I wonder what the actual proportion is

It seems like we’ve been getting a lot of reports of “hate crimes” that are wrong. Either they’re completely misrepresented — it’s not a Klan meeting, it’s white sheets draped over furniture in a room — or it’s a hoax.

I wonder how many hate crimes are real.

Certainly, when I hear of one, I’m starting to demand extraordinary proof. For example, when a food server posts a receipt with a racist insult scrawled on it instead of a tip, I want a handwriting comparison, and I want to hear the patron’s side of the story.

Going Ebola Viral

The story of a confrontation between high-schoolers in MAGA hats and a Native American elder has gone viral. It is presented as a case of the teenagers intimidating a poor, oppressed Amerind.

Unfortunately, going viral isn’t necessarily good. some viruses have negative impacts on one’s health. Sometimes, the viral meme causes its recipient to bleed out all credibility.


The internet blew up over a (as it turns out) heavily-edited clip of white male Catholic March for Life high schoolers apparently taunting, mocking, and otherwise behaving badly toward a Native American elder.  Even many on the right condemned the MAGA hat-wearing boys for their perceived vile behavior.
The problem?  We didn’t get the whole story, and many people, including those on the left, are now expressing their regret at jumping too readily to condemn these boys.  As it turns out and in the true spirit of “unexpectedly,” there is much more to this story than we were first treated to in the initial reports.

Legal Insurrection

Here’s the take from Reason Magazine, not known to be rabid Trump supporters.

….


It would be impossible to definitively state that none of the young men did anything wrong, offensive, or problematic, at some point, and maybe the smiling student was attempting to intimidate Phillips. But there’s shockingly little evidence of wrongdoing, unless donning a Trump hat and standing in a group of other people doing the same is now an act of harassment or violence. Phillips’ account, meanwhile, is at best flawed, and arguably deliberately misleading.
Unless other information emerges, the school’s best move would be to have a conversation with the boys about the incident, perhaps discuss some strategies for remaining on perfect behavior at highly charged political rallies—where everybody is recording everything on a cell phone—and let that be the end of it.
The boys are undoubtedly owed an apology from the numerous people who joined this social media pile-on. This is shaping up to be one of the biggest major media misfires in quite some time.

Reason.com

Well, of course one side is trying to make wearing a Trump hat in public an act of harassment or violence.

Instapundit has a number of posts on the topic.


ROGER KIMBALL: Radical evil, and the online lynching of a kid from Kentucky. Will journalists apologize if their portrayal of the Covington students vs Indian Elder incident turns out to have been wildly wrong?

Total non-sequitur of a question.

When is the DNC-MSM ever wrong?

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): When do they ever apologize? (Except to offended lefties, that is).

….


Maybe the reason journalists assume that James O’Keefe’s videos are deceptively edited is that deceptive editing is the ordinary course of business for them.

….


ANOTHER UPDATE: More good people apologize:


Roger Kimball on Instapundit


Like so many stories that supposedly conveyed the reality of Trump’s America, that so perfectly displayed white Christian menace, it turned out to be fake. Fake, like the Ohio University student who sent herself anti-gay hate mail; manufactured, like the racist harassment on a bus that Hilary Clinton tweeted about; an attempted frame-up, with liberal credulity made into the co-conspirator, like the vandalism of a Jewish cemetery done by a progressive reporter.

But good enough to share, good enough to cause doxxing, and justify the harassment and assault of children. I’m still chuckling at the New York Times and the Washington Post rushing out misleading and false stories — the latter with three bylines — without doing any original reporting besides a phone call to the Native American Elder, and a survey of reactions on Twitter.


 Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review Online

Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true — except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.

The EU is at war with Israel

The correct way to pronounce EU is “Ewwww”.


And then of course, there’s that notion of ‘occupation.’ That term has always been used to describe one country forcibly invading and taking control of another country’s sovereign territory. And sovereign territory means land inside another established country’s recognized borders, like Saddam Hussein occupying Kuwait or the US occupying Germany or Japan.

So we have to ask the question…which country’s sovereign territory is Israel ‘occupying?’

