Saturday, April 28, 2012

Heather MacDonald on the Lessons of the Rodney King Riots



Could it happen again?

That is the taboo question on the 20th anniversary of Los Angeles’s murderous Rodney King riots, just as another racially charged prosecution — this time in Florida — captures headlines across the nation.

Sadly, the answer is yes.

As the Oakland riots in 2009 and 2010 following a transit officer’s fatal shooting of a parolee made clear, the threat of riots — what Fred Siegel has called “riot ideology” — still hangs over interracial incidents of violence when the "victim" is black.

And just as the press cynically manipulated the facts in the Rodney King beating in order to increase racial tensions, it has done so again in the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida.

The best hope for avoiding a repeat of the L.A. mayhem, should blacks not be satisfied with the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case, is that police forces across the country have learned the lesson of the Rodney King riots: that outbreaks of civil anarchy must be immediately and unapologetically suppressed.

* HEAR! HEAR!

* AND LET ME ADD, WHILE THE AUTHOR IS REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC SITUATION WHERE USING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF "...SHOULD BLACKS NOT BE SATISFIED..." IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE, I BELIEVE HER POSITION IS THE SAME AS MINE, NAMELY, RIOTING - REGARDLESS OF WHO THE RIOTERS ARE - MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.

Anniversary coverage of the 1992 riots (or, as the New York Times is still willing to put it, “civil unrest”) has whitewashed the violence and imposed a predictable storyline: that the riots were caused by the Los Angeles Police Department, not by the individuals who viciously assaulted motorists and shot Korean store owners.

* FRIGGIN' NYT... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

True, the LAPD had a troubled history with blacks in South Central Los Angeles. But the Rodney King beating was not a function of that history. In the 1950s and 1960s, LAPD Chief William Parker responded to the perennial problem of L.A. policing — too few cops, too much ground to cover — by cultivating an imperious command-and-control attitude in officers that sometimes merged into outright racism in the city’s high crime black areas. But by the 1980s, despite Parker’s earlier efforts to insulate the department from political interference, it was anti-cop politics, not the Centurion ideal, that most shaped the LAPD.

The department lowered physical standards to meet hiring quotas for females and minorities; those lowered standards increased the risk that officers would resort to firearms and other instruments of lethal force to subdue recalcitrant suspects. A ban on the use of the choke-hold likewise made use of the baton more likely. The Rodney King beating was the outgrowth of these political pressures.

Pumped up on alcohol and drugs, King led officers on a high-speed chase across L.A.’s freeways and residential streets far north of South Central. When the officers finally stopped him, they tried non-violent means of arresting him — verbal commands, a group tackle, handcuffs, and, finally, a taser — but he fiercely fought all of them off.

Only after King lunged at the officers did they resort to the baton.

A civilian video captured much of the stop, but... the media edited out the nonviolent prelude to the baton blows.

The loop beamed around the world thousands of times appeared to show an unprovoked beating of King, agonizingly prolonged because the main protagonist, the diminutive Laurence Powell, was physically over-matched by King and incompetent in use of the baton. (King’s two passengers, by comparison, complied with the officers’ orders and were arrested without incident.)

Unlike most of the public, the jury that decided the excessive-force charges against the officers saw the full video.

They acquitted the officers.

By then, the media had disseminated the relentless message that the biggest threat facing blacks in L.A. was the cops, not the hundreds of gangs that murdered blacks every week with zero protest from racial advocates. The verdict itself, according to the advocates and their press allies, could only have been produced by a criminal-justice system stacked against blacks.

(*SADLY SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FOLKS... AGAIN... GENERAL COMMENT: THIS IS WHY YOU NEED TO READ NEWSBITES. THE MEDIA - EVEN THE SO-CALLED "CONSERVATIVE" MEDIA - LIES AND DISTORTS REALITY SO OFTEN THAT UNLESS ONE HAS THE SORT OF KNOWLEDGE BASE I DO IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO GET SUCKED IN AT TIMES. THIS ISN'T EGO TALKING; THIS IS FACT!  COM'ON... HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU LEARNED SOMETHING YOU ORDINARILY WOULDN'T HAVE VIA NEWSBITES?! AND NOTICE, FOLKS, MY CRITIQUES AREN'T LIMITED TO DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS. NO. I SLAM THE REPUBLICANS CONSTANTLY! I SLAM "CONSERVATIVES" CONSTANTLY! IT'S CALLED "INTEGRITY" AND UNFORTUNATELY... FEW IN THE MEDIA POSSESS IT.

