We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, November 28. 2015
Why do you never see gasoline taxes itemized on your receipt?
Who’s really protesting Walmart?
Barone: Be Thankful for Work
Taxation As A Severe Insult
Imagination Land and crime stats
Western Cattlemen Square Off Against 60,000 Mustangs
Feral horses, actually
Mead: Getting to the Next American Dream - Forward-thinking politicians need
Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time - Slower warming than predicted gives the world time to develop better energy technologies
Harsanyi: Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?
Should We Allow Syrian Refugees into America?- See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/should-we-allow-syrian-refugees-into-america/#sthash.llAg8nqM.dpuf
Paris Attacks Have Many in France Eager to Join the Fight
'I gave birth to a monster': Russian mother of ISIS poster girl chained her daughter up to try to stop her marrying jihadi
China Unveils Biggest Army Overhaul in Decades to Project Power
Tracked: Nov 29, 09:31
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I think you have the solution to the wild mustang problem in your links.
Send them to Switzerland.
"Imagination land and crime stats"
It i clear to me that what we have here is whites appropriating black culture. Blacks kill about 90% of the homicide victims, hispanics kill about 7% and whites kill about 3%. Clearly whites are appropriating black culture because it is apparent that it is black culture to kill people. We need a movement to stop this appropriation along the lines of 'black lives matter'. I'm thinking 'black felons matter' BFM. Or maybe 'black murderers matter' BMM. How about 'black thugs matter' BTM. Why not 'black ass stupid tards are ruining da states' BASTARDS.
Blacks kill about 90% of the homicide victims, hispanics kill about 7% and whites kill about 3%.
Not true. FBI: Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity 2013
White 31.1%The facts are bad enough. No point in exaggerating them.
I'm not sure why the data from different sources is so disparate. Most data in the U.S. is collected by race but for reasons that defy explanation the FBI data is quite inaccurate whereas other sources vary considerably.
For example: the youth homicide rate (per 100,000) between races in 2010:
Now isn't it interesting that there is no category for "unknown" as found in the FBI data...
Often the data lumps hispanics together with white, and again the race information is known but for whatever reason the various sources of the data introduce a confusion factor.
What is the real statistical breakdown? Well it depends on where you get your data. But when you take race and population into account blacks commit about 77-80% of homicides, hispanics 13-16%, Asians about 2-6% and whites about 3-6% and other around 2%. The other is typically American Indians who commit a very small percentage of actual murders but based on their population actually commit a lot of murders (the reservations are one of the most dangerous places in the U.S.).
Often the data is presented in a way that is mathematically correct but offensive to some groups so a different way is found to make the facts more presentable. In other cases the facts are so bad that the only answer is to hide the data and refuse to discuss it. For example black rape of white women is so high it could be called epidemic. Conversely white rape of black women is so rare it is almost unheard of. So if you go looking for the data you probably won't find it.
But regardless of where you get your data here is the take home point. Crimes committed in the U.S. by people of Northern European descent is lower than Canada and any country in Europe. Crimes committed in the U.S. by blacks is 10-100 times greater, by hispanics is 5-40 times greater. That is the point of comparing the statistics, i.e. that the facts/truth is so dramatic. That is what begs explanation not obfuscation. But the media, the feds and to a lesser extent almost every other reporting authority obfuscates the facts.
For example: the youth homicide rate (per 100,000) between races in 2010:I believe the links to your data come from Real Clear Politics: Youth Homicide Rates by Race in the U.S., which got its data from CDC: Homicide Rates Among Persons Aged 10–24 Years — United States, 1981–2010. Note: the data you quote is, according to RCP, for 2010 only, just as you said.
What is the real statistical breakdown? Well it depends on where you get your data. But when you take race and population into account blacks commit about 77-80% of homicides, hispanics 13-16%, Asians about 2-6% and whites about 3-6% and other around 2%.NO NO NO NO NO. NO NO NO. A thousand times NO. You are confusing murder RATES with murders. You are performing this calculation: 28.8/(28.8+7.9+2.1]= .744 [74%] That is NOT correct math. You need to multiply the rate X the proportion of population to get an overall rate.
Take the youth homicide RATES for 2010 which you correctly quoted. If you do "quick and dirty" estimates using 13% for percentages of blacks, 17% for percentages of hispanics, and 70 % for percentages of whites, you get an estimate that 57% of the murders committed by youths ages 10-24 were committed by blacks. Again, this is an ESTIMATE, as I haven't researched the precise percentages the CDC used.
