A Lesson From Nairobi

Ross Langdon (left) and Dr. Elif Yavuz

Much was made the other day of the murder of Dr. Elif Yavuz and her longtime beau and architect, Ross Langdon, both just 33 y/o, by jihadist terrorists in the recent Nairobi, Kenya mall attack.

Some Westerners have speculated that the attackers didn’t know of all the good works done by Dr. Yavuz (a Dutch national and malaria specialist working with the Clinton Foundation in Africa), but it turns out that a number of the jihadists involved DID know, and had family members who’d benefited from those Western anti-malaria programs.

Neither did the fact that she was eight months pregnant, nor that her partner (the Australian-born architect) Ross Langdon had spent his life building “eco-lodges” and socially sustainable tourism in ecologically sensitive locations sway the jihadists.

There’s a lesson in all this that goes beyond, although it’s connected to the dual, competing moralities – the strict Sharia moral code versus Western decadence – and that message comes across as, “You will NOT build a better world without us.” It’s a rebuke of Western do-gooderism by the faceless herd the do-gooders look down upon in order to “help.”

While the moral code the jihadists live by is completely antithetical and incompatible with Western morality, there is something to THAT outrage – the outrage of “the poor” and “dispossessed” at those who must look down before they bend down to help, at those who must control to “uplift.”

There’s always been a large amount of tone deafness to the Western adage, “There but for the grace of God go I.” It’s always understood to be a reflection by the wealthy man that he too could be poor, if things hadn’t somehow. . .worked out, BUT there’s a flip side to that that’s almost always overlooked, the poor man, looking at the wealthy man can say the same thing. . .if not for better earlier circumstances, a better family, better opportunities, etc., maybe he too could’ve been rich.

While it’s easier to see and dismiss the latter as mere envy, BOTH are fallacies, in fact, the former, the more ubiquitous view, completely dismisses the fact that all wealth, all creativity and productivity are born of disciplined effort by those who’ve spent their lives honing specific, often hard to master skills, as mere accident. Of the two views, the one that dismisses productive effort as accident is by far the most corrosive.

Without question, the West advanced first, but instead of leaving others to develop on their own terms and forge their own paths, it has decided for others that there is no other path to true advancement and development but the Western one.

Instead of trading for oil that’s near worthless to nomads, hunter-gatherers and other less-developed peoples, the West insisted on coupling their basic trade with a mandated acceptance of their foreign and all too often distasteful culture by those they traded with. The Bedouins and others didn’t seem to mind the trade, but they did seem to want autonomy (some call it “self determination”), but the West couldn’t help “helping,” as it’s primary impulse seems always to seek to “lift up the downtrodden.”

Why is it impossible for Westerners to imagine a different way, perhaps a better way to develop than through their own arduous process of industrialization, mechanization, information-technology, etc.?

What if a Sufi path would have, if left alone, led to “willing things into existence,” even teleportation, things the Western way cannot even imagine? OR at least a more ecologically sustainable, simpler, more peaceable lifestyle. It’s actually hard to imagine which one of those is the longer shot there.

In short, what IF the Western way ISN’T the best way?

The do-gooder ignores this possibility, he MUST ignore it, in order to look down to “help” those “less fortunate.” The existence of even the remote (even the remotest) possibility that the “dispossessed” might be on a different, perhaps even “better” path undermines the entire edifice of “Western superiority.”

Yes, the “slaughter of innocents” that IS the hallmark of jihadist warfare is evidence of how different and incompatible Sharia’s moral code is with that of the West, but it is also a cry of outrage that apparently resonates with many of the world’s “dispossessed.”

And of course, it’s also proof that ALL of humanity is deeply flawed. While the barbarism of the jihadists is sickening, it can highlight the oppressive nature of the West’s suffocating and controlling “help.” Like a bad significant other, the West can’t seem to help trying to remake everyone over in their own image, or at least their image of how “those people” should be.

JMK

WHY Would ANY of This Surprise ANYONE?! Current Administration Seeks Broader Surveillance Powers

A couple weeks back the Washington Post reported that, “The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

“In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html).