Fifty-four dead, 2,328 hospitalizations, nearly $1 billion in property damage. Twenty years later, the media seems interested mainly in asking how Rodney King feels about things now and whether the LAPD has changed. The suggestion that individuals were accountable for the violence is absent, and the clear implication in the coverage is that society had it coming. No reporter or commentator has asked: what collapse of socialization could lead to such nihilistic violence? Or: Has anything improved in the black family or black culture to guard against such depravity in the future?

(*SIGH*)

The press could use the 1992 riots as an occasion for self-examination. Instead, history is repeating itself. The build-up around the Trayvon Martin shooting seems almost designed to provoke riots should the case not come out the way the race agitators and the media think it should.

(*NOD*)

As with the King beating, the press has doctored evidence and suppressed relevant context

[They are] once again promoting falsehoods — that the criminal justice system is racist and that blacks are under assault from racist whites. (To the contrary, young black males are under assault from other young blacks, who commit homicide at ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined. White-on-black killings are negligible compared with black-on-white killings and are a minute fraction of the over 6,000 blacks mowed down every year by other blacks. Blacks kill whites and Hispanics at two-and-a-half times the rate at which whites and Hispanics kill blacks, though blacks are only one-sixth of the combined white and Hispanic population.)

(*SHRUG*)

It seems almost unimaginable that a jury would acquit Zimmerman after the intense campaign insisting on the symbolic racial status of the case. But should such an outcome come to pass, every police department in the country should be prepared to put down any ensuing violence at its first outbreak, in the name of justice for all. This much we should all have learned from the ugliness of 1992.

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., April 28 & 29, 2012


Oh, what a happy, happy, happy day!

Yes... it's Linda's wedding!

Tonight... 6:00 p.m.

Heading down to Jersey "Horse Country" early this afternoon to check into the Inn and (hopefully) do a bit of "pre-gaming" with my buddy Phil and other members of the Leiter clan!

(Rob... com'on... George and Harry will enjoy the CopperTop Bar with their uncles Phil and Bill!)

(Oh, yeah... and then there's "Uncle Tom" and "Cousin Tom." It's gonna be a GOOD night!)

So, folks... in the meantime I'll try and get a few newsbites posted - but no promises!

Hey... I've gotta go wash Hank!

A toast:

To Linda and John!

When we drink, we get drunk.
When we get drunk, we fall asleep.
When we fall asleep, we commit no sin.
When we commit no sin, we go to heaven.
So, let's all get drunk, and go to heaven!


Friday, April 27, 2012

My Buddy the Tory


No, I'm not referring to an English friend of mine - a modern Tory.

No, I'm referring to an American friend.... one of those Republican "conservatives" who truth be told I'm convinced would have been a Tory - an American Tory - had he lived back in Revolutionary War times.

Oh, this particular friend is not my only Tory friend. No. I have others. Indeed, sometime back my best friend - upon consideration of my "name-calling" - responded by calling me up several days after the charge was leveled to say, "Hey, Bill... you're right! I would have been a Tory!"

(Hey... ya gotta respect that! Self-knowledge is a rare gift!)

But, anyway, back to my other buddy... the one whose email message to me yesterday has provoked this particular long overdue post.

If you scroll down a bit you'll find a stand-alone post I added to Usually Right yesterday. The title: The Scumbag Thirteen." This Tory friend of mine was on my distribution list. His response...

"Bill, there  you go again. I'm with you brother, but this isn't the way to make progress."

My response to him? Well... let's just say that we agreed to disagree. Yes... I understand where he's coming from, but what he doesn't seem to understand is that there comes a time when one needs to fish or cut bait.

This particular friend... he hates it when I slam Republicans. Don't criticize George W. Bush to him or else things may well get heated! (Oh... I can blast Nan Hayworth - because he personally dislikes her... feels she personally betrayed him - but when I go after Boehner and McConnell... let alone a Mark Rubio or Chris Christie - it's suddenly "circle the wagons" time.)