However, this 57% estimate is in line with Wiki: Race and crime in the United States
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.Wiki got the 52% figure from Wiki footnote #33: "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008" Table 7. From the FBI data, black youths [10-24] committed 47% of murders by blacks; white youths committed 32% of murders committed by youths. Which would mean that black youths would commit a higher proportion of all youth murders than blacks commit of all murders. [See previous comment for FBI link].
Your point about the lack of consistency of the FBI and other data is well taken, but that is not the reason for your 77-80% figure- that comes from incorrect math. If you leave out the "unknown" in the FBI data, and deal simply with white and black murder offenders, you get the figure that 57% of murders committed by black and white offenders were committed by black offenders. Which is closer to the overall truth than the 38% figure the FBI gives.
Imagination Land and crime stats
Appropriate title considering the post is headed by imaginary crime statistics traced to a neo-Nazi.
This was pointed out to thezman, who accused the person of "Agenda commenting" and told him to take a hike.
He was indeed sloppy and needlessly dismissive of the poster. As the poster said, his point could just as easily been made with the real fbi stats.
Exactly. Zachriel gets this one right.
This is not uncommon over at zman. BD, I would request you not link to him. I stay away from the site, but your particular phrasing this morning caught me unawares.
neo-nazi! Who is the neo-Nazi and who determined that he was a neo-nazi? It isn't clear to me from your post who you are accusing of being a neo-nazi but based on the claim I will guess it is the SPLC who smeared the person in question. So who is it and do we have pictures of him making the Nazi salute?
He said, "We should have listed to the Austrian chap with the little mustache." His avatar was the modified swastika of the German Faith Movement.
He, who??? I'm stumped.
I would hope you have more substantial prrof of being a neo-nazi than "We should have listed to the Austrian chap with the little mustache."
What is the context? Is he trying to shock? did Herr Hitler say something that happened to be valid and he merely referenced that point?
I'm not sure why you are dancing around this.
It was linked in the original article.
Parenthetically, the website Little Green Footballs traced the original image back to a Twitter stream that appears to originate in the United Kingdom and features a modified swatiska with the line "Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little moustache."
But your link and your posts don't support your claim. All I'm asking is WHO are you claiming is a neo-Nazi. I am capable of looking it up myself to see if it is true or if it is just a smear. It is common by the left to smear those they disagree with by calling them names (neo-Nazi, rcist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc) just to shut them down. The left can't seem to present a real argument for most of what they espouse so they resort to shaming to stop the conversation.
So WHO is it that is a neo-nazi?
GoneWithTheWind: But your link and your posts don't support your claim.
Yes, it shows the origin of the image.
GoneWithTheWind: All I'm asking is WHO are you claiming is a neo-Nazi.
While the person's name is not know, what is known is that the origin of the graphic began with someone using a modified swastika as an avatar.
OMG. You don't know who the person is but you are OK with calling then a neo-Nazi ! Seriously !
GoneWithTheWind: OMG. You don't know who the person is but you are OK with calling then a neo-Nazi ! Seriously !
The person who posted the false statistics used an neo-Nazi symbol as an avatar, and also posted approvingly of Hitler. That's sufficient.
It isn't sufficient. It is probable reason to look deeper but it isn't conclusive enough to simply deem him to be a neo-Nazi. I don't know and I can't know because you can't tell me who it is. Yet to you he is absolutely a neo-Nazi. I sincerely hope you don't ever serve on a jury.
Taxation As A Severe Insult
So the writer rejects "No taxation without representation" in lieu of "No taxation without consent", which simply means no taxation.
Then he reveals his real complaint, which is that he has to get a permit to make substantial improvements to his home, as if future homeowners wouldn't be concerned with what is hidden in the walls of the structure, or how electrical devices are connected to the power system.
I believe under the constitution and consistent with our traditional beliefs taxes should be with our consent and certainly not opposed to our consent. But more to the point I think the fatal flaw in our tax laws are the exceptions. No person or group should be exempted from taxes and everyone should pay taxes. If we must have income taxes than everyone with income should pay it. If we must have property taxes than everyone with property must pay it. If we must have sales taxes than everyone who buys something must pay it. Why not???
Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time
Best estimates for climate sensitivity are about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2, with a high tail. Planning for the best, while ignoring the worst, is not a prescription for good policy.
Should We Allow Syrian Refugees into America? ... Reasonable people, as the old saying goes, may disagree.
Goldberg is being disingenuous. The intent is to stop Syrian refugees from entering the country, and the certification requirements in the legislation will do essentially that. Meanwhile, leading contenders in the Republican Party nomination context have repeatedly made xenophobic statements.
