase federal funding for mental health treatment for all Americans who need it."


Piers... lets scrap the history lesson, instead lets do a real quick American Civics primer. "He" is just a President, nothing more than a mouth piece for the corporate elite, like the guy before him and the guy before him and the guy after him and so on and so forth. We may elect lackeys and "yes men" but we don't elect Kings. Here all men are created equal; we don't value one person’s blood more than another.


You claim to "love" this country, despite the fact that it’s obvious you don't understand our financial situation as you are directing for "King Obama" to start "buy backs" and additional spending of revenue via mental health (has he not heard of Obama Care), when we are facing two trillion dollar deficits annually. You don't respect our history or even understand it. You want prisons sentences for people wanting to uphold their Bill of Rights. Your views are based on fringe ideas and failed data from
England, the country you left - to obviously pursue something better for you and your family. 


 Let me offer you some parting advice courtesy of one, Mahatma Gandhi:


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."(Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 Beacon Press paperback edition)