The very idea is absurd, especially when considering that the phonies who shout "racism" themselves define racism as not a mere attitude, but as using power to suppress and control people.
The following is from Robert Wanek Reports: The 5 Biggest Myths About Ron Paul
To understand modern day racism one must consider the Drug War. Obama expanded it and Ron Paul decries it. It’s the most stereotypical racist bigoted war Obama has continued. Out of all non violent marijuana crimes 64% of imprisonments are inner city blacks, and it’s not the result of a massively lopsided number in black arrests. Ron Paul is a strict libertarian, consistently following a political ideology that staunchly opposes racial inequality, and rejects such collectivism. Paul doesn’t separate people into factions or groups he sees the individual as a sovereign citizen protected by inalienable rights. If the media is going to try to discredit Ron Paul I suggest they at least have some dignity, they offer zero education on the legitimacy of his stand pertaining to the War on Drugs. They offer no coverage to the countless times the congressman has publicly took a stand for African American rights and slammed the racial unfairness in drug cases. Research the man’s career, he’s the closest resemblance to MLK on the issue of civil liberties that this nation has. Ron Paul has been a constant critic of the ongoing Drug War and the actions being taken by the P.O.T.U.S.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Ron Paul: I Am The Anti-Racist
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals.” ~ Ron Paul
Friday, December 30, 2011
Post of the Moment: How to Prove Bigotry
If I wanted to prove Ron Paul is a bigot, I'd work hard at finding a person who could testify honestly to the bigoted ways in which Ron Paul treated him or her.
And if I was unable to find such a person, then I would have two choices.
I could conclude that Ron Paul isn't a bigot.
Or I could hold fast to my prejudice against Ron Paul, and look for ways to assassinate his character by such devices as guilt-by-association.
Guilt-by-association is one of the weapons used by people who have little to no evidence of personal guilt on the part of the accused. Without evidence of the accused's malicious or otherwise wrongful acts or intent, the accuser is left with character assassination in service of the proof burden.
...
...the tactics used by a canvasser or "outreach" person on behalf of any Congresscritter are not conclusive evidence that the Critter clearly endorses the tactics or language used.
At most they are evidence that the Critter hired and used a person who employs such tactics or language.
And I don't think anyone who's run a business, or has held a supervisory role in an organization, would rush to agree that every employee or underling is without exception a mere conduit of the business owner or supervisor.
I'll break that down more simply:
In a team sport such as American Soccer (elsewhere on Earth = "football"), when a player fouls an opponent and earns a yellow card, is it fair to assume that player's coach instructed the foul, ordered its occurrence, mandated its execution?
Or is it more fair to recognize independent agency on the foul-committing player's part?
Think about that one before you go assuming Ron Paul is a "bigot" or "racist" by dint of what an outreach person did.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thugs, guns, and racism
Skeptical Eye, the title of the blog, at first blush it brings visions of debate, curiosity, and a deeper questioning of the accepted and promoted thoughts and reactions of the general populous.
What is more deserving of skepticism than the propaganda of the established media conglomerates and the oligarchy controlled government itself. Many of course do not understand this letting apathy and even narcissism give them a security blanket from whence to lash out in irrational an illogical patterns far too common today. One of the issues is a particular tool, a very dangerous tool, a machine actually called the firearm for the uninformed that is commonly called a “gun."
Before we get into the story that prompted the title we can review a short video clip.
I guess you can always pick the wrong house... run thugs, run! (I digress)
Crime and Self-Defense:
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
And of course one item worth noting for its misuse in established media propaganda.
"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.”
This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.
What is more deserving of skepticism than the propaganda of the established media conglomerates and the oligarchy controlled government itself. Many of course do not understand this letting apathy and even narcissism give them a security blanket from whence to lash out in irrational an illogical patterns far too common today. One of the issues is a particular tool, a very dangerous tool, a machine actually called the firearm for the uninformed that is commonly called a “gun."
Before we get into the story that prompted the title we can review a short video clip.