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
So is this fear irrational or logical? From my point of view the question should be do we need immigrants be they muslim, chinese, mexican or Swedish? We are one of the most populous countries in the world and our large population exacerbates most of our fiscal and political problems. So why allow any immigration? Our government spends billions and billions and billions of dollars on these immigrants. They get all the welfare and additional direct payments of cash AND we pay organizations to help them immigrate. WHY??? I'm thinking that rather than calling people opposed to muslim immigrants xenophobic a better descriptive term would be incredibly smart. Conversely those who are in favor of more muslim immigrants are incredibly stupid.
GoneWithTheWind: So why allow any immigration?
With regards to Syrian refugees, the reason is humanitarian.
That makes no sense. There has to be another reason. Think about this logically: There are millions of Syrian refugees and you are trying to convince me that bringing in 10,000 of them at a cost of billions a year is the humanitarian solution??? What about the rest of them? Wouldn't it make more sense to help them in place with that money and save them all? Duh! No! There has to be some other reason to squander enough money to solve the problem by bring the problem here.
I vote we solve the problem right there where they are (the Middle East) and allow them to stay in their homeland. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to drag me to Syria to "save me" when for half the money it would cost they could save everyone and leave them in their homelands.
There are about 2-3 billion people in this world who survive on less than $2 a day. Many of them are unhealthy, die young and suffer their entire life. Why not bring them all here in the name of your humanitarian belief system and tax us to pay to feed them and house them? Would it make any sense at all? Well why not bring just a few hundred thousand of them and the hell with the rest and we could still pat ourselves on the back for being great humanitarians? Right? Is that what it's all about soothing your conscience? You are putting American lives at risk and bankrupting our government so you can feel good about yourself?!? WORSE you are ignoring a solution that would actually help these people. This is stupid.
GoneWithTheWind: There are millions of Syrian refugees and you are trying to convince me that bringing in 10,000 of them at a cost of billions a year is the humanitarian solution???
Neighboring countries have taken in millions of refugees. Europe is also taking in thousands of refugees. The U.S. contribution is minimal, but important in terms of leadership.
But still it makes more sense to supply food, shelter and protection near their home, rather than bringing some of them here.
BTW some of the Paris crowd were travelling on forged Syrian passports. Fooled the Europeans, but I'm sure the administration has found a way around that....
jay: I believe under the constitution and consistent with our traditional beliefs taxes should be with our consent and certainly not opposed to our consent.
Sure. Didn't you read? Neighboring countries have taken in millions of refugees. Europe is also taking in thousands of refugees. The U.S. contribution is minimal, but important in terms of leadership.
Every country that has taken in these "Syrian" refugees WILL have serious trouble. That is their citizens (you know, the ones the government was supposed to protect) will be killed and maimed by these 'refugees'. Every country without exception!! AND some of these countries will experience revolt or civil war as the population suffers, the government fails them and they are forced to seek self help for this problem. What is happening to Germany France, Sweden, England, etc. is a crime. I would be happy to see the population execute some of these government officials who stabbed their own citizens in the back. I am quite serious, I simply cannot imagine the anger a father of a girl in England who was raped by one of the muslim rape gangs. What I do not understand is why no retribution. If my government allowed such a thing and covered it up I would personally send the rapist off to his great reward in the sky. These politicians behind this treason are playing with fire. There will be hell to pay down the road.
GoneWithTheWind: I would be happy to see the population execute some of these government officials who stabbed their own citizens in the back.
And when you are done killing the elected officials. Who would be next?
THAT is exactly the problem. Merkel and Hollande and other leaders have created a situation where people will die and the anger will get out of hand. This was a terrible mistake and I'm glad you are starting to realize the significance of it. Once this becomes open revolt in the streets there is no way to know where it will go or how bad it will get.
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly? ... Islam is a religion and a political philosophy. And it is distinct from other religions and political philosophies.
Islam is not a centralized religion, and there are actually many different beliefs within Islam concerning both religion and politics.
Muslim might hold moderate views or he might hold extreme ones.
Yet this is exactly the formulation many on the Left demand.
Strawman. What most on the left decry is the overgeneralization that lumps the vast majority of Muslims with extremists.
It’s hardly un-American to believe that the foundational values of your society are preferable to the ones that make Yemen or Iran or Pakistan possible.
The Islamic world is highly diverse, including majority Muslim countries from Indonesia to Turkey to Morocco.
Islam is not the same as Catholicism or Judaism
A common fear on the political right was that Jews and Catholics were existentially undermining society; Catholics took orders from a foreign prince, while the assimilation of Jews was for nefarious purpose.
