We don’t yet know much…
…about this, but it sounds bad.
Preliminary reports make it seem like it actually was workplace violence. Then again, workplace violence doesn’t usually involve three shooters.
Stay tuned.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
they refuse to report much that one shooter was black
they instead are trying to keep reporting about the white one
and they are messing up the reports badly
like three person work place shooting?
its not a