I guess you can always pick the wrong house... run thugs, run! (I digress)
Crime and Self-Defense:
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
And of course one item worth noting for its misuse in established media propaganda.
"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.”
This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.
This study does have a few flaws:
Ownership is not a random decision, homicide victims may well possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized, live in an area considered dangerous or crime ridden, or have received direct threats.
Often cited that states with high firearm homicide numbers prove that the prevalence of guns is the deciding factor often fail to cite that many states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest firearm homicide numbers. Poverty, education, and issues (including politically incorrect facts) show stronger correlation to violent crime numbers.
The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).)
What I find most interesting as of late is the irrational and illogical equating of deaths by accident (negligent discharge) and the deliberate use of a firearm to prevent a crime and somehow the restraint of the typical victim does not count because most criminals are not killed in the process of a victim defending themselves.
In the end no reason, no statistics, and no emotional projection can change the fact that the firearm is a dangerous tool, legal adult ownership of any firearm comes with great responsibility, freedom is not and never has been safe and firearms remain deadly tools.
On to our subject - thugs, guns, and racism, and yes I am using the word thug, where you see that the insertion is mine...
The victim:
The Denver DA drags man into system drains his money and spits him out when nothing is found (standard for Denver except for the wild police that are out of control) The local media and ethnic communities join together and use racism and deliberate exposure to drive out a good individual that wanted none of the trouble.
The established media:
The typically liberal media of Denver whines about a thug killed in a robbery attempt and promotes interviews with tearful relatives.
It starts with the title - Make My Day Shooter: ‘I Did The Right Thing’
The genuflection to the criminal and his family is sickening.
The robbery:
The second round hit Duran in the head. The two other teens fled (now in jail for related robberies). Also be aware the rounds fired from the victim’s revolver are shot-shells and a single round will fire multiple projectiles (from 3 to 50 depending on size of the shot).
The toxicology report for Marcus Duran (Thug) shows the teen tested positive for alcohol, opiates and THC- the active ingredient in marijuana.
You should see some of the comments both pro and con. Look Phyllis your godson entered two homes that night with intent on criminal activity. Duran was armed and he fell under a second round fired so in effect a “warning shot” was fired first as the victim missed with the first shot-shell fired. Duran raised his pistol (an illegal pistol BTW, and illegal for him, a minor, to posses - so much for gun control) and the homeowner/victim was forced to kill this criminal.
In the end this is simple - break into a home at 2 am in the morning and you have a gun with you you then threaten someone with, you have written your own death warrant, I have no sympathy for a stupidity, excuses, or age, the world is better now that a criminal’s career was cut off permanently.
Ownership is not a random decision, homicide victims may well possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized, live in an area considered dangerous or crime ridden, or have received direct threats.
Often cited that states with high firearm homicide numbers prove that the prevalence of guns is the deciding factor often fail to cite that many states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest firearm homicide numbers. Poverty, education, and issues (including politically incorrect facts) show stronger correlation to violent crime numbers.
The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).)
What I find most interesting as of late is the irrational and illogical equating of deaths by accident (negligent discharge) and the deliberate use of a firearm to prevent a crime and somehow the restraint of the typical victim does not count because most criminals are not killed in the process of a victim defending themselves.
In the end no reason, no statistics, and no emotional projection can change the fact that the firearm is a dangerous tool, legal adult ownership of any firearm comes with great responsibility, freedom is not and never has been safe and firearms remain deadly tools.
On to our subject - thugs, guns, and racism, and yes I am using the word thug, where you see that the insertion is mine...
The victim:
The Denver DA drags man into system drains his money and spits him out when nothing is found (standard for Denver except for the wild police that are out of control) The local media and ethnic communities join together and use racism and deliberate exposure to drive out a good individual that wanted none of the trouble.
The established media:
The typically liberal media of Denver whines about a thug killed in a robbery attempt and promotes interviews with tearful relatives.
It starts with the title - Make My Day Shooter: ‘I Did The Right Thing’
The genuflection to the criminal and his family is sickening.