YES, candidate Obama claimed to oppose “the Bush Surveillance State” (http://on.aol.com/video/flashback–obama-slams-bushs-surveillance-state-517814038), but President Obama’s “Surveillance State” appears not only far more intrusive, but even LESS targeted than his predecessor’s.

Those lamenting for “privacy rights” are longing for bygone days. We live in a world where your own in-home CCTV surveillance systems can you get you locked up (witness Aaron Hernandez murder charges; (http://abcnews.go.com/US/aaron-hernandezs-cameras-capture-gun-minutes-shooting/story?id=19775235). I don’t believe I know a single person (including a number who lament our current dearth of privacy) who don’t have such systems!

When we travel around town we are rarely ever very far away from some camera’s glare…AND for the most part, that’s a very, VERY good thing! Too many crimes to count have been solved by such video alone, like this, now infamous, Milburn, NJ home invasion caught on a “Baby Cam” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKfcc2rM_xI). As much as “the accused have rights,” including the right to privacy, I can find no Constitutional guarantees that would afford this thug (Shawn Custis) any such protections either inside another person’s home, or on public thoroughfares.

We all know this, so it’s up to the individual to adapt and act accordingly.

We are all much better off with such surveillance cameras being so ubiquitous.

Now, this IS different than government snooping among your emails and other correspondences and I said at the time, that ANY law enforcement use of Patriot Act provisions for ANY actions other than terrorism should be barred. I opposed the TN police overreach using the Patriot Act’s provisions against the creation of WMDs against a group busted for running a Meth lab (one of the byproducts of Meth production can be phosgene gas).

I support the NSA Surveillance programs. I supported them under Bush and I support them today…with strict oversights.

For that reason, it is hard for me to see Edward Snowden as either a “hero,” or a “traitor.” He is a whistleblower and made the world aware of some glaring abuses within America’s modern “Surveillance State.” He also put others at risk by dumping tons of classified information.

It is somewhat ironic that the SAME firm that vetted Ed Snowden also “vetted” the deranged D.C. gunman Aaron Alexis (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/aaron-alexis-background-checks). That probably only proves that there will always be cracks in the system.

The “Surveillance State” seems to be here to stay, mainly because individuals (ie. homeowners) and businesses insist upon it for their own protection, local governments see it as a means to both reduce traffic infractions (red light cams) and raise revenues and the federal government sees it as vital in the global “War on Terrorism.” With all that to gain, it seems completely unlikely that America’s “Surveillance State” will even be scaled back much, let alone effectively repealed.

JMK

Young Black Males: OVER-Represented in Prisons NOT in the Military

Conventional wisdom is often wrong. Like that bit of conventional wisdom that holds that military service disproportionately attracts men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom are members of minority groups. Many people believe that troops enlist primarily because they have few options, not because they want to serve their country. A recent study on the matter shows that NOT to be the case; (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers)

When compared military volunteers to the civilian population on four demographic characteristics: household income, education level, racial and ethnic background, and regional origin. As a result, we now know who serves in the active-duty ranks of the U.S. all-volunteer military.

According to the report (p. 13), “both active-duty enlisted troops and officers come disproportionately from high income neighborhoods—a trend that has increased since 9/11”. As can be seen from the chart on the left, only 11% of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest 1/5 (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods. Also contrary to popular perceptions, U.S. military enlisted troops are not poorly educated. In fact, American soldiers are significantly more likely to have a high school diploma than their civilian peers: only 1.4% of enlisted recruits in 2007 had not graduated from high school or completed a high school equivalency degree, compared to 20.8% of the general male population in the age range between 18 and 24. Moreover, 95% of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree.

Likewise, the conventional wisdom that minorities are overrepresented in the military is not supported by the facts. No clear racial imbalance is evident in regard to enlisted personnel. Among the officer corps, Caucasians are proportionately represented and African-Americans are overrepresented. American Indian and Alaskan natives are the most overrepresented group among new recruits. Asians and Pacific Islanders are slightly underrepresented. Hispanics are also underrepresented, with the troop-to-population ratio of 0.65 in 2007.