No. My buddy isn't a hypocrite. Indeed, he's one of the most honorable people I know. It's just that like all too many Republicans, his "institutional loyalty" blinds him to the bottom line that past a certain point partisan loyalties can't be allowed to contribute to the enactment of a mutual suicide pact.

This man I'm talking about proudly served his country. He "wore the uniform." But I swear... from everything I know about his mindset, I'm convinced that had he been of age back during the time of the Revolutionary War, he would have volunteered to "fight for the King" in an effort to "conserve" the existing order which his "crystal ball past self" would have no doubt referred to as "the Rule of Law."

Funny... he's not the only one. I've already mentioned my best friend - the one who acknowledges he would have been a Tory... would have favoring "hanging the rebels." Allow me to mention another - also a military veteran. He and I actually stopped talking to each other for about two years after we got into an argument over this exact scenario and my insistence that he would have viewed George Washington as a traitor!

So... how'bout the rest of you?

Are you "pro-rebel" like me or "conservative" like my three aforementioned friends?

If you can justify - let alone upon reflection sincerely announce - that our American Revolution was justified and you would have supported it had you lived back then... what of now?

Do you view America 2012 as the Constitutional Republic created by our Founders and demanded by our Constitution?

Are there any among you who deny that the gerrymandered voting districts that are the building blocks of our "democracy" are artificially rigged... all in plain sight?

Do you believe that our "Thelma and Louise" federal government is likely - or even theoretically able - to slam on the breaks before launching us all over the cliff beyond recall... beyond redemption?

If you answer "no" to all three questions... then what's the answer? What's your answer?

Me? I fantasize. 

I wonder... what would be the result if some master assassin were to issue an ultimatum to the federal government that for each month the federal government continued deficit spending two politicians - one representing the leadership of the Republican Party, the other representing the leadership of the Democratic Party - would be killed.

Imagine... May 1st rolls around and someone takes out Boehner and Pelosi.

June 1st rolls around and someone takes out Reid and McConnell.

Drastic? Yep. Illegal? Certainly! (Folks... it's a fictional scenario... a theoretical construct.)

But would it work...?!?! Would it put the fear of God into the politicians...?!?!

One thing I know: America is in terminal decline. I outline how and why each day here at Usually Right.

I have a daughter. I have godchildren. I have nieces and nephews and sons and daughters of friends. I'm thinking of their future. 

Is political assassination the answer? No. Is revolution the answer? No. But think about it... really think about it... where does the path we're presently on lead?

Will we just sit back and watch the continued decline as once Romans did... as within living memory Englishmen did and Soviet citizens did?

It would be bad enough if we were talking about a corrupt but competent government. But we're not. We're talking a selfish, reckless, destructive oligarchy who are slowly but surely taking our childrens' and grandchildrens' futures away from them.

Oh, well... perhaps I'm getting all worked up over nothing. Maybe the American Tories are right. Let the government abuse the People and in the meantime each man and women for him or herself!

Let's "work within the system." I mean... after all... look how well that's been working for the American People since the Wilson era!

Oh, well... forgive the rambling. (And DON'T report me to Homeland Security! Heck... I don't even own a gun!)

Pearl River School District v. U.S. Dept. of Education



I no longer live in Pearl River, but my wife Mary still works there and each Thursday she brings home the "Our Town" Newspaper.

It's a great little paper. Always has been. Their editorial page is as strong (stronger, actually) than that of most major dailies - certainly stronger than that of the Journal News or my own (Orange County, NY) Times Herald-Record.

Unfortunately they don't post their articles and op-eds online, so... bear with me:

This week's lead editorial is titled, "Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don't," but it might as well be titled, "Obama's Jack-booted Thugs Set Loose On Pearl River."

I'll digest the article as best I can:

"Pearl River has, at taxpayer expense, gone to federal court to reverse a determination by the federal Department of Education that a civil rights violation has occurred in Pearl River. While no criminal penalties are involved, Pearl River could lose all or a portion of federal education funding and face further federal intervention in local education."

"The troublesome case of the Pearl River Union Free School District v. U.S Dept of Education illustrates what happens when an accused organization is presumed to be guilty of a civil rights offense and forced to prove its innocence."

* As opposed to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Bill)

"The case began at a home basketball game between Pearl River and Ardsley on February 18, 2011. Allegedly a racial slur was shouted at an Ardsley player as the team took the court."