The robbery:
“I’m yelling ‘Who’s in my house? Who’s in my house?’ I was scared,” said Kutchin (homeowner victim).
Suddenly, the three teens came running down from the second floor. Marcus Duran (Thug) was carrying a loaded pistol. As he neared the front door, about five feet away from Kutchin, Duran brandished the loaded gun and aimed it at the homeowner. Duran (Thug) was still inside Kutchin’s home.
“And I just reacted in a defensive stance and took a shot,” said Kutchin.
The round missed its target. Kutchin said he could see Duran’s pistol.
“I saw a gun pointed at me and I shot,” said Kutchin.
The second round hit Duran in the head. The two other teens fled (now in jail for related robberies). Also be aware the rounds fired from the victim’s revolver are shot-shells and a single round will fire multiple projectiles (from 3 to 50 depending on size of the shot).
The toxicology report for Marcus Duran (Thug) shows the teen tested positive for alcohol, opiates and THC- the active ingredient in marijuana.
“My Godson did wrong, but he didn’t deserve to die,” said Phyllis Chavez, Duran’s godmother.
“I don’t think it was fair the way he(Kutchin) shot freely. Do it in the air. Why was he aiming at them if they are running away? That’s the part I don’t understand,” said Chavez.
It is not the fault of the victim that your relative was a criminal, you would rather he be in prison or free after he killed this homeowner? (somehow I bet that is the case.)
Kutchin said beyond the anguish over what happened, he has spent $5,000 on attorneys fees, another $1,000 on his insurance deductible and countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel.
Kutchin said beyond the anguish over what happened, he has spent $5,000 on attorneys fees, another $1,000 on his insurance deductible and countless hours dealing with police, prosecutors and court personnel.
The Denver District Attorney’s office cleared Kutchin of any criminal wrongdoing, ruling his actions were justified under Colorado law. But that is not the end of the story.
In the end the homeowner is driven out of his own home by racist hispanics more interested in lauding a teen criminal than facing the reality of the case. I can assure you that if anything had been wrong or if Denver had been able to plant evidence, or force a wrongful prosecution you better believe that the DA in this area would have sacrificed the homeowner for political gain, clearly he was not able to railroad this individual.
Channel 31/Channel 2 crew members visited the house in question. They found the 3150 Gaylord Street residence boarded up, and neighbors told them the owner had left after reportedly receiving threats.The racism:
In the end the homeowner is driven out of his own home by racist hispanics more interested in lauding a teen criminal than facing the reality of the case. I can assure you that if anything had been wrong or if Denver had been able to plant evidence, or force a wrongful prosecution you better believe that the DA in this area would have sacrificed the homeowner for political gain, clearly he was not able to railroad this individual.
Some additions:
Armed self defense works
Whining morons bitch about a criminal lost, "Make My Day" case or unjustifiable homicide?
Armed self defense works
As I’ve noted before, criminals often work in groups, using superior numbers to overwhelm their victims. When that happens, even the strongest unarmed victims can be overpowered by the numerically superior criminals.
Whining morons bitch about a criminal lost, "Make My Day" case or unjustifiable homicide?
In the end this is simple - break into a home at 2 am in the morning and you have a gun with you you then threaten someone with, you have written your own death warrant, I have no sympathy for a stupidity, excuses, or age, the world is better now that a criminal’s career was cut off permanently.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Regulating Equality
When I worked at a company as an in-house software developer, I heard that we had been visited by workers for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This was largely because the company I worked for wanted to expand into government agencies. It didn’t work out, for whatever reason, and I know it didn’t because I don’t think I have a security clearance that I’ve applied for twice.
In any case, they did hassle the software department about not having women during the whole process. Basically, because our department lacked women, we weren’t a diverse enough group. The department head was from Nepal, and my co-workers consisted a handicapped Indian, a handicapped Ethiopian, a Spaniard, a Korean, and one other white person besides myself. Given the ethnic make-up of our department, you’d think these do-gooders would have realized that we had about as diverse a department as possible. Besides, when I graduated from Virginia Tech with a Computer Science degree, there were maybe two women out of a graduating class of a few hundred.