So, why are young black males so overrepresented in prison? In 2010 black non-Hispanic males were incarcerated at the rate of 4,347 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of the same race and gender. White males were incarcerated at the rate of 678 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents. Hispanic males were incarcerated at the rate of 1,755 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents!

Moreover, the disproportionate black male crime rates DO NOT decrease in predominantly black and black-run cities. Interestingly enough, black majority cities have similar crime statistics for blacks as do cities where majority of population is white. For instance, white-majority San Diego has a slightly lower crime rate for blacks than does Atlanta, a city which has black majority in population and city government.

SEE: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

AND: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-there-are-grits-in-dfac.html

AND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

A Tale of TWO Shootings

Trayvon Martin     (Top)                       George Zimmerman  (Bottom)

In a Florida community beset by a rash of burglaries, a black man is alerted by a neighbor that “kids are breaking into cars along his block.”

The 43 y/o man calls 911 and is told to “Stay put” and NOT to go outside armed as Police are on the way, but the former football player goes outside armed anyway and upon seeing three Hispanic teens who look like they may have just come from an opened car with its doors left open, decides to draw down on the youths and hold them for Police.

The black man outweighs the largest of the teens by around 50 lbs. It is late and there are few witnesses and the few witnesses aren’t close enough to the action to be completely sure of exactly what transpired.

There are conflicting accounts past this point, the armed man claims a 17 y/o youth rushes his gun and he fires two shots, killing him, the other two teens swear that the white man shot the unarmed Hispanic teen with his hands in the air.

Given Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, was this black man, under that law, justified in shooting this unarmed Hispanic teen?

If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

In New York State, which has no “Stand Your Ground” law, a white homeowner in a neighborhood beset by a rash of recent burglaries, virtually ALL of them committed by young black males, sees a young black male walking between homes along a secluded street. He gets out of his vehicle to observe. He is armed. He knows people along this street. He also calls 911 and is told NOT to follow.

He starts to head back to his car, but the teen is angered by the man following him and waylays him on the way to his car. The teen surprises the older homeowner and flattens his nose with his first blow, then straddles the fallen man and begins raining down blows MMA style upon the prone homeowner.

With the teen atop and astride him, this white homeowner is able to get his gun out and fire a single shot that kills this black teen. Is he justified in killing this unarmed black teen under New York State law, which DEMANDS that a victim exhaust ALL other possibilities before resorting to violence?

Again, If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

Chris Cervini (Top)     Roderick Scott (Bottom)

Oh...ONE more thing, I got the States and the races in these two incidents mixed up.

It was a hulking black (Roderick Scott) shot an unarmed white teen in Rochester, NY, where there is no “Stand Your Ground” law. New York State DOES NOT recognize a “Citizen’s Arrest” (that’s “unlawful imprisonment” and possibly “kidnapping,” depending upon how ambitious the Prosecutor is) AND its laws on Self Defense are very clear – the VICTIM MUST exhaust ALL other possibilities before resorting to self defense. The Prosecutor argues that Roderick Scott’s imposing size difference, and his ability to escape (flee) in the open street, should’ve made the use of a gun unnecessary if rushed by a single unarmed 17 y/o, which is what HE claims.

In effect, Roderick Scott engaged in “Stand Your Ground” in N.Y. State, a state WITHOUT a “Stand Your Ground” law.

In Florida, Jorges Zimmerman (a Hispanic male) followed a teen before Police dispatch told him, “We don’t need you to do that,” and was allegedly waylaid on his way back to his vehicle. His injuries and the lack of any to his assailant (Trayvon Martin) seem consistent with that scenario.

While pinned to the ground beneath a flailing teen, Zimmerman is able to get to his gun and fire a single shot that kills Trayvon Martin.

Does the change in locales or races, change your perception of the events at all?

Again, If so...WHY so?

AND if NOT...WHY not?

I’ve been pondering these two cases and have become convinced that the ONLY way the Trayvon Martin movement can claim a consistent moral principle would be to demand that BOTH the Trayvon Martin AND the Chris Cervini killings be examined by the DoJ.

Anything less appears entirely racially motivated on their part.

Apparently George Zimmerman Just Wasn't WHITE Enough!