"We say allegedly because, in court papers filed by the Pearl River School District, no one could be identified as shouting the alleged slur and no one but the complainant, the player's mother, initially reported the [alleged] slur."

"[In response to the accusation,] according to court papers, [the Pearl River School District] took the following actions:

Reviewed the videotape of the game; interviewed 31 witnesses, including Pearl River staff, coaches, spectators at the game, as well referees and Ardsley coaches.

No one recalled hearing any slurs nor did a video recording of the game reveal any slurs whatsoever."

"In response to the complaint, Pearl River further agreed to: Interview the complainant; interview the student who was [supposedly] the target of the alleged racial slur, and; interview additional witnesses who were present at the game."

"The goal of this investigation was to either identify the person who [supposedly] shouted the alleged slur and take immediate steps to ensure that no such harassment would occur again, or, equally as important in our [editorial] opinion, to determine that no slur had indeed been made and thus lay the matter to rest."

* Sounds reasonable, right folks? (Bill)

"The Federal Department of Education investigates complaints... The Pearl River School District is responsible for formulating and enforcing policies to discourage such [alleged] behavior, set standards of conduct, and deal with violations appropriately. This the district has done by entering into a Resolution Agreement with [Obama's] D.O.E. in which Pearl River agreed to review and revise harassment policies , to resolve policy compliance and grievance issues, and to distribute the revised policy to parents, students, and staff."

* OK, folks... here's where it gets hairy; here's where "Obama's Jack-booted Thugs" come into the picture. Read on! (Bill)

"Disregarding the agreement forged only two days prior, and acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury rolled into one, the [Obama] D.O.E. unilaterally determined that a racial slur had been made after [supposedly] reviewing the tape - a tape the district contends contained no such slur."

* Hey... if it turns out the district is lying... I'll gladly eat my words attached to this digest. But from what I'm reading... and from what I'm about to add... I doubt that this will be the case. Read on! (Bill)

"Citing a blog posted by the complainant as evidence, the D.O.E. also made a determination that Pearl River's investigation was incomplete and insufficient. In making that determination, the D.O.E. only interviewed the complainant and his sister and one Ardsley resident."

"The Pearl River lawsuit alleges that the D.O.E. ignored the preponderance of evidence that led to the district's conclusion that no slur had been made. The suit also alleges that the D.O.E. violated its own policies and procedures in taking this matter so far."

"Here is the glaring inconsistency on the part of D.O.E. and what appears to be a contradiction of its own policies. The agency reviewed the tape and determined that the tape does not support the accusation. Yet the determination was not withdrawn."

* Again, folks... if there's a slur on that tape then fine. Then the district is lying. But if there were truly any chance of this... why in God's name would the district sue and thus risk criminal perjury charges being filed against said officials? (Bill)

Anyway... here's the bottom line from "Our Town":

"We don't know what the D.O.E.'s objective is in ignoring the terms of the Resolution Agreement... Regardless of whether a slur had been made or not, the district agreed to address any policy issues that had not been already clearly defined. We [also] do know that in the first 33 months of the Obama administration the D.O.E. launched 30 compliance reviews as compared to 22 during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. Most involve Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..."

"Different societies have developed different codes of justice. Based on English Common Law, American justice emphasizes due process, burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence. ... The Napoleonic Code presumes guilt in criminal cases, combines the roles of magistrate and prosecutor, and requires a defendant to prove innocence. ... In some countries, such as [Communist/Fascist] China, the legal system functions as an extension of the political system, designed to carry out state policy."

* Folks... fellow Pearl River school mates... I don't want America to follow the path of China - or even France for that matter. (Bill)

* This is an outrage. I urge you all to print out this posting (or if you have access to the actual "Our Town" issue photocopy or cut it out) and send it to your member of the House of Representatives, your two U.S. Senators, Governor Cuomo, and President Obama. (Bill)

R.I.N.O.s Strike Again!



And if John Boehner dies before I wake... 
I swear to God I'll celebrate!

You know a politician is looking for applause when he speaks in front of a crowd of college students and says he's there to help them pay back their student loans.

(*SNORT*)

After all, who doesn't like the prospect of free money? But as the saying (sort of) goes, beware of politicians bearing gifts. That's especially true this week as President Barack Obama travels the country warning students that their student loan interest rates are set to double and that he has the answer to all their problems.