The problem was that the EEOC officials were using the general population rather than the statistics of the profession, which probably would have more accurate. Truth be told, there a many more non-white software developers these days than white ones. And my current company has plenty of women working as software developers, although many of them are having children these days so it’s only a matter of time before a good number of them decide to stay at home. Still, the number of female software developers is much less than the number of male software developers. Most women just aren’t wired to mindlessly stare at code all day.
Regulating discrimination is probably one of the most useless services the Federal government provides. When you consider the implications of dealing with racist or sexist employers, why would you want the government to force such a person to hire you? Do you honestly think this person would treat you well at work? Do you think you would get the raises you deserve, the bonuses you deserve, or the promotions you deserve by simply working hard and respecting that person? A racist/sexist employer is going to hate you because he or she will always remember that time when you force him or her to hire you with the force of government.
A better option would be to expose this employer and let the job market play out. The dirty secret is that most white males are not racist or sexist and we tend to go out of our way to prove it. If we found out that an employer was racist or sexist and freely admitted it, very few of us would apply for a job there.
Matters of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, wine preference, religion, political preference, and color preference are not the business of State because the State will find the most egregious solution possible and implement. Just about every social ill that has been handled by the government has not been resolved by the government. In fact, most discrimination issues began with the government. Segregation was imposed in most areas by local and state governments. Most businesses tend to only see the color green, even if they have certain racial prejudices.
The sad fact is, most social issues are really not the State’s business because they start with the individual. It is the individual’s choice that matters in these cases and it goes out from the there. The State tends to group individuals based on certain characteristics because that is much easier and economical than dealing with each person individually.
As long as we continue to view each other is terms of groups rather than as individuals, we will only be playing the government’s game. And like a casino, the house always wins in this game.
Friday, July 23, 2010
When you have no arguments, you shout "racist!"
People who believe in the Constitution as it was written (and not how it's been interpreted by the black-robed tyrants (judges, in the vernacular) are racists. See the clever cartoon by the funny "liberal" below:
I'm really getting tired of anybody and everybody thinking they can throw around that word and thereby smear anyone they disagree with...but the word "racism" has been so stretched out of all recognition by the color-conscious "liberals" that apparently even some in the Tea Party think they can get away with it.
I'm really getting tired of anybody and everybody thinking they can throw around that word and thereby smear anyone they disagree with...but the word "racism" has been so stretched out of all recognition by the color-conscious "liberals" that apparently even some in the Tea Party think they can get away with it.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
NAACP Is Racist
Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams fired an unexpected response to a challenge from CNN contributor Roland Martin.
Asked to tell racists "you're not welcome" in the tea party, Williams replied, "Racists have their own movement. It's called the NAACP."-Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Spokesman: NAACP Is Racist
Don't you dare call the REAL racists, racists, Mark! That's not allowed. The NAACP, however, can go around calling an innocent greeting card racist without the major state-run mainstream media getting excited about it.
Asked to tell racists "you're not welcome" in the tea party, Williams replied, "Racists have their own movement. It's called the NAACP."-Mark Williams, Tea Party Express Spokesman: NAACP Is Racist
Don't you dare call the REAL racists, racists, Mark! That's not allowed. The NAACP, however, can go around calling an innocent greeting card racist without the major state-run mainstream media getting excited about it.
Monday, July 12, 2010
NAACP Calls Tea Party Movement Racist
The news that those real racists at the NAACP are condemning the Tea parties as racist (they may say it's only certain elements within the movement that are racist, but any intelligent person knows that the whole movement is anathema to such government-loving bozos) isn't a surprise, but you would think there'd have been an official statement of such hatred for genuine anti-big government patriots before now. It's not like the tea parties came into being a month ago.
So, the article says the NAACP is proposing to condemn racism within the TPM (Tea Party Movement) but the portion of the actual resolution that is quoted says "the racism of the Tea Parties" certainly implying the very TPM itself deserves the label, not just a few people that attend rallies. You'll notice as well the call to "all people of goodwill" to join in the "repudiation", which I guess means if you refuse to fall in line with the far-left NAACP, you are not of good will, or a racist yourself.