Now after all has been said and done in the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, we still have a tremendous amount of hand wringing on the part of those...who apparently DIDN’T watch the trial.

Or maybe they watched MSNBC, which seemed to deliver solely Al Sharpton’s view of the trial – the view were a sweet, innocent teen aged boy was gunned down for merely buying a pack of skittles and an iced tea in the wrong neighborhood.

Of course that’s not what really happened. It doesn’t make any sense, if it doesn’t make sense, it probably DIDN’T happen like that.

George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin dressed in “thug gear” (low riding jeans, a tee shirt and a “hoodie” – favored by street criminals everywhere in this post-surveillance world). He decided to observe, pulling his car over, he got out and followed Trayvon Martin on foot.

Both men were on the phone – Martin with his girlfriend and Zimmerman with police.

We know that Martin PERCEIVED he was being followed (according to Rachel Jeantel) by a “creepy ass cracker” (but according to Jeantel, that’s no big deal because every black in her community talks that way). Now why was Paula Deen’s referring to a black man who held her up at gun point a “n*gger” a big deal, again? Can one form of racial hatred by “more OK” than another? If so, why so?

At any rate, apparently Martin didn’t like being followed at all and at some point decided to do something about it.

According to Zimmerman, when the police dispatcher told him they didn’t need him to follow Martin, he retreated toward his car.

Again, according to Zimmerman, he was confronted and jumped by Martin before he arrived at his car. The “teen” flattened Zimmerman’s nose and straddled him on the sidewalk pummeling him…the rest, we pretty much know.

WHY does that scenario make sense, where the one wherein Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher’s directions and physically confronted Martin anyway, doesn’t?

Well, had Zimmerman confronted Martin, it’s unlikely that he would’ve allowed Martin into his personal space, to do so much damage before getting to his gun...in FACT, if he were approaching someone he believed to be suspect, especially in the wake of spate of burglaries in the area, he’d have probably at least had his hand ON his weapon.

So, the most likely scenario is that Trayvon Martin, angry that this “creepy-assed cracker” was following him, decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson, a lesson that apparently would’ve put George Zimmerman in a coma, or worse, had it not been for that gun. (SEE: the story of Pat Mahaney, stomped to death by a gaggle of black teens in Cincinnati; http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/blacks-pummel-white-guy-for-fun-of-it/

So, apparently what George Zimmerman is really guilty of is...NOT DYING!

When he followed Trayvon Martin (as ANY concerned resident might do) and allegedly retreated toward his own car when told by the dispatcher not to follow the subject (Martin), he failed to “live up to the expected social script” (AGAIN, SEE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/blacks-pummel-white-guy-for-fun-of-it/).

Zimmerman had a licensed gun…and after being pummeled into the pavement, apparently found a way to get to it and plug his now sainted young attacker.

THAT is apparently the source of the MSNBC crowd’s angst. WHY didn’t George Zimmerman simply DIE?

Well, at the risk of getting all colloquial, “He ain’t George ya assholes, he’s Jorges Zimmerman” and to put it even more indelicately, “Beaners don’t roll like that.” He fought back!

But it’s OK...he ain’t WHITE! Jorges had every right to fight back, because unlike Pat Mahaney (who unfortunately was white) Jorges fought back, and was lucky enough NOT to have had his gun taken from him and used against him.

I know...I know...MSNBC had erroneously declared Zimmerman to be de facto “white,” leading many to mistakenly believe that what happened to Mahaney (http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/blacks-pummel-white-guy-for-fun-of-it/) SHOULD HAVE happened to Jorges.

In the end, George Zimmerman just simply wasn’t WHITE Enough for the pro-Trayvon crowd. Indeed, luckily for HIM, he wasn’t all that “white” at all...he fought back and very possibly saved his own life.

Let’s all FINALLY come to accept that MSNBC got the basic dynamics of this case all wrong! That’s a good starting point for some real common ground.

Sadly, we live in a nation where black males (6% of population) commit over 50% of all the murders AND they commit murders against whites something like 15X the rate that whites kill blacks;

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
(http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html)

Those are truly disgusting figures and ignoring them only exacerbates the problem.

