Thursday, January 12, 2012

Update 810: Hanging Out

For the last two years now, more people have been murdered in Flint than soldiers have died in Iraq. On the plus side, the number of homicides from 2010 to 2011 dropped from 65 to 57. Detroit, on the other hand, went to work this year with a whopping 344. Adjusting for population size, however, Flint still had the greater amount of homicides per capita (note that this is a largely Black phenomenon and be sure to read this post with that in mind). What are we going to do about it?

Well, we probably won't do anything--and not just because it's racist to punish Black crime. This is partially due to our  newly-appointed emergency financial manager--the adult supervision cities like Flint receive from the state when they get too out of hand--trying to balance the budget and cut costs wherever possible, and partially due to the idiots that voted for Dayne Walling. For those of you who might not know who Dayne is or what he stands for, here's an excerpt from his campaign page:

"Dayne knows that people in Flint have the skills and the dedication, and he already knows the groups in Flint which have been working for many years to improve the city. When people work together, our children will be proud to call Flint their home. We will have good schools, good jobs, and good neighborhoods for all people and families. This is what it means to be a great city in the 21st Century."

Seriously? Good schools, good jobs, AND good neighborhoods for ALL families? Throughout the entire mayoral race, the idea that Flint (namely high-crime areas like Da Nof' End) is a spectacle of rampant barbarism never really came up. Actually, I shouldn't say that; we had a candidate who vowed not to take a paycheck until 50 officers were back on the street. Let's not forget that this same candidate owned a business which he started in Flint, giving him both monetary and moral incentives to follow through. Unfortunately, even mentioning that Flint is particularly violent means you're racist for noticing.

So what do we do about it? What can we do about it? We know for a fact that everything we HAVE been doing HASN'T been working. Democrats have been running the show in Flint for a long time, and have run it straight into the ground. In the face of such ridiculous crime rates, I feel that the only way to really drive home the message is to appeal to Flint's citizens on a more visceral level--bring back public hangings.

Some--most--would call that measure a tad extreme. I feel "fuck you, 57 murders is a tad extreme" to be a fair rebuttal. If people in Flint have such disrespect for human life and the rule of law, they need to see first-hand what happens when you disrespect either of the two. It doesn't have to be public hangings either; all we need is a swift and brutal message of "this shit isn't gonna fly." You can't tolerate criminals out of their behavior--fire with fire.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Liberal Interpretations of Fact and Rhetoric

I've noticed an increasing number of pseudo-liberals pointing out that "more Whites are on welfare than Blacks." Most of the time, they bring these facts up as a counter to Republicans saying the exact opposite. As is to be expected of their ilk, they don't bring these facts to the attention of Republicans, opting instead to parade the information around in front of other liberals so that they may bask in their moral enlightenment. Check out the graphic:

When I see this point being made, I try and point out two things: what the Republican rhetoric really means, and why "more Whites are on welfare" is a bad argument for the welfare state. Starting with what is meant by the rhetoric, I feel like this is just a case of liberals quoting the dumbest people they can find--trailer park interviews, most likely. Anybody with some sense knows that there are more White people on welfare simply because there are more White people. What is meant by "more Blacks" is a matter of proportion.

If we take a look at the 2010 census, we see that Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites--as the three major recipients of SNAP welfare--comprise roughly 13%, 16%, and 78% of the US population, respectively. Putting this in the context of the graphic above, we paint a much different picture:

78% of the population received 34% of SNAP--White
13% of the population received 22% of SNAP--Black
16% of the population received 16% of SNAP--Hispanic

It seems to me that Blacks receive nearly double the amount of welfare than Hispanics, despite comprising less of the US population. Whites, as a much larger part of the population, receive significantly less than both when accounting for population size. I'm no stranger to the fact that there's a difference between White people and White trash, so I sort of understand where the liberals are coming from--evil Republican racists just want to shift the focus towards Blacks so they can feel better about being such ignant, racist bigots. The idea is that Republicans--all of them--are the same White trash losers as the majority of SNAP beneficiaries. 

This allows for these liberals, whose sole motivation in politics is moral posturing, to ignore any real problems that minorities have while at the same time looking down on other White people. Confronted with the real statistics, the usual response is "that wasn't even what I was talking about." If they acknowledged that more blacks are, per capita, on welfare, then they would be wrong. This can never happen.