I especially like the part about a drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era. What the NAACP racists really mean is back to an era of small (or at least much smaller than today) government. How horrible it would be indeed to have the Federal Government out of our lives on questions of race (and a whole lot of other things), and to leave the bureaucrats at the "Equal" Employment Opportunity Commission (and many other agencies) without jobs.
The attack by these statist big government shills is all part of a campaign by the elites to discredit one of the few mass movements that oppose the status quo. As such it's a total disgrace, and if any organization should be condemned, it's the NAACP itself.
The NAACP is irrelevant in a period of pending system collapse, while the Tea Party Movement is a true movement of its time.
The NAACP just looks ridiculous and desperate, just like it did when it also condemned Hallmark Cards recently.
Of course, maybe the NAACP does have a point this time. I mean, we've got a "black" president, and the TPM is anti-Obama if it's anything at all. To oppose the Black Messiah has got to make you a racist by definition, but throw in opposition to taxes (how would the oppressed classes get their welfare checks, and the bureaucrats have the money to continue their harassment of the private sector, without the Federal Government's stealing from the productive citizen's paychecks) and it's an airtight case!
The Tea Party Movement hates African-Americans! Now shut up while the regime in Washington, D.C. continues to spend us into ruin. I'm sure all people of good will can agree with that.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will propose a resolution this week condemning racism within the tea party movement.
The resolution, scheduled for a vote as early as Tuesday by delegates attending the annual NAACP convention in Kansas City, calls upon "all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/12/97320/naacp-considering-resolution-against.html#ixzz0tVYmTLoA
So, the article says the NAACP is proposing to condemn racism within the TPM (Tea Party Movement) but the portion of the actual resolution that is quoted says "the racism of the Tea Parties" certainly implying the very TPM itself deserves the label, not just a few people that attend rallies. You'll notice as well the call to "all people of goodwill" to join in the "repudiation", which I guess means if you refuse to fall in line with the far-left NAACP, you are not of good will, or a racist yourself.
I especially like the part about a drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era. What the NAACP racists really mean is back to an era of small (or at least much smaller than today) government. How horrible it would be indeed to have the Federal Government out of our lives on questions of race (and a whole lot of other things), and to leave the bureaucrats at the "Equal" Employment Opportunity Commission (and many other agencies) without jobs.
The attack by these statist big government shills is all part of a campaign by the elites to discredit one of the few mass movements that oppose the status quo. As such it's a total disgrace, and if any organization should be condemned, it's the NAACP itself.
The NAACP is irrelevant in a period of pending system collapse, while the Tea Party Movement is a true movement of its time.
The NAACP just looks ridiculous and desperate, just like it did when it also condemned Hallmark Cards recently.
Of course, maybe the NAACP does have a point this time. I mean, we've got a "black" president, and the TPM is anti-Obama if it's anything at all. To oppose the Black Messiah has got to make you a racist by definition, but throw in opposition to taxes (how would the oppressed classes get their welfare checks, and the bureaucrats have the money to continue their harassment of the private sector, without the Federal Government's stealing from the productive citizen's paychecks) and it's an airtight case!
The Tea Party Movement hates African-Americans! Now shut up while the regime in Washington, D.C. continues to spend us into ruin. I'm sure all people of good will can agree with that.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Should You Only Go To A White Doctor?
Possibly, or maybe an Asian doctor.
Medical School Acceptance Rates, 2007-2009
Thanks, "liberals", for making people look like racists when they have doubts about minority doctors, when in fact, due to affirmative action's reverse racism, those doubts may be justified.
...for applicants with an MCAT score between 24-26 and a GPA between 3.00 and 3.19, only 1 out of every 25 Asian applicants was accepted, compared to about one out of every 11 white applicants, one of out every three Hispanics, and more than half of black applicants with those same credentials.