It can’t be Jordan. Yes, Jordan illegally occupied Judea, Samaria (AKA The West Bank) and East Jerusalem in the 1948 war for 19 years after ethnically cleansing the Jewish population in this area,  but the UN never recognized these areas as Jordanian territory, Israel took it back in the Six Day war after Jordan attacked them and Jordan later gave up all claims to this area as part of their peace treaty with Israel. So it isn’t Jordan Israel’s occupying.

And it can’t be ‘Palestine’ either. It never existed as a sovereign nation with established borders at all. Owning a house in say, Pennsylvania does not make it and maybe your yard a sovereign country, now does it?

So there really is no ‘occupation.’ According to the San Remo Accords between the League of Nations (the UN of its day) and Britain in 1922, the 22% of the Palestine Mandate that includes Judea and Samaria and what is now Israel was supposed to be the Jewish State, while the 78% of it that’s now Jordan was supposed to be the Arab State. It’s the only partition of the area both sides ever agreed on, and it was reaffirmed in Article 80 of the UN Charter.

What the EU and their pals at the UN are doing is pretty simple to figure out. They’re simply doing what  Mark Twain predicted they would back in 1899 when the  Zionist movement was  beginning. Here’s what he had to say  in a famous article on Jews he did in Harper’s Magazine:


I am not objecting; but if that concentration of the cunningest brains in the world were going to be made in a free country (bar Scotland), I think it would be politic to stop it. It will not be well to let the race find out its strength. If the horses knew theirs, we should not ride any more. 


Want further proof of how the EU has it in for Israel? The recent attempt to simply pass a resolution  condemning unprovoked terrorism by Hamas against Israel in the UN General Assembly failed dismally once Israel’s enemies in the UN insisted on a two thirds majority instead of the simple majority Ambassador Haley wanted.
You know what did pass? A resolution sponsored by Ireland calling for ‘the achievement, without delay”  of the implementing  of U.N. resolution 2334.

Since 2334 was a series 6 Resolution that has no status as international law,  Israel promptly rejected it, as any country not interested in national suicide would.But thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, it remains a framework for countries that want Israel gone.

And make no mistake,it definitely is about the Jews. Much of what constitutes the EU will never forgive them for Auschwitz. Or for being so successful in a region noted for failed states.


Rob Miller at Joshuapundit.

Voter ID

The ‘Voter ID Is Racist’ Con

[snip]
Former Vice President Joe Biden called Trump’s assertion that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election a “flat lie.” But Biden did not stop there. The Republican support for voter ID, he said, was all about suppressing minority votes: “It’s what these guys are all about, man. Republicans don’t want working-class people voting. They don’t want black folks voting.” Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., denounced “racist voter ID laws and voter suppression tactics (that) sprout like weeds all across the country.” In a press conference in July, CNN’s April Ryan asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: “So, Sarah, since you keep saying that the President is very concerned about the election process … you did not mention voter suppression in that. Voter suppression has been an issue for decades and particularly in these last few elections.”

Despite these alleged racist roadblocks to the ballot box, in 2008 blacks voted at a higher percentage than whites. That same year, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote one of the majority opinions in a 6-3 case that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, which required voters to show a photo ID — such as a driver’s license or passport — before casting their votes. Stevens recognized “flagrant examples of (voter) fraud” throughout America’s history and wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but “it could affect the outcome of a close election.” The additional burden on voters, Stevens argued, is more than offset by “the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”

Blacks also support voter ID. A 2016 Gallup poll found that 77 percent of non-whites support voter ID, nearly as high as the 81 percent of whites who support it.

The fact that voter ID is legal and popular does not, of course, affect the view that it “suppresses” the minority vote. The George Soros-supported website ThinkProgress ran a story last year with this menacing headline: “New Study Confirms that Voter ID Laws Are Very Racist.”

Citing research by three professors from U.C. San Diego, Michigan State and Bucknell University, the article says: “turnout among Hispanic voters is ‘7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries’ in states with strict voter ID laws. The laws also reduce turnout among African-American and Asian-American voters. White turnout, according to their study, is ‘largely unaffected.'”

Case closed? Not exactly.

