Statistically, 86% of all Whites murdered, are murdered by other Whites. The percentages are roughly the same or higher for Asian-on-Asian, Latino-on-Latino, and Black-on-Black murders.
It's clear that the vast majority of crimes committed, are by members of the same ethnic group against other members of that group. Yet, we rarely, if ever, hear about White-on-White, Asian-on-Asian, or Latino-on-Latino crime, and certainly not with the same frequency, or level of scorn and derision, as when Black-on-Black crime is discussed. It is discussed as if, only Blacks have some special defect, mental deformity, or social or moral impairment, that drives their crime rates upward and against themselves.
The term, Black-on-Black crime, is a Rethugnant talking point, said with enough frequency and vehemence to demonize Blacks, and to instill in the minds of the public, further disrespect and ill-will towards it's Black citizens. Even Blacks have unthinkingly started using this phrase, as if it were an isolated fact unique only to Blacks.
In fact, in the Black community, there is a direct statistical correlation between high poverty rates, high unemployment rates, and crime. Significantly lowering either or both of the former, will have a direct impact on the latter.
Since poverty rates and unemployment rates are quite a bit lower in the other ethnic communities, while educational rates are significantly higher, what then could be the basis for their crime rates? hmmmmm.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
A Level Playing Field?
In the Los Angeles Unified School District which has mostly non-white students, 70% of the children qualify for the unappetizing breakfast and school lunch program, 65% are in foster care, many bathrooms of most schools are filthy and never cleaned up, paint is peeling from the walls of classrooms of most of the schools, and by every measure, the district schools are a sub-standard mess.
When public figures like Oprah say, "Black children in this country don't want to learn", the proper response is, who would want to or could learn, under these conditions? No other ethnic group is expected to learn under these third-world conditions of hunger and squalor, not Asians, not Whites, not anyone else but Black and immigrant Latino children.
So when these children are blamed for not wanting to learn in this benignly neglected environment, let it be known that those casting the blame, are guilty of ignoring and not denouncing, a most unlevel playing field that no one else's children are ever expected to play on or compete on.
Those guilty of this criminal neglect or those who ignore it, cannot offset this guilt by acts of charity in other countries or in other areas to compensate.
When public figures like Oprah say, "Black children in this country don't want to learn", the proper response is, who would want to or could learn, under these conditions? No other ethnic group is expected to learn under these third-world conditions of hunger and squalor, not Asians, not Whites, not anyone else but Black and immigrant Latino children.
So when these children are blamed for not wanting to learn in this benignly neglected environment, let it be known that those casting the blame, are guilty of ignoring and not denouncing, a most unlevel playing field that no one else's children are ever expected to play on or compete on.
Those guilty of this criminal neglect or those who ignore it, cannot offset this guilt by acts of charity in other countries or in other areas to compensate.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Tolerant But, Unsupportive
Here I go again, sticking my toes into the waters of a complex, divisive and controversial issue, most recently highlighted by the remarks of the retired NBA star, Tim Hardaway. The audio clip of him saying that "...he hates gay people..." has been reverberating throughout the media this past week. What he said has been rightfully condemned as intolerant, but the more important issue for me is, can you be tolerant and yet unsupportive of the lifestyle? I think yes, and this is my basic position.
His remarks immediately forced me to re-examine my own feelings on the issue of homosexuality. I know that I don't hate gays and if the estimates are correct, it's very likely there may be some members of my extended family who are also gay. On the other hand, I know that I don't support the gay lifestyle based on Scriptural prohibitions (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9,10) plus my own view of what I consider 'normal' and what is not. By the way, Leviticus also condemns "..laying with a beast.." (Lev. 20:15), which I also consider to be a perversion.
I don't know enough about homosexuality to decide if it is voluntary or an involuntary choice. I would opine however, that bestiality is voluntary and a perversion, and few if any, would argue with that. If the latter is voluntary and perverse, does the former qualify as well?
These are just some of the issues that were raised by Hardaway's remarks. Where do you stand?
His remarks immediately forced me to re-examine my own feelings on the issue of homosexuality. I know that I don't hate gays and if the estimates are correct, it's very likely there may be some members of my extended family who are also gay. On the other hand, I know that I don't support the gay lifestyle based on Scriptural prohibitions (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9,10) plus my own view of what I consider 'normal' and what is not. By the way, Leviticus also condemns "..laying with a beast.." (Lev. 20:15), which I also consider to be a perversion.
I don't know enough about homosexuality to decide if it is voluntary or an involuntary choice. I would opine however, that bestiality is voluntary and a perversion, and few if any, would argue with that. If the latter is voluntary and perverse, does the former qualify as well?