Thanks, "liberals", for making people look like racists when they have doubts about minority doctors, when in fact, due to affirmative action's reverse racism, those doubts may be justified.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Black Holes or Black Whores?
So, this greeting card, says Hallmark, has been out for three years, and before now has never received a complaint. But never fear, the race police are on the job, protecting poor black folk from hidden racism that no one but they can discover!
No, I promise, this is not a video by The Onion, though it easily could be, if, that is, "liberals" weren't already such parodies of themselves.
Hallmark, unfortunately, instead of standing their ground, caved like nearly every other corporation does when confronted with a false charge of "racism". Then again, companies have to be always looking over their shoulders for government parasites watching every aspect of their businesses for violations of Federal "discrimination" and "civil rights" laws, so perhaps it's understandable that they err on the side of caution. Also, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could always call for a boycott, and no company wants that either.
This also reminds me of the recent black Barbie Walmart incident. And I'm still wondering when the NAACP is going to change their racist "colored people" name.
h/t WC Varones
No, I promise, this is not a video by The Onion, though it easily could be, if, that is, "liberals" weren't already such parodies of themselves.
Hallmark, unfortunately, instead of standing their ground, caved like nearly every other corporation does when confronted with a false charge of "racism". Then again, companies have to be always looking over their shoulders for government parasites watching every aspect of their businesses for violations of Federal "discrimination" and "civil rights" laws, so perhaps it's understandable that they err on the side of caution. Also, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could always call for a boycott, and no company wants that either.
This also reminds me of the recent black Barbie Walmart incident. And I'm still wondering when the NAACP is going to change their racist "colored people" name.
h/t WC Varones
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
John Stossel defends Rand Paul against the thought police
Here. What is so sad is that so many pushovers are so terrified of being called a "racist" that they're willing to bow before the thuggish PC left and say that racism should be criminalized.
As a radical libertarian, I will gladly defend the rights (though not the beliefs) of racists, holocaust deniers, Islamic extremists, Maoists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and every other unsavory group that causes our milquetoast friends to give up on free speech and free association.
The true litmus test of freedom is whether you're able to tolerate people who don't think or behave the way you want them to.
As a radical libertarian, I will gladly defend the rights (though not the beliefs) of racists, holocaust deniers, Islamic extremists, Maoists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and every other unsavory group that causes our milquetoast friends to give up on free speech and free association.
The true litmus test of freedom is whether you're able to tolerate people who don't think or behave the way you want them to.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Barbie and the Meat Thermometer Stabber
Two stories over the past few days have inspired this post. The black Barbie Walmart story is the funnier of the two, a near parody of the politically correct mindset. The story of Walmart's run-in with the "racism" police could have come right out of the pages of The Onion.
So a Walmart store put some black Barbies on clearance sale, for $3.00, about half what the white Barbies right next to them were selling for. A Walmart spokeswoman gave the sensible answer that "Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing". But, according to Thelma Dye ("executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development") this is "devaluing the black doll". It's racism, folks! Can't you see it? Walmart hates black people (uh, no, I mean devalues black people).
But maybe, if we're looking for insane, delusional explanations for why Walmart lowers the price on a certain item, maybe this means that Walmart values their black costumers MORE than their white customers. Think about it. Walmart wants to save black people more money than they want to save white people. A clear case of reverse discrimination. Get ready for a white people class action lawsuit, Walmart!
But if crazy loon Ms. Thelma Dye is right, and price equals value, then what would she have said if the black Barbie had been priced at twice the amount of the white Barbie? Would she say that Walmart values blackness more than whiteness? A $12.00 black Barbie and a $6.00 white Barbie, side by side. How would she and her fellow "racism" police respond? I'm sure you know the answer. Though there might be just the slightest possibility that they would claim that Walmart was exploiting black people by selling the black version of the doll at a higher price, thus once again exposing Walmart as racist.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there more whites in the U.S. than there are blacks? It's a simple demographic observation, meant only to offer the possible explanation that white dolls sell more because there are more people to buy them. If black dolls aren't selling, the price comes down, as in supply and demand, something it appears Ms. Dye has never heard of. But then, when you have a statist, collectivist ideology (and I make no claim that such applies in Ms. Dye's case), you have no need to know such basic economic facts.