Guess what? He doesn't. But if there's one thing the president has managed to accomplish, it's in turning this issue into a political football. And now the [Republican-controlled] House of Representatives is joining the game.

* YEP... THE BOEHNER/CANTOR REPUBLICANS...

(*SIGH*)

This all began back in 2007 when Democrats pushed for a five-year student loan interest rate reduction to 3.4% as a "temporary" subsidy in order to help make the loans more affordable.

* OR MORE ACCURATELY, TO LURE STUPID KIDS INTO BORROWING MORE THAN THEY SHOULD WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SPURRING ALREADY OUT OF CONTROL INFLATION IN THE "HIGHER EDUCATION" SECTOR.

Now that "temporary" subsidy is set to expire, meaning that rates will return to their original 6.8% levels.

* FOR NEW LOANS...!!! FOR NEW LOANS...!!! NOT FOR EXISTING LOANS...!!!

In the midst of all this, the [Boehner/Cantor-controlled] House is expected to vote today on a measure that would keep interest rates where they are - costing taxpayers $5.9 billion for a one-year extension.

(*SLAMMING MY FISTS DOWN UPON THE DESKTOP*)

And under the proposal, the extension would be paid for by taking funds from Obamacare's Prevention and Public Health Fund.

* WHAT A FRIGG'N SCAM!

Obamacare, instead, should be repealed outright - not used as a "slush fund" to pay for other programs.

* YA THINK...?!?!

But besides the measure being a flawed and costly way to pay for the lower interest rates, there's an even bigger problem. The supposed benefits of keeping the interest rates at 3.4% are largely illusory, and the president [and Republicans are] selling students a bag of magic beans.

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin explains on National Review's "The Corner":

The interest rate increase sounds serious. After all, there are 39 million Americans with student loans owing over a trillion dollars of debt, and interest rates doubling from 3.4%percent to 6.8% would be a huge hit at a time when households are already struggling.

Serious... except that the president's plan would apply only to those 23 million loans being borrowed directly from the federal government.

Except that... not all of those would benefit; it would apply only to the 9.5 million loans being borrowed through the so-called subsidized Stafford loans.

Except... the lower rate would apply only to new borrowers who apply this year.

Except... that no payments are made until after graduation, so it would not help anyone for several years.

Except... that it would lower monthly payments by an average of only $7.

* WHILE COSTING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BILLIONS!

In other words, for an incredibly high cost, students are realizing very little benefit. And don't forget, these are loans that they're voluntarily taking on as part of an investment to benefit themselves.

None of this is to say that the federal government should spend even more to subsidize student loans in an effort to make college more affordable. It absolutely should not. Federally subsidized student loans are handed out to millions of college students regardless of risk - let alone whether they can handle college-level work. Thanks to taxpayer backing, the loans are offered at rates far below what private lenders would offer. When the students can't afford to pay, the American people are stuck with the bill.

On top of all this, government intervention in the higher education marketplace hasn't even succeeded in bringing down college costs. In fact, the price of a degree has risen right along with government spending. Pell grants have increased 475% since 1980, and yet the cost of attending college has increased 439% since 1982. It's a vicious cycle that will only get worse with more government subsidies.

There's a better way to drive down college costs. Heritage's Stuart Butler writes that the higher education industry is on the verge of a "transformative re-alignment," and notes:

"...most college leaders live in a bubble in which the costs of ever more elaborate facilities, expanding administrative bureaucracies, and high-profile professors with light teaching loads can simply be passed on to customers in the form of higher tuition."

(*NOD*)

But those days are about to end.

* NOT IF WE KEEP SUBSIDIZING THEM...!!!

Underneath the surface, upstart institutions are perfecting radically new education technologies and business plans at the same time that young people and their parents are becoming more frustrated with the traditional higher-education model, and more open-minded about alternatives. There is every reason to suspect that, quite soon, these new institutions will do to higher education what Sony did to radios and Apple did to computing. Afterward, our colleges and universities will never be the same. Few Americans, one suspects, will look back in regret.

Sure, it might strike all the right populist tones to tell college students that you're going to give them a hand out, but the caustic effects of the policy will only make higher education more costly over time. Instead of a short-term spending splurge that has little benefit, Washington should pursue a long-term strategy that gives students the help they really need.