These are just some of the issues that were raised by Hardaway's remarks. Where do you stand?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Who's The Daddy??..(and other unseemly questions)
Is it my imagination, or is the circus surrounding the recent death of the pitiable Anna Nicole Smith, morphing into one of the biggest soap operas of our times?
With four or more men claiming to be possibly the daddy of her six-month old daughter, what is one to think of her? Would any other non-celebrity woman not be considered a slut, a 'ho, or worse? So far, none of these obvious labels are being applied to her by the adoring, frenzied media that is reporting on her death and the ensuing struggle for her estate.
What is also unspoken, but certainly something I would be looking into if I were investigating her death, is the death of the sole beneficiary named in her will, her son, who died mysteriously mere weeks before her own death. How convenient for the man who was her lawyer and who has been named the executor of her multi-million dollar estate, and who also claims to be her 'husband' by virtue of a 'commitment ceremony' that neither the Bahamas nor the United States recognizes, and who also claims to be the father of her six-month old child.
If you ask me, the old adage, "follow the money", is the most important principle that everyone following this matter should keep in mind.
With four or more men claiming to be possibly the daddy of her six-month old daughter, what is one to think of her? Would any other non-celebrity woman not be considered a slut, a 'ho, or worse? So far, none of these obvious labels are being applied to her by the adoring, frenzied media that is reporting on her death and the ensuing struggle for her estate.
What is also unspoken, but certainly something I would be looking into if I were investigating her death, is the death of the sole beneficiary named in her will, her son, who died mysteriously mere weeks before her own death. How convenient for the man who was her lawyer and who has been named the executor of her multi-million dollar estate, and who also claims to be her 'husband' by virtue of a 'commitment ceremony' that neither the Bahamas nor the United States recognizes, and who also claims to be the father of her six-month old child.
If you ask me, the old adage, "follow the money", is the most important principle that everyone following this matter should keep in mind.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Barack Obama
Having announced his intention to run for the Democratic nomination for president, Obama poses a unique challenge to his opponents and detractors.
How far he will get remains to be seen, but along the way, he will prove to be a candidate that is head and shoulders above the candidacies of Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton, and even those of Al Gore and John Kerry.
Already it's clear that although he is Black and looks Black, he transcends his race and the Black label, and attempts to racialize him and marginalize him, as they did with Shirley, Jessie and Al, have been fruitless so far.
He's even shown the fire in his belly, when he promptly responded to the recent attempt to 'swift boat' him, unlike the passive non-response by Kerry when he was similarly attacked in 2004.
The dilemma for his opponents and detractors is, how do you attack him on other than the substance of his message? I'm sure they will try, but I don't think they will be very successful.
How far he will get remains to be seen, but along the way, he will prove to be a candidate that is head and shoulders above the candidacies of Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton, and even those of Al Gore and John Kerry.
Already it's clear that although he is Black and looks Black, he transcends his race and the Black label, and attempts to racialize him and marginalize him, as they did with Shirley, Jessie and Al, have been fruitless so far.
He's even shown the fire in his belly, when he promptly responded to the recent attempt to 'swift boat' him, unlike the passive non-response by Kerry when he was similarly attacked in 2004.
The dilemma for his opponents and detractors is, how do you attack him on other than the substance of his message? I'm sure they will try, but I don't think they will be very successful.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
It's All About S. P. & C.
S. P. & C. stands for Supremacy, Profits, and Control - I maintain that these were and are, the main objectives of the Bushites. They are not the stumbling incompetents that many think they are, neither are they idiots in disarray, nor deluded.
I say, rather, that they are B. A. N. E., (brilliant, amoral, noxious and evil), and have achieved many of their main objectives in the Middle East, while disingenuously calling it 'spreading democracy', 'war on terror', 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here', and other false flag descriptions. This is done so the public deluded by Fox 'news' - CNN - CBS - NBC - ABC, does not catch on to the real game and prize.
The Military Industrial Complex who is one of their main sponsors, has made billions mostly with no-bid contracts;
- they now control the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world along with a higher world price for oil;
- they have executed Saddam before he could squeal and detail his unholy earlier connections with us, and all the WMDs we gave him for his war against the Kurds and Iran;
- they now have built the largest US embassy in the world along with permanent military bases throughout Iraq;
- they have functional control of both governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and have occupying forces in each country;
- there is now unimagined chaos and all-out sectarian violence in Iraq, which gives them an argument for remaining with a 'surge' in troops rather than a withdrawal;
- they are now poised to go after Iran which has the 3rd largest reserves of oil in the world.