A follow-up study by researchers from Yale, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania found no evidence that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout. This study examined the methodology and conclusions of the previous study. Its researchers wrote: “Widespread concern that voter identification laws suppress turnout among racial and ethnic minorities has made empirical evaluations of these laws crucial. But problems with administrative records and survey data impede such evaluations. … We show that the results of the paper are a product of data inaccuracies (and) the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion … When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions.”

In other words, the data do not support the notion that the “brown-brown” are too dumb, too lazy or otherwise incapable of obtaining the necessary identification to vote.

Na Und?

Sarah Hoyt writes, it’s time to weaponize “so what?”

Dennis Prager is also a fan of that question.

I am aware that we’ll never get rid of every busybody and every delicate flower. They’re human. Hell, sometimes even those of us very opposed to crazy legislation, say “there ought to be a law.” For instance I… No, wait, I can’t remember any instances, certainly not recently. But hey. I probably could, at least for five minutes.

But there is absolutely no reason to give them power. Either legislative, executive or judicial power. Or even power over our neighborhoods, our businesses, or you know, our pets, our sons, or our streets.

For too long we’ve run on “If someone squawks loud enough we’ll do that.”

It’s time to stop it. The wheel isn’t even squeaky. It’s just making noise to get attention.

It’s time to weaponize “So what?”

“I don’t like your car/dog/kid/business/idea/book/etc.” The answer to that, the civilized and decent answer should be “so what?”

“You culturally appropriated your book/music/dress/food” “So what?”

Unless I’m materially harming someone, if they squawk the answer should be so what.

We’re getting “good mannered” into tyranny.

Would-be totalitarians piggy-back on both busybodies and delicate flowers and if we let them will control every aspect of our lives. (See, France, our leader in this.) Our main defense, perhaps our only one is “So what?”

How to culture rape

Rape Accusations, Leftists, Blurred Lines, and poor Brett Kavanaugh

Item: Former Vice President Joe “Creepy Touch” Biden, when announcing that the Obama White House was creating a task force to address campus rape, stated “One in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years.”

In fact, that statistic goes far beyond being a lie or a damn lie. It’s a complete fraud.

Here’s the key takeaway:

[That “statistic”] comes from a study conducted over the internet at two large universities one in the Midwest and one in the South. The survey was anonymous no one’s claims were verified and terms were not clearly defined. In round numbers, a total of 5,000 women participated. Based on their responses, the authors, not the participants, determined that 1,000 had been victims of some type of non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact and — voila! — from one vaguely worded unscientific survey we suddenly arrived at a rape culture on college campuses. Tellingly, the study authors have since explicitly stated that it’s inappropriate to use their survey to make that claim. Much more comprehensive data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics or “BJS” estimates that about one in 52.6 college women will be victims [sic] of rape or sexual assault over the course of four years. That’s far too many, but it’s a long way from one in five. The same BJS data also reveal that women in college are safer from rape than college aged women who are not enrolled in college — but the truth doesn’t serve the purposes of feminist activists or vote seeking politicians. Lies work much better and the one in five claim is tantamount to a lie.

Let me say it again: the notion of a campus “rape culture” is a grotesque lie, based on a manifestly flawed study, that the Left peddles because it allow them to control young women and destroy young men. As Glenn Reynolds likes to point out, no sentient adult actually believes this statistic because no loving parent would ever allow his or her child to go to a place that has a rate rape comparable to the rate in South Africa, one of the most sexually violent countries in the world. The only ones who believe these statistics are college administrators and the terrified female students brought to heel by these statistical lies.

According to Time, a once reputable magazine, a Pentagon study claims that, at some military installations, more than 500 women, and quite a few men, are sexually assaulted every year:

A newly released Pentagon study revealed that many sexual assaults in the U.S. military occur across the globe at a relatively small number of bases and naval ships, including some installations where more than 500 incidents occurred in a single year.

The 119-page study, conducted by Rand Corporation, surveyed American service members to uncover where troops were most at risk of sexual assault and harassment. In many cases, installations with large populations of younger, single, and more-junior-ranking service members had a greater probability of these incidents occurring.

“Each service member’s estimated risk of being sexually assaulted in the next year depends, to a surprising extent, on his or her duty assignment to a particular unit, command, and installation,” the study said.

[snip]

Rand said more than 1700,000 active duty service and Coast Guard members completed an online sexual assault and sexual harassment survey fielded in August and September 2014. More than 560,000 were invited to participate. [The actual number is 170,000 not, as Times’ typo implies, 1,700,000.]

[snip]

A total of 6,769 men and women reported assaults in the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 6,172 a year earlier. The reports came in from uniformed service members and civilian workers. It was the highest number of reported assaults since at least 2006, the last year the Pentagon has available on the data.

There are a few points to be made based upon the above.

First, assuming all those sexual assaults are rapes (which they are not), the U.S. military, made up of young men and young women in the prime of their sexual life, has a rape rate that’s lower than 4%. Keep in mind, please, that we’re repeatedly told that America’s college campuses have a rape rate of 20% to 25%. Parents, if you want to keep your young’uns safe, send them to the military, not to college.

Second, back during WWII, when women were mobilized for the war, men and women were kept strictly segregated and chaperoned. The people in charge might have had Victorian minds (like sinks, you know), but they certainly understood that, if you want to prevent rape, you don’t mix and mingle the sexes, especially when it comes to bedrooms and bathrooms.

Third, if you read the entire Time article, you’ll note something interesting — it never once defines what constitutes “sexual assault.” Only near the end does one learn that the number of “sexual assaults” claims includes everything from sexual harassment to actual rape. Depending on how a respondent to the survey defines harassment, that’s like saying that the military is filled with terribly ill people, provided that one includes in the data set of illness everything from hangnails to cancer.

 

You don’t want to tear down those rules

Sarah Hoyt has a “Man For All Seasons devil speech”.

Outsourced Violence

So far as we know there was never ANY large scale matriarchal society.  EVER.  Not over six thousand years ago, not ever.  Granted, that is the pre-history, and there are no clear narratives.  But absent Gimbutas dreaming that bull’s heads were uteri, there really is not even a glimmer of a trace of a guess that women were ever in charge.  Those vaunted amazons of the steppes turn out to be teen boys, not women at all (now we can analyze DNA from old bones.)

Yes, there have been female fighters throughout history.  They are outliers.  Most “female military” is either honor guard or largely ornamental until the 20th century and the existence of weapons that don’t rely on upper body strength alone.

Which brings us to the reason large scale (there were isolated tribe, yes, in special circumstances) matriarchies are unlikely in the extreme in our past or our future: women aren’t as strong as men.  They just aren’t.

Over the weekend, I watched a weedy teen male whose waist I could encircle with ONE arm lift a cabinet I couldn’t budge.

Sure I’m middle aged, and would have at least lifted it somewhat 30 years ago.  BUT moving it around like it was nothing?  No.

Because 99.9% of men are stronger than all but 1% of women.  Period.  (Barring illness or other impairment.)

So, how was it possible that in prehistory, with no other improvement to human strength, women would rule?

It wasn’t.  The only way women can rule is to convince men to use their muscles on THEIR behalf, which honestly, one way or another, history shows we’ve managed.

So no, we haven’t been afraid of men for six thousand years.  We’ve cooperated in an unstable but so far successful project called civilization. As long as some men will defend women, the bad men who’d make us afraid are kept under control.

But that requires that women don’t go bad en masse, and don’t use the apparatus of a bloated state to oppress all men.

Actress (I think) chickie wants to have all men afraid of every woman.  That’s because her head is stuffed with fecaliths and she doesn’t realize that women can only have power in society by consent of men.  That women’s violence is outsourced to the apparatus of the state.

Make every man afraid of every woman, and the apparatus comes apart.  The center does not hold.  Those big burly men you want to arrest random men on your behalf?  They will instead beat you to near death, tell you to put a burka on and cook them dinner.

This is where this ends.  Using the apparatus of state violence for “advantage” and “to make men afraid has only one end.  The society these idiots want is not even possible, let alone stable.

The end is a return to barbarism, and in barbarism, women are prisoners and chattels, as they’ve always been.

And when male barbarity turns round on you, where will you hide, all the rules of chivalry being flat?

 

…Like With a Brillo?

TheNewNeo notes some curious things about Professor Ford.

One of the strangest aspects of Ford’s story is that, by the time her identity was revealed, much information about that identity had been removed from the internet with an unusual degree of thoroughness for a layperson, indicating the participation of someone who knew exactly what he or she was doing, not an amateur such as Ford herself. How was this done, and who did it?

For me, one of the most curious aspects of all is that her high school yearbooks disappeared from their online site as well, not long after almost all of her personal information was scrubbed . Ford did not have the power to do this because the yearbooks were not displayed at her site or social media pages. So who did it for her, and why, and at whose behest? What’s more, the site that claimed to have archived and displayed the yearbooks disappeared as well not all that long after.

It takes quite a bit to get me into conspiracy theories, but this has been extremely odd. Are the yearbooks that were displayed at that site authentic? If so, why did the site that offered them disappear without any explanation? The yearbooks revealed massive drinking and partying by the young ladies of Holton Arms, including Ford herself. I’d love to get some clarification on all of this.

 

Discrimination, Prejudice, and Racism

Walter Williams comments:

So much of our reasoning about race is both emotional and faulty. In ordinary, as well as professional, conversation, we use terms such as discrimination, prejudice, racial preferences and racism interchangeably, as if they referred to the same behavior. We can avoid many pitfalls of misguided thinking about race by establishing operational definitions so as to not confuse one behavior with another.

Discrimination can be operationally defined as an act of choice. Our entire lives are spent choosing to do or not to do thousands of activities. Choosing requires non-choosing. When you chose to read this column, you discriminated against other possible uses of your time. When you chose a spouse, you discriminated against other people. When I chose Mrs. Williams, I systematically discriminated against other women. Much of it was racial. Namely, I discriminated against white women, Asian women, fat women and women with criminal backgrounds. In a word, I didn’t offer every woman an equal opportunity, and they didn’t offer me an equal opportunity.

One might be tempted to argue that racial discrimination in marriage is trivial and does not have important social consequences, but it does. When high-IQ and high-income people marry other high-IQ and high-income people, and to the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection enhances the inequality in the population’s intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater income equality if high-IQ and high-income people married low-IQ and low-income people. But I imagine that most people would be horrified by the suggestion of a mandate to require the same.

Prejudice is a perfectly useful term, but it is used improperly. Its Latin root is praejudicium — meaning prejudgment. Prejudice can be operationally defined as making decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Because the acquisition of information entails costs, we all seek to economize on information cost. Sometimes we use cheap-to-observe physical attributes as proxies for some other attribute more costlier to observe. The cheaply observed fact that a person is a male or female can serve as a proxy for an unobserved attribute such as strength, aggressiveness or speed in running.

In the late 1990s, a black taxi commissioner in Washington, D.C., warned cabbies against going into low-income black neighborhoods and picking up “dangerous-looking” passengers whom she described as young black males dressed a certain way. Some pizza deliverers in St. Louis who were black complained about delivering pizzas to black neighborhoods for fear of being assaulted or robbed. In 1993, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was reported as saying that he is relieved when he learns that youthful footsteps walking behind him at night are white and not black.

Here’s the question: Does the wariness of Washington’s predominantly black cabbies to pick up “dangerous-looking” black males or black pizza deliverers’ not wanting to deliver to some black neighborhoods or Rev. Jackson’s feeling a sense of relief when the youthful footsteps behind him are those of white youngsters instead of black say anything unambiguous about whether cabbies, pizza deliverers and Jackson like or dislike blacks? It’s a vital and often overlooked point — namely, that watching a person’s prejudicial (prejudging) behavior alone can tell us nothing unambiguous about that person’s racial tastes or preferences.

Consider policing. Suppose a chief of police is trying to capture culprits who break in to autos to steal electronic equipment. Suppose further that you see him focusing most of his investigative resources on young males between the ages of 15 and 25. He spends none of his investigative resources on females of any age and very few on men who are 40 or older. By watching his “profiling” behavior — prejudging behavior — would you conclude that he likes females and older males and dislikes males between the ages of 15 and 25? I think that it would take outright idiocy to reach such a conclusion. The police chief is simply playing the odds based on the evidence he has gathered through experience that breaking in to autos tends to be a young man’s fancy.