But let's forget about Barbie for a moment and go to the movies (but please, not a Barbie movie) and while we're watching let's pretend an obnoxious person behind us decides to have a conversation on her cell phone while the movie is playing. Let's shush her, shall we? Then let's sit back, relax, and get stabbed in the neck with a meat thermometer by the woman's black boyfriend. Hopefully, we, the shusher, are white, so that the black stabber can claim racism and that we "devalued" his girlfriend and his blackness. His stabbing us with a meat thermometer is thus only a natural response to centuries of white racism and discrimination against blacks.
There was no word on why the man had a meat thermometer in a movie theater.
Well, obviously to stab shushers in the neck when they dare to shush your girlfriend. Come to the movies prepared, I always say. Now, the story doesn't say if thevictim evil shusher was black or white, but if he was white, by golly, it's racism for sure, and the stabber was the real victim, not even able to afford a decent weapon to carry with him to the movies, also no doubt do to prejudice in the workplace that prevents him earning enough to buy a better stabbing device.
Hey, it makes as much sense as the Barbie story, doesn't it?
So a Walmart store put some black Barbies on clearance sale, for $3.00, about half what the white Barbies right next to them were selling for. A Walmart spokeswoman gave the sensible answer that "Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing". But, according to Thelma Dye ("executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development") this is "devaluing the black doll". It's racism, folks! Can't you see it? Walmart hates black people (uh, no, I mean devalues black people).
But maybe, if we're looking for insane, delusional explanations for why Walmart lowers the price on a certain item, maybe this means that Walmart values their black costumers MORE than their white customers. Think about it. Walmart wants to save black people more money than they want to save white people. A clear case of reverse discrimination. Get ready for a white people class action lawsuit, Walmart!
But if crazy loon Ms. Thelma Dye is right, and price equals value, then what would she have said if the black Barbie had been priced at twice the amount of the white Barbie? Would she say that Walmart values blackness more than whiteness? A $12.00 black Barbie and a $6.00 white Barbie, side by side. How would she and her fellow "racism" police respond? I'm sure you know the answer. Though there might be just the slightest possibility that they would claim that Walmart was exploiting black people by selling the black version of the doll at a higher price, thus once again exposing Walmart as racist.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there more whites in the U.S. than there are blacks? It's a simple demographic observation, meant only to offer the possible explanation that white dolls sell more because there are more people to buy them. If black dolls aren't selling, the price comes down, as in supply and demand, something it appears Ms. Dye has never heard of. But then, when you have a statist, collectivist ideology (and I make no claim that such applies in Ms. Dye's case), you have no need to know such basic economic facts.
But let's forget about Barbie for a moment and go to the movies (but please, not a Barbie movie) and while we're watching let's pretend an obnoxious person behind us decides to have a conversation on her cell phone while the movie is playing. Let's shush her, shall we? Then let's sit back, relax, and get stabbed in the neck with a meat thermometer by the woman's black boyfriend. Hopefully, we, the shusher, are white, so that the black stabber can claim racism and that we "devalued" his girlfriend and his blackness. His stabbing us with a meat thermometer is thus only a natural response to centuries of white racism and discrimination against blacks.
According to sheriff's officials, the suspects were described as black males. One man was wearing an orange hat with an orange jersey and the other man was dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt.
-Moviegoer Tells Woman to Stop Talking On Cell Phone, Gets Stabbed in the Neck
There was no word on why the man had a meat thermometer in a movie theater.
Well, obviously to stab shushers in the neck when they dare to shush your girlfriend. Come to the movies prepared, I always say. Now, the story doesn't say if the
Hey, it makes as much sense as the Barbie story, doesn't it?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Conversation About Race
I posted part of this once before from YouTube, but here is the entire documentary from Google video.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A funny idea I just got
Don’t ask me why, but for whatever reason I ended up on some random Stormfront thread earlier this evening. I forget what I was Googling (something on libertarianism), but this silly hate site full of uneducated Christian-fascist retards just popped up as a result.