Considering just these events, I would say they have been very successful. This is true whether you agree with them or not, or whether you point out that they have just lost both houses of Congress as a repudiation of their agenda, or whether you decry as I do, the horrific collateral costs in American and Iraqi lives and the billions in dollars it has already cost us so far.
All this goes to underscore my point - 'It's all about S. P. & C.'
I say, rather, that they are B. A. N. E., (brilliant, amoral, noxious and evil), and have achieved many of their main objectives in the Middle East, while disingenuously calling it 'spreading democracy', 'war on terror', 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here', and other false flag descriptions. This is done so the public deluded by Fox 'news' - CNN - CBS - NBC - ABC, does not catch on to the real game and prize.
The Military Industrial Complex who is one of their main sponsors, has made billions mostly with no-bid contracts;
- they now control the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world along with a higher world price for oil;
- they have executed Saddam before he could squeal and detail his unholy earlier connections with us, and all the WMDs we gave him for his war against the Kurds and Iran;
- they now have built the largest US embassy in the world along with permanent military bases throughout Iraq;
- they have functional control of both governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and have occupying forces in each country;
- there is now unimagined chaos and all-out sectarian violence in Iraq, which gives them an argument for remaining with a 'surge' in troops rather than a withdrawal;
- they are now poised to go after Iran which has the 3rd largest reserves of oil in the world.
Considering just these events, I would say they have been very successful. This is true whether you agree with them or not, or whether you point out that they have just lost both houses of Congress as a repudiation of their agenda, or whether you decry as I do, the horrific collateral costs in American and Iraqi lives and the billions in dollars it has already cost us so far.
All this goes to underscore my point - 'It's all about S. P. & C.'
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Lucky or Unlucky?
Just a few days ago, a popular and talented Denver Broncos football player, was killed in a stretch Limo with darkened windows as it traveled along a Denver street. He was killed instantly by a single shot to his neck by a drive-by shooter, firing randomly and blindly into his limo.
It got me to wonder - was he unlucky to be killed, or would he have been lucky if the shot had missed him? Some would say both. The outcomes are equally true.... maybe, but I'm rapidly moving to the opinion that his time was merely up, and he was neither lucky nor unlucky.
When you consider how easily you can be killed by a host of silly reasons, even when you are doing the right thing, ranging from an improbable fall in your own home, to being hit by a vehicle while crossing the street in a crosswalk, you begin to wonder how does the issue of being unlucky play into all this. I don't think it does - life is precious and priceless, yet it can be lost so easily. I can't think of any other priceless entity, that can be lost as easily, as quickly and as finally as life can be.
This leads me to conclude, that the giver of life, who I believe is God, is also He who allows the life that He gave, to be taken. It makes much more sense to me, to believe that something as precious, priceless and irreplaceable as life, once given, can not be lost like the luck of the draw at some Las Vegas gaming table.
So I believe that my birth was not lucky nor accidental nor an afterthought, and my death will not be either. I know that I have been placed here for a purpose, and I will leave here ONLY when that purpose has ended.
I start off this year of 2007, secure in my knowledge of a Divine plan for my life now, and a Divine plan for my life in the future, when my life here has ended.
I couldn't ask for a better deal than this!
It got me to wonder - was he unlucky to be killed, or would he have been lucky if the shot had missed him? Some would say both. The outcomes are equally true.... maybe, but I'm rapidly moving to the opinion that his time was merely up, and he was neither lucky nor unlucky.
When you consider how easily you can be killed by a host of silly reasons, even when you are doing the right thing, ranging from an improbable fall in your own home, to being hit by a vehicle while crossing the street in a crosswalk, you begin to wonder how does the issue of being unlucky play into all this. I don't think it does - life is precious and priceless, yet it can be lost so easily. I can't think of any other priceless entity, that can be lost as easily, as quickly and as finally as life can be.
This leads me to conclude, that the giver of life, who I believe is God, is also He who allows the life that He gave, to be taken. It makes much more sense to me, to believe that something as precious, priceless and irreplaceable as life, once given, can not be lost like the luck of the draw at some Las Vegas gaming table.
So I believe that my birth was not lucky nor accidental nor an afterthought, and my death will not be either. I know that I have been placed here for a purpose, and I will leave here ONLY when that purpose has ended.
I start off this year of 2007, secure in my knowledge of a Divine plan for my life now, and a Divine plan for my life in the future, when my life here has ended.
I couldn't ask for a better deal than this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)