'A common fear on the political right was that Jews and Catholics were existentially undermining society'
I doubt that you can prove that it was 'common' and that those on the left never held a similar opinion. Sounds more like an unfounded smear for political reasons which is common from the left.
GoneWithTheWind: I doubt that you can prove that it was 'common' and that those on the left never held a similar opinion.
There was plenty of antisemitism on the political left, as well, but it was a primary motivating force on the political right, especially the far right, such as the KKK. Even among less extreme members of the right, the New Deal was often called the "Jew Deal". Also, check out the radio preacher, Charles Coughlin.
re "especially the far right, such as the KKK."
LOL. The KKK was founded by southern Democrats Zach. How does that make them 'far right'?
By association that would have made the late Senator Byrd a 'right wing extremist'. Who knew? You sure couldn't tell it from his political agenda.
Like adultery, gambling, and alcoholism, racism knows no particular political party, but I would argue racism is more prevalent on the Left than it is on the Right, in part because our side is bludgeoned with racist accusations at the drop of a hat while your side gets a pass.
feeblemind: The KKK was founded by southern Democrats
That's right. The South was on the political right for generations. That's how they were seen at the time, and the way they are seen by historians today.
The left doesn't know it's right from it's left. They have always blamed the bad things in the world on the right or the far right. They are clueless. Dan Rather used to refer to the hard line communists in Russia as the hard right!! He seemed clueless that communism is left wing and that strict communism is hard left. Hitler was a leftist. Mussolini was a leftist. Castro was a leftist. Hugo Chavez was a leftist. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Bernie Sanders are leftists. Winston Churchill was on the right. Are you seeing a pattern here?
"The Southerners were on the political right"
More rewriting history.
100% of Southern democrats voted against the 13th amendment and 100% of Republicans voted for it.
100 % of all Democrats voted against the 14th amendment and 94% of republicans voted for it.
100% of democrats voted against the 15th amendment and 100% of Republicans voted for it.
Was all that a ploy by Southern Democrats to make believe they were not right wing???
GoneWithTheWind: They have always blamed the bad things in the world on the right or the far right.
No. Historically, there's been bad things coming from the left and from the right.
GoneWithTheWind: Mussolini was a leftist.
Not according to Mussolini.
GoneWithTheWind: 100% of Southern democrats voted against the 13th amendment and 100% of Republicans voted for it.
At that point in history, Southern democrats were politically conservative.
Mussolini was a fascist. Fascism was a variation of socialism (just as communism is a variation of socialism). Socialism is a left of center philosophy. The left has worked overtime since the second world war to rebrand fascism as right wing but it is not. It is socialism by force (as is communism) without the state 'owning' the means or production. They didn't own them they controlled them by bureaucratic regulations and controls.
"At that point in history, Southern democrats were politically conservative."
Which really means that the left no longer wants to associate themselves with the old South so they rewrote history and declared them all to be conservatives. Yet the Democrats in the old South all voted as a block and always opposed the Republicans. Frankly if I were a Democrat/liberal I would be embarrassed and ashamed to try to claim all those Southern Democrats were for all those years in fact conservatives. The lie is so transparent that it makes you look a fool.
GoneWithTheWind: Mussolini was a fascist.
Mussolini was generally considered to be on the political right at the time, and by historians since. Even Mussolini thought he was on the political right.
Benito Mussolini: Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.
The only difference between Mussolini and Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton philosophically is Mussolini openly advocated using force to create his Marxist/Fascist nirvana. It is a leftest/liberal philosophy the antithesis of the right/conservative philosophy.
Regarding 'historians' declaring Mussolini to be right wing it is exactly what I described; the left purging and denying their history. I don't blame them. I'm sure that years from now after everyone realizes that BLM is a racist Marxist group that has drafted thousands of useful idiots to do harm to our country that the leftist 'historians' will declare that they were actually right wing activists.
That's right. The South was on the political right for generations. That's how they were seen at the time, and the way they are seen by historians today.
The South voted overwhelmingly for FDR. Consider the % of the vote FDR got in the following states in 1936:
Mississippi 97.1 %
In the 11 states that once comprised the Confederacy, FDR got the following percentages of the vote.
1944 71.6 %
In the South, FDR ran about 20% above the percentage of the vote he got nationwide. FDR must have been a right winger to attract so many votes in the right wing South.
Let's not forget that progressives are the left now a days. Hillary claimed to be an early 20th Century Progressive and who was a bigger progressive in the early 20th Century than Woodrow Wilson, the racist?
Gringo: The South voted overwhelmingly for FDR.
