The Elephant In the Courtroom

Crime, Justice, Law, Racism, South-Africa

Finally, media other than yours truly mentions, if fleetingly, the elephant in the Pistorius courtroom: unidirectional, black-on-black and black-on-white violent crime. Examined in depth and at length in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, crime, and the fear of being butchered, was likely behind the blade runner’s irrational, irresponsible actions.

“[F]or all his privilege, Oscar Pistorius knows the rapacity and invincibility of the criminal class in his country. Like every other Afrikaner, he knew in his gut what infiltrating gangs would do to a legless Boer. He had seen images of the mangled bodies.” (From “Blade Runner Killing And The Media Blackout.”)

The Economist doesn’t go so far as to acknowledge the legitimacy of the fear, but does mention it:

When Mr Pistorius declared in his testimony, “I shot out of fear,” he became the voice of many white South Africans. They tend to see themselves as living in the shadow of violent crime, retreating behind high walls, electric fences and steel doors. From there they can summon private security guards, who are twice as numerous as policemen, by pressing a panic button.

The trial has revived a long-running debate about other aspects of crime. South Africa’s murder rate is one of the highest in the world: 30.9 for every 100,000 people, compared with 4.7 in the United States. Yet the rate has fallen by half in the past 15 years. Rich whites, the most fearful among South Africans, are actually the least endangered. Most victims are poor and black.

Though both the accused and the victim in the Pistorius case are white, race is never far away. … the case in fact involves a third protagonist, “the threatening body, nameless and faceless, of an armed and dangerous black intruder”. …

Actually, in proportion to their numbers in the general population, whites and Indians are more likely to be victimized by the criminal class in South Africa.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Morality And Religion

Constitution, Founding Fathers, History, Law, Morality, Religion

On this Good Friday and Passover, it is worth remembering George Washington’s message on morality and religion, in his 1796 Farewell Address.

“Washington—in light of the dreadful events which had occurred in Revolutionary France—wished to dispel for good any notion that America was a secular state. It was a government of laws but also of morals,” writes historian Paul Johnson, in The History of the American People. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,’ he insisted, ‘religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ Anyone who tried to undermine these ‘great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens,’ was the very opposite of a patriot.” (P. 229)

There can be no “security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice.” Nor can morality be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

What Washington was saying, explains Johnson, is that America, “being a free republic, dependent for its order on the good behavior of its citizens, cannot survive without religion. And that was in the nature of things.” (P. 229)

It’s hard to reconcile modern-day USA with the America the Founding Fathers bequeathed and envisaged. The law, a branch in what has become a tripartite tyranny, has plunged Americans into a struggle to express their faith outside their homes and places of worship.

Forgotten in all this is that religion is also a proxy for morality. (And I say this as an irreligious individual.)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Obama’s Idea Of Transparency: Sharing YOUR Information

Barack Obama, Journalism, Left-Liberalism, Media

“How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media?” The question was posed to New York Times editor Jill Abramson by Al Jazeera America.

Abramson replied:

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

Wow. I didn’t realize how much Obama has been frustrating this organ of journalistic statism. The NYT has never let on before. Instead, its reporters have “bravely” hidden that hurt inside together with so many facts they might have shared.

The Obama Administration’s idea of transparency is to share your information with the public. “Information you choose to share with the White House (directly and via third party sites) may be treated as public information,” states its new privacy policy:

A new Obama administration privacy policy released Friday explains how the government will gather the user data of online visitors to WhiteHouse.gov, mobile apps and social media sites, and it clarifies that online comments, whether tirades or tributes, are in the open domain.

Abramson does have a sense of humor: The New York Times is “not liberal in the sense of being doctrinaire or tied to the Democratic Party in any way,” she asserted.

Funny woman.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Provenance Of Anti-Semitic Leaflets Still Unknown

Anti-Semitism, Europe, Russia

Despite what neoconservatives stateside are asserting, according to IsraeNet, “It is unclear who is responsible for [a] leaflet,” distributed in Donetsk, Ukraine, “calling for all Jews over 16 years old to register as Jews.” Naturally, neocons are blaming the Russians. Via IsraeNet:

The leaflet demanded the city’s Jews supply a detailed list of all the property they own, or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportion [sic] and see their assets confiscated. …
… The leaflet detailed what type of documents the Jewish citizens would need to supply: “ID and passport are required to register your Jewish religion, religious documents of family members, as well as documents establishing the rights to all real estate property that belongs to you, including vehicles.”
If the message was not made clear enough, the leaflet further stipulated the consequences that would come to those who failed to abide by the new demands: “Evasion of registration will result in citizenship revoke and you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of property.”
To add insult to injury, the leaflet demanded the Jews pay a registration fee of $50.