EVERYONE should have those facts permanently seared into their brains.

How horrific is it that, “The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic?

No one with even a shred of common sense doubts those figures. As shocking as they may be, they appear intuitive, like, “Yeah, that pretty much makes sense,” or, “I thought as much.”

YES, the MSNBC crowd is angst ridden and angry right now...MOSTLY angry that Jorges Zimmerman didn’t just die, the way poor old Pat Mahaney did when he was attacked by a gang of “young teens” recently,  in Cincinnati (some as young as 13 y/o).

As a related aside, have you noticed that “TEENS” is the new code word for young black males? White perps are NEVER referred to in that way, ESPECIALLY in the wake of a white-on-black crime (god forbid) no, in such cases “WHITES” is the lead in ALL headlines! That’s an interesting dichotomy isn’t it? Some (such as myself, for instance) would call that a DOUBLE STANDARD!

There are moments when an ideology is exposed as a home for misanthropic cowards…people who hate others, but seem able ONLY to truly get off when someone else, someone possessed of a bit more intestinal fortitude, as well as more physical rage than they, goes out and acts upon their innermost and cherished impulses.

The American Left...especially its MSNBC vanguard is exposed as that by their collective reaction to this verdict.

They appear to have preferred, “Damn the lack of evidence! How dare George not simply DIE?!”

According to some MSNBC commentators and even the prosecution (whom Alan Dershowitz wants to see disbarred: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Zimmerman-Prosecutorial-Misconduct/2013/07/14/id/514957?s=al&promo_code=142AB-1) have floated the ridiculous and dangerous idea that just because a person “feeeeels” they’re being followed, OR “feeeeels” threatened that gives them some NON-existent “right” to “PRE-emptive self defense.” THAT is beyond absurd.

Such a “pre-emptive self defense" amounts to a felony assault. The call FOR such "pre-emptive self defense" would itself upend "Stand Your Ground," and is without question far more dangerous than any such law has proven to be.

According to that twisted argument, Trayvon Martin (or apparently anyone) “feeeeling” followed or “threatened” has some nebulous “right” to “PRE-emptive self defense” (N.B. It AIN’T self defense IF it’s PRE-emptive) and yet these SAME people DO NOT acknowledge George Zimmerman’s very REAL right to defend HIMSELF after being pre-emptively attacked/ASSAULTED!

Likewise, nearly EVERYONE seems to lament “gun violence,” as if guns just go off on their own and kill.

Banning guns, or even making ammunition so expensive people couldn't afford it AREN’T legitimate answers to stopping gun violence! (Thugs STEAL their guns and ammo) There IS, however, a VERY REAL and VERY specific human element to gun violence in America and the dirty little “secret” (one that isn't very secret at all) is that black males (appx 6% of the population) are responsible for the bulk of the gun violence in America.

So here’s the sticking point, the very grim stats above, outline a very disturbing and too long ignored problem, as the key takeaways from those stats are: When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, AND The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

You see? Violence control ultimately boils down to the question of “HOW do we best control black males?”

And questions like THAT tend to make a lot of very comfortable (mostly white) people, very uncomfortable.

WHY? Well, I DON’T believe that American Leftists in the media and/or elsewhere fail to focus on much more horrific black-on-white crimes (like the Christian/Newsom torture murders, OR the Pat Mahaney murder) “because doing so might prove racially inflammatory,” NOT AT ALL.

The ONLY reason, in my mind, that they largely ignore the far more prevalent and heinous black-on-white attacks is because they actually believe “This is just how most black folks act.” I’ve never really witnessed ANY REAL empathy toward blacks by ANY American “liberals”/Leftists, in fact they appear to see them and treat them as though they are a LESSER form of life, a more primitive and more animalistic hominid. Which is one of the reasons why I’ve always had a deep and visceral revulsion toward white liberals. There’s just something horrifically misanthropic behind all that paternalism.

Oddly enough (well, not really) well-off whites, who tend to live in gated, virtually all white communities seem blithely unaware of these realities and what’s more, they seem to insist on remaining so!

I believe that’s called willful ignorance.