The Recognition We Deserve

Once again, Flint is getting publicity for its psychotically high murder rate. This isn't anything new or surprising to me, but I figure that it's always good to have Yahoo! backing up statistics on this shithole:

"1. Flint, Mich. 

Violent crimes per 1,000: 23.4

Population: 102,357

2011 murders: 52

Median income: $22,672

Unemployment rate: 18.9%

According to the FBI, no city with more than 100,000 residents had a higher violent crime rate than Flint. In 2011, there were 2,392 incidents of violent crime in Flint, which has a population just above 100,000. That same year, there were just 1,246 violent crimes in all 10 of the safest cities in America — which have 13 times as many residents as Flint among them. Flint has the second-highest murder rate and the highest rates of aggravated assault, burglary and arson in the nation. According to Flint Mayor Dayne Walling, “there are too many guns on the street and it’s easy for individuals with evil motives to take another human being’s life.” 

Though the violent crime has long been a problem in Flint, in 2010 the city laid off 20 of its 140 police officers, a decision that diminished both the police’s street presence and response times to crime." 

Flint's favorite son feels that its murder rate is caused by a surplus of guns and, more importantly, 'individuals' with evil motives. At face value, I agree that the problem is caused by individuals with evil motives having guns. Classification of these individuals is where Dayne and I disagree--Blacks with guns are the reason Flint is the most dangerous city in the US.

But enough about Walling--let's see if anyone else can tell us why Flint is the way it is:

"Notice how all these cities have high populations of subsidized housing and projects. Those are deadly to crime preponderance. Obviously, they are a symptom of deep social problems, but the connection is more than coincidence. By the way, New Orleans also had lots of subsidized apartments. Gruesome." 

 I can think of something else all these cities have a lot of!

"You can buy a nice house in Detroit for less than 20k.....that's the reason why."

And here I was thinking that affordable housing would stop Black  crime!

Mark Adomanis on John Derbyshire

I've kept quiet about the The Talk--and John Derbyshire's blacklisting--in no small part due to laziness. The greater part, though, is due to an apathy inside me that has seen this before. James D. Watson was met with a similar backlash after a similar comment on the hereditary nature of IQ, which I talk about in (a little) more detail here. Setting aside direct discussion about The Talk, I'd like to put part of an article from Forbes contributor Mark Adomanis on the table:

"It utterly baffles me how, in this day and age, anyone, even the most obtuse or egotistical, could possibly think that you would not be put out to pasture for authoring such a humorless, ill-informed, poorly written, and sophomoric screed about the mortal peril that white and Asian children face from African Americans."

I would disagree with the notion of Derbyshire's being ill-informed, but I'm sure that his time at Harvard/Oxford left Mark with a much more intimate understanding of Black Americans than mine. The poor writing accusation won't stand as well, considering just how fresh-out-of-college and overly-horny-for-a-big-article his own writing is. Yes, Adomanis knows how the game is played, as is demonstrated by the article in three major ways:

1) The most integral part of any left-leaning article is to make your opponent's political incorrectness known as often and as pompously as possible. Your opponent is a dim-witted, evil dickface. Mark follows the formula to a tee, using the words "racism" and "racist" a collective thirty times in-between dropping loads of shit much like the one in quotes above. 

2) Ignore the big, ugly truth about Blacks in the US, and reiterate that your opponent is a racist--therefore stupid, therefore a liar. Be sure to leave it at this, because delving into statistical detail will only encourage your opponents and may confuse your audience. Mark wrote an article about how Conservatism is hurt by racist assholes like Derbyshire rather than one on whether or not The Talk could actually save lives. 

3) Use words that will make people think you're smart. Like "screed." Screed, screed, screed.

I also really liked this:

"** I am not (let me repeat not) arguing that the conservative base is uniformly racist. Far from it. But the conservative base does have a much higher tolerance for harsh rhetoric provided that that rhetoric comes from other conservatives. This “us versus them” mentality is very much a basic part of human psychology, but does seem to be particularly well developed among contemporary American conservatives who will countenance almost any sort of conduct provided the person is part of their team."

Translation:

"I'm not saying that all Conservatives are racist--it's just that, on average, they're more likely to be racists. "

Ever the victim...

I was on campus the other day, reading some Gucci, when a man walked into the area and said, "We're having a student discussion in the community room. Free pizza and pop." Never one to turn down a slice of 'za, I decided to check it out. What awaited me was a student discussion on whether black organizations (NAACP, Urban League, etc.) were still relevant, or really needed.

Leading the discussion was a panel of faculty members: a husky black woman, husky black man, and the obligatory pear-shaped white woman--because most true believers of the white woman persuasion take after fruit of some sort. As can be expected of the kind of white woman you see at a black organizing event, she was the most outspoken and hostile towards the racist, misogynistic, patriarchal, male establishment. But not in those words--these ones:

• "Now, more than ever, we need black organizations. Racism/classism is embedded in our language today."
• "The seat of power hasn't shifted ... We need equality for women and minorities ... White men have the power."

Essentially, blacks are a smaller part of the whole; a whole which needs to rise up and seize power from evil white men. This is to be expected of the white-woman-diversity-professor type, because they know the root of all evil is white men. What I didn't expect was just how far into insanity this discussion would delve. Not to disappoint, the black woman panelist spoke:

• "America is NOT post-racial. People like to think it is, because of Obama's election, but it's not. We still have poverty in our community, and we still have crime." 

Let's analyze what was just said: Electing a president for the sole purpose of proving we're not racist just doesn't seem to be enough to prove that there isn't some racist conspiracy. She told this to a room full of students paying for classes with money the were given just for being black. I like to think of it as 'letting them in on the entitlement racket' more than 'letting them know they're oppressed,' in any case. In their heart of hearts, even most true believers know the truth.