As with GoneWithTheWind, you seem to be conflating the political left with the Democratic Party. The South had given their overwhelming support to the Democratic Party after the Civil War in return for the end of Reconstruction. The Democratic Party at the time of FDR was a coalition of progressives, union labor, and Southern whites. Republicans also had conservative and liberal wings. After the Civil Rights Movement, Southern whites began a generational movement to the Republican Party. Today, the parties are very much polarized, but that is a relatively modern phenomenon.
As with GoneWithTheWind, you seem to be conflating the political left with the Democratic Party.
The problem here is that the South by and large liked Roosevelt's big government policies. Does TVA ring a bell with you? George Wallace did not govern Alabama as a limited-government proponent, but as a New Deal Democrat. Alabama's community colleges were established under his governance.
I am reminded of the stories of two women I knew who were born in the 19th century. Both were of similar economic background- owners of quarter section family farms- though one was also a teacher. The woman in the Midwest was against racial segregation and also against FDR. Years after FDR died, her grandson could pull her chain by simply mentioning the word Roosevelt. A rant about "That man Roosevelt" ensued. The woman in the Southwest was vehemently against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but was also very much in favor of FDR. Rural electrification was at least one thing she mentioned.
Your conflating "left wing" and not racist and "right wing" and racist glazes over the facts. It ain't that simple. Recall that most New Deal programs were racially segregated in the south. Racists can be found on all sides of the political spectrum.
After the Civil Rights Movement, Southern whites began a generational movement to the Republican Party.
Yes, that is the lib narrative, but it is a narrative that does not fit the facts. The movement of Southern whites towards the Republicans did not begin after the Civil Rights Movement, but well before the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and before the Supreme Court decided Brown versus Board of Education in 1954. When FDR ran for President, the Republican candidate for President averaged 21% of the vote in the South. In 1952, the South voted 48% for Eisenhower. l suggest you consult The Myth of the Racist Republicans.
Gringo: George Wallace did not govern Alabama as a limited-government proponent, but as a New Deal Democrat.
George Wallace on passage of the Civil Rights Act: With this assassin's knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage. Bondage to a tyranny more brutal than that imposed by the British monarchy which claimed power to rule over the lives of our forefathers under sanction of the Divine Right of kings.
Wallace was opposed to "left-wing liberals" who passed the Civil Rights Act. That would include Republicans, as well as many Democrats. It clearly didn't include Southern Democrats who almost universally opposed the bill.
I stand by my statement. Recall that New Deal programs in the South were segregated. New Deal Democrat, indeed.
Also, check out the radio preacher, Charles Coughlin.
IIRC, Father Coughlin was a former FDR supporter. Wikipedia confirms my memory.
Early in his radio career, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. By 1934 he became a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor.I fail to see how someone who calls for nationalization of industries and railroads is a right-winger.
Certainly not a free-enterprise supporter.
Gringo: Certainly not a free-enterprise supporter.
Coughlin is often described as being on the economic left, but nativist right.
Coughlin is often described as being on the economic left, but nativist right.
That might be a description of Woodrow Wilson, the paragon of Progressive policies. You know, the man who segregated federal government offices.
One problem with calling Father Coughlin a member of the "nativist right" is that the "nativist right" was anti-Catholic. Check out the KKK in the 1920s- anti-Catholic and anti-black. And doncha' know, Father Couglin was a Catholic, and a Catholic priest at that. In fact, Father Coughlin began his radio broadcasts in reply to KKK cross-burnings.
And yet everyone, then and since, considered Wallace to be a conservative Democrat, and those who supported the Civil Rights legislation to be liberals.
Nothing you have written has successfully contradicted my statement that George Wallace governed Alabama as a New Deal Democrat. Let us hear what Jesse Owens had to say about FDR, the ORIGINAL NEW DEAL DEMOCRAT.
When I came back to my native country, after all the stories about Hitler, I couldn’t ride in the front of the bus. I had to go to the back door. I couldn’t live where I wanted. I wasn’t invited to shake hands with Hitler, but I wasn’t invited to the White House to shake hands with the President, either. Hitler didn’t snub me – it was Roosevelt who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”So was George Wallace a New Deal Democrat? Yes, indeed. At least George Wallace later apologized for his segregationist stance. FDR never apologized for snubbing Jesse Owens.
Gringo: So was George Wallace a New Deal Democrat?
Wallace's career post-dates the New Deal period. There's no way to read Wallace's statement above and make sense of it by claiming he is a liberal leftist.
I gave birth to a monster
Real human nature surprises people who live in delusions.