Reports the New York Times:

The leaflets were supposedly signed by Denis Pushilin, the leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the newly declared and unrecognized state that claims to represent ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. But that group and other pro-Russian groups quickly denied they had anything to do with them.
“This has nothing to do with us; it is a provocation,” said Alexander Maltsev, a spokesman for the People’s Republic, in a telephone interview. He said he did not know who was responsible, or their motives.
The city, the center of a coal-mining region in Ukraine, has since Saturday fallen largely under the control of pro-Russian militants who have justified their uprising as a response to what they call the fascism and anti-Semitism of the new central government in Kiev. So it was a surprise that the fliers, addressed to the “Jews of Donetsk,” claimed to have come from the headquarters of the Donetsk Republic.

Developing.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Stealing And Killing’s All In A Day’s Work

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Fascism, Government, Private Property

For federal agents, stealing and killing is all in a day’s work. Some of Farmer Bundy’s livestock was stolen by the Bureau of Land Management; some the same perps shot and left to die. Gratuitous cruelty is par for the course in government. Vandalized corrals and infrastructure augmented the cattle killed. They do it because they can.

Images courtesy of Benn Swan.

“[Cliven] Bundy told Swann that federal agents have fled the area and left a great deal of gear and equipment and that they aren’t likely to return any time soon for it. He also said that federal agents destroyed much of the grazing infrastructure on the land, including water lines, water tanks, troughs, corrals, and fences.”

The damage didn’t stop at just destroying infrastructure: Bundy revealed that their cattle, about 40 or so, had been killed by federal agents and thrown into a mass grave. “The mass grave that was dug was about 50 feet long, 18 feet wide, 10 feet deep, and about a third of the way filled back in with cattle.”
In these photographs provided to Benswann.com from the Bundy family, you can see that so called mass grave which was dug out with the use of a backhoe. Already inside that dirt grave you can see the body of at least one of the cattle.

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Taking Aptitude Out Of The SAT

Education, English, Intelligence, Political Correctness

Excelling on the new, revised SAT promises to be easier than on the old. The College Board plans on replacing challenging words—a facility with which a student was expected to have—with “high utility” words, whatever those are. The essay (in which students are asked “to analyze a text and how the author builds an argument”) will be optional.

“Both vocabulary and reading comprehension are both highly g-loaded,” writes Steve Sailer.

Yes, why weaken questions that measure the G Factor (general intelligence), unless, as the Washington Post surmised, the intention is to “end the lingering public perception that the test is about IQ or aptitude”?

“[T]he whole topic of intelligence testing is so politically radioactive,” confirms IQ ace Sailer:

As Herrnstein and Murray liked to point out, modern America is a rich place in part because we have standardized national tests in which small town boys like Murray and Jewish lads like Herrnstein could outshine the boarding school scions. America was particularly obsessed with finding talent for about a decade after Sputnik in 1957. But then along came civil rights and other obsessions, and the national clarity that was briefly achieved due to the fear of nuclear destruction has been eroded by wishful thinking and self-serving conniving.

Easily the most unsettling aspect of the exercise is the bureaucrat behind the revisions. He is David Coleman, who was also “a key architect of the Common Core state curriculum standards for schools, a set of guidelines being introduced — and often stirring controversy — in classrooms throughout the nation.”

Common Core is “a lesson plan for raising compliant, non-thinking citizens,” explains John Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. Mr. Whitehead’s Common-Core essay, on EPJ, is a MUST-read for liberty loving parents.

UPDATE: Erik Rush taxes the mind today with a Latin phrase that is sure not to feature in the new SAT: quod erat demonstrandum. I had to look it up, which I like. Funny thing that; I like to learn new things. The version I do know, because we used it in math proofs at school, is Q.E.D. (“that which was to be proven”).

Read Erik on Harry Reid that “putrescent little tin god.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint