When the Good News is Racist

The Wall Street Journal reports on a U.K. government finding that the U.K. “is no longer ‘deliberately rigged’ against minorities”. Apparently this is bad news.

In July the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded by impaneling the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. “We decided to step away from the heat and all that vitriol,” says its chairman, Tony Sewell, “and just take a cold look at the data on racism.” In doing so, “we examined ideas that weren’t to be questioned,” namely “the race industry’s articles of faith.” In its March 31 report, the commission concluded that while Britain isn’t yet “a post-racial society,” neither is it any longer a place where “the system” is “deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities.”

As a result, Mr. Sewell, who is black—only one of the 10 other commissioners is white—has come under blistering attack. It ranges from the achingly predictable (a profusion of “Uncle Tom” accusations on Twitter ) to the grotesque. A Cambridge professor of postcolonial studies likened Mr. Sewell to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. A Labour member of Parliament suggested that he belonged in the Ku Klux Klan. Add in put-downs like “house Negro,” “token” and “race traitor,” and you have a picture of the liberal rage ignited by the commission’s refusal to endorse the belief that Britain is irremediably racist.

Mr. Sewell, 62, runs a charity that coaches black schoolchildren in science and math. “It’s a STEM pipeline program,” he says via Zoom from the study of his house in London. “It starts when they’re young and takes them up to university, using summer schools.” Thousands of black kids have been given a college opportunity they “didn’t have in the first place.” Yet he’s called an “Uncle Tom.”

He characterizes the abuse as “a sort of antiracism that borders on racism.” He also detects some desperation, “not only in black lobby groups but on the white left”: “they’re frightened of the report.” Since few ordinary citizens will read its 258 pages, its opponents have busied themselves spreading “distortions” in a bid to capture public opinion. He singles out the leftist Guardian newspaper, which published a sweeping condemnation by David Olusoga, a historian of slavery, who scorns the report as “poisonously patronising” and “historically illiterate.”

Wall Street Journal

Anti-black Crime Is Dropping

Kevin Drum is a liberal blogger but is always worth a read. He was with Mother Jones. He now appears to be on his own with his Jabberwocky blog. When liberals mocked Republicans for making the national security case regarding admitting scores of Syrian refugees, Drum said that stance was “absurdly out of touch.” He also said Senate Democrats forced him to side with the National Rifle Association when the Left wanted to push prohibiting those on terror watch lists from buying guns. There are serious constitutional issues with this policy, the least being the lack of due process and transparency. We had cub scouts get on this list, folks. 

And he also noticed how schools in Irvine, California, which reopened last September, really didn’t suffer a COVID spike. Drum is a liberal, he’s just not insane. 

Recently, he noticed something while analyzing FBI data on hate crimes since we’re a nation whose media establishment is obsessed with racism. Anti-black crime is dropping—and it’s not a little dip either. It’s a massive drop:

 A number of people, including me, have posited that the Obama era produced a white backlash that eventually elected Donald Trump president. There’s some evidence to support this, but it sure doesn’t show up in the hate crime statistics. Hate crimes against Black people plummeted by nearly half during Obama’s term and have pretty much stayed there ever since. This is despite the fact that presumably the Obama administration put a greater focus on hate crimes than either George Bush or Donald Trump.
Violent assaults on Black people have gone down by nearly half since 2005, far more than violent assaults in general. In this case, however, the decline has been fairly steady over the entire period.
The FBI is not the only authority on hate crimes and the NCVS is not the only authority on victimization. Still, they’re generally well respected and use the same methodology from year to year. This probably represents reality pretty well.
I have been accused—rightfully—of constantly telling you that things are better than you think. The reason is simple: Whenever I look into something, it very often turns out to be better than the media focus would have us believe.
In the graph, he noted that the number of racially-motivated incidents deemed anti-black went from 126 per million in 2004 to 70 per million in 2019.

Could it be better? Sure. We all could do better on the issue of race. We just can’t have that discussion now because liberal America is projecting a narrative for which the data simply does not exist. Why? It’s because white liberals are doing what they do best: being on the wrong side of an issue. Not even black Americans have the same feelings on the issue of racial resentment as white liberals, who go off the charts on this question. The Manhattan Institute did a lengthy study on the social constructs of racism in America and found that ideology is one of the key factors in determining your view on this subject. They also found that black men were more likely to die in car accidents than being shot and killed by police. I know, they’re truly skirting on the edge of being canceled by the woke Left. They provided nuance and data to back up their claims and analyses. 

You probably already knew the ideology hook to this, but it’s interesting to see how deep this issue goes. The Skeptic Research Center found that 44 percent of liberals thought that 1,000 unarmed black men were shot and killed by police last year. It was actually 27. And this misinformation feeds into and infests the wider Democratic-media establishment, which claims that America is an irreparably racist country that is becoming a shooting gallery thanks to white guys who can’t stand nonwhites. The data doesn’t support that claim. 

Townhall.com

When Will Liberals Reclaim Free Speech?

My fellow liberals in academia have abandoned ‘the great moral renovator of society and government.’

It’s the difference between “Liberal” and “Leftist”.

‘Professor, why are you so conservative about free speech?” Several students have asked me versions of this question recently, which speaks volumes about universities right now. I’m a liberal and a Democrat: I’m pro-choice, pro-ObamaCare and vehemently anti-Trump. But I’m also a strong supporter of free speech, which marks me as a right-winger on campus.

That’s because my fellow liberals have largely abandoned free speech to conservatives. Turn on Fox News, and you’ll see “cancel culture” decried in bright lights. But in the liberal press—and most of all in the liberal academy—free speech has become a rhetorical third rail. Sure, we’ll invoke it when Republican state lawmakers try to ban critical race theory. But in our own house, free speech is seen increasingly as a tool of repression rather than liberation.

Here’s how the argument usually goes: White people love free speech, because it lets them say any hateful thing they want. But the real burden of it falls on racial minorities, who are forced to absorb constant slights and slurs against their very existence. That’s why we need to police racist speech: to protect its victims.

The problem is that people will inevitably differ about which speech qualifies as racist. The term has become our own scarlet letter, an all-purpose way to prohibit ideas you dislike. So we need to defend the free-speech rights of everyone, even avowed racists. The best response to hateful speech is to raise your own voice against it, not to ban it.

Once you decide to swing the censorship hammer against racist speech, almost anything can look like a nail. A business-school professor who discusses a Chinese word that sounds like an American slur. A law-school professor who says that her African-American students underachieve academically. A math professor who criticizes diversity training. And so on.

All these examples are real, and in each case the faculty member was recently fired or suspended for the allegedly racist transgression. Most of my liberal colleagues stayed quiet about it, even when they believed these people were treated unfairly.

I get it. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the free-speech winds are blowing these days. It’s prudent to keep your big mouth shut. But that’s anathema to a liberal university, which requires debating differences fully and openly.

It’s also hardly clear that this censorship will help the minorities it purports to protect. The University of Michigan instituted a code in 1987 barring speech that “stigmatizes or victimizes an individual” on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or gender. In the ensuing 18 months, blacks were charged with violating the code in 20 cases. One black student was punished for using the term “white trash.”

When speech can be suppressed, the people with the least power are likely to lose the most. That’s why every great tribune of social justice in American history—including Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. —was also a zealous advocate for free speech. Without it, they couldn’t critique the indignities and oppression that they suffered.

In the antebellum years, slave owners tried to block abolitionist literature from the U.S. mail and even from the floor of Congress. But abolitionists fought back, invoking what Douglass called “the great moral renovator of society and government”: free speech. They kept writing and talking, censors be damned.

In the mid-20th century, government authorities routinely censored gay publications, which were deemed “obscene” and “degenerate.” But the courts ultimately allowed distribution of these materials, which in turn helped gay people connect and organize. The modern LGBT-rights movement owes its birth and growth to free speech. Ditto for black civil rights, women’s liberation and every other cause that the American left holds dear.

I’m glad that conservatives have embraced free speech, but I’d also like to see my fellow liberals reclaim it. We need the courage to speak up again for free speech, which remains the best vehicle for righting the wrongs of America.

Source: When Will Liberals Reclaim Free Speech?

Facts the left tries to keep from black Americans

 Larry Elder:

A couple of years ago, I gave a speech before a conservative, predominantly white audience. I couldn’t help but notice a tall, heavyset black man, arms folded, standing in the back. From time to time, I would look at him, only to see him frown and shake his head, I assumed disapprovingly, when I made what I considered important points.

After the speech, he came up to me. “I am angry,” he said. “Not at you—at myself. I thought I was well-informed. I read the news. I watch the news. I now see I’ve been manipulated by the party that I voted for all my life.”

He then ticked off some of the points I made in my speech that he said surprised or even shocked him.

He said he had no idea that (according to a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute study) 44% of Philadelphia public school teachers send their own school-age kids to private school. Yet the Democratic Party adamantly opposes school vouchers, which would give K-12 children of urban parents a chance at a better school.

….

Source: Facts the left tries to keep from black Americans

Progressive Myths About Mass Shootings and Weapons of War

By James D. Agresti and William T. Reynolds March 31, 2021

Beyond the duplicity of highlighting race only when the killer is white and the victims are not, progressive lawmakers, activists, and journalists are using a litany of falsehoods in an attempt to ban common semi-automatic guns used for home defense and hunting.

….

Summary

In the wake of the Boulder supermarket massacre and other mass shootings, progressive activists, politicians, and journalists have misled the public about major aspects of these tragedies. In contrast to their claims:

  • Less than 1% of all murders in the U.S. occur in mass shootings, defined as shootings where four or more people are killed.

  • The defining feature of firearms commonly used in war is that they are automatic and have the capacity to fire multiple bullets with the single pull of a trigger.

  • AR-15s and other guns that progressives call “weapons of war” are actually semi-automatic guns that can fire only one bullet with each pull of a trigger.

  • Federal law has generally banned civilians from possessing military firearms— including machine guns and assault rifles—since 1986.

  • The 1986 ban is not associated with a decline in deaths from mass shootings.

  • Two years after automatic firearms were banned, progressives moved to ban certain semi-automatic guns by calling them “assault weapons,” a phrase that sounds like “assault rifles”—the most common type of military firearm.

  • A leading gun control activist wrote that their strategy to achieve a ban would take advantage of the “public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic” guns.

  • The guns that progressives are now seeking to ban are popular firearms used for home-defense and hunting.

  • Federal law banned such guns along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from September 1994 to 2004.

  • Magazine capacity restrictions give a strategic edge to the killers who plot mass shootings over law-abiding citizens who carry a gun to protect themselves and others.

  • Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the portion of the U.S. population killed in mass shootings in the decade after the ban expired rose by 12% compared to the decade while the ban was in effect.

  • The weapons banned in 1994 became more accessible in the early years of the ban.

  • Some infamous mass shooters have stated they were motivated to kill for the fame that the media bestows on the perpetrators of such massacres.

  • Perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings are far more likely to suffer from serious mental illness than the general public.

  • Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the average annual rate of indiscriminate mass shootings rose by more than five times along with the mass psychiatric deinstitutionalization that occurred in the U.S. from 1955 to 2010.

  • The U.S. has one of lowest rates of psychiatric institutionalization in the developed world, and Japan’s rate is about 10 times greater.

Source: Progressive Myths About Mass Shootings and Weapons of War

The violence instigated by the left in US

 Mike Miller:

Throughout the summer of 2020, we watched rampaging Black Lives Matter Marxists and Antifa anarchists try their damnedest to burn America’s cities to the ground and create as much chaos as possible. Or as Pelosi & Co. saw it, “justifiable peaceful protests.”

As the riots continued, night after night, week after week, month after month, Democrat after Democrat trotted out before a television camera, or onto a CNN or MSNBC set to remind America that “far-right extremists” are far more likely to embrace violence as means to achieve political goals, and peaceful, “buy the world a Coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony” Democrats were anything but.

In other words, the Democrat Party and its liberal media sock puppets told you not to believe your “lying” eyes as you watched building after building torched, and small business after small business destroyed — many, permanently —along with the livelihoods of hardworking Americans who built those businesses.

Turns out the Democrats were the “misinformed” — not your eyes.

Source: The violence instigated by the left in US

Build Back Better

The left just doesn’t know about institutional knowledge.

I’m also thinking about how farms in South African countries have been taken away from white families who have farmed that land for generations and given to worthy black families. And the country winds up going from a breadbasket to the opposite. And I’m pretty sure the new “farmers” did better than the kids in the CHOP / CHAZ / CHUD zones with their notion of a farm.

One of the most amusing things about the left is their absolute certainty that they know better than everyone else and that if only they ran the circus, everything would be perfect. I’m not 100 percent sure where this insanity comes from, except for saying that it’s common in philosopher-kings.

Source: Build Back Better

On impeachment, Part Two, some presumptions

In this post on impeachment, I want to state some presumptions that I think should apply in impeachment proceedings, including the latest impeachment of President Trump.

First, in my view, there should be a strong presumption against impeaching a president. The decision of who should be president is for the American people to make. The Constitution permits Congress to override that decision, but Congress should be very hesitant to use that power — and Congress always has been until pretty recently.

Although the Constitution uses the language of criminal law — “crimes” and “misdemeanors” — the criminal law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should not apply, in my opinion. However, the evidence of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” should at least be clear and convincing. If the president is to be impeached because of things he said, as is the case in the second impeachment of Trump, ambiguities in his statements should be resolved in his favor, rather than in favor of impeaching him.

Source: On impeachment, Part Two, some presumptions

The Left destroys everything it touches. Impeachment is no longer impeachment.