This got me thinking: since I’m .1% Native American, does that disqualify me from joining their little club? LOL. I think it could make for a hysterical Borat-type gag: join a white nationalist organization, then announce in the middle of dinner that one is actually only 99.9% white and conflicted over which race should earn his respect.
Not sure how they would respond, but it would be, like, the most hilarious prank ever if it was caught on videotape (at least if it plays out exactly like it is in my head).
Of course, I would never go anywhere near these idiots. Someone else who is a minority of some tiny percentage should do it, then put it on YouTube. Then it would be funny.
Or maybe I just think too much about pranks that could be pulled.
This got me thinking: since I’m .1% Native American, does that disqualify me from joining their little club? LOL. I think it could make for a hysterical Borat-type gag: join a white nationalist organization, then announce in the middle of dinner that one is actually only 99.9% white and conflicted over which race should earn his respect.
Not sure how they would respond, but it would be, like, the most hilarious prank ever if it was caught on videotape (at least if it plays out exactly like it is in my head).
Of course, I would never go anywhere near these idiots. Someone else who is a minority of some tiny percentage should do it, then put it on YouTube. Then it would be funny.
Or maybe I just think too much about pranks that could be pulled.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Craig Bodeker's Conversation About Race
I don't necessarily agree with everything the filmmaker says, but I found this interesting.
via Iliocentrism
Parts 2 through 6 can be found at YouTube.
via Iliocentrism
Parts 2 through 6 can be found at YouTube.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The nutty right: making the anti-state movement look bad
The left-wing has developed a tendency to lump any critics of the state in with conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, survivalists, and right-wing extremists--a group I would label the "nutty right." The nutty right is full of extreme social conservatives and bigots who are willing to use violence to achieve their goals. While they are often labeled as being "anti-government," that's hardly the case. Most of them are more than happy to use the state to oppress the groups and activities they don't like. To lump fascists and National Socialists in with libertarians clearly does not make any sense.
The nutty right opposes the Federal Reserve, not for economic reasons or because it's an arm of the corporate state, but because they think it's run by some kind of evil Jewish conspiracy. The nutty right criticizes Israel, not for its war crimes or statism, but because they hate Jews (why Jews are responsible for what the Israeli state does remains a mystery). They deny the holocaust because they hate Jews and don't want to admit the brutal history of statism. They blow up gay bars, burn crosses on other people's property, and do all kinds of batshit crazy (and extremely unlibertarian) things.
It is best for libertarians to completely disassociate ourselves from these whackos. They may take some of the same positions, but they do so for completely different, kooky reasons, and end up making the positions themselves look kooky. They're not anti-statists; they're just morons.
The nutty right opposes the Federal Reserve, not for economic reasons or because it's an arm of the corporate state, but because they think it's run by some kind of evil Jewish conspiracy. The nutty right criticizes Israel, not for its war crimes or statism, but because they hate Jews (why Jews are responsible for what the Israeli state does remains a mystery). They deny the holocaust because they hate Jews and don't want to admit the brutal history of statism. They blow up gay bars, burn crosses on other people's property, and do all kinds of batshit crazy (and extremely unlibertarian) things.
It is best for libertarians to completely disassociate ourselves from these whackos. They may take some of the same positions, but they do so for completely different, kooky reasons, and end up making the positions themselves look kooky. They're not anti-statists; they're just morons.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The White Stuff
Can you be white and be an African-American at the same time? We're not talking about having a white mother or father, like our President, but rather a white mother and a white father. In other words, are white people who are naturalized U.S. citizens and whose home continent is Africa, African-Americans?
Paulo Serodio identified himself as African-American and was then told "never to define himself as an African-American … because it was offensive to others and to people of color for him to do so."
Paulo Serodio identified himself as African-American and was then told "never to define himself as an African-American … because it was offensive to others and to people of color for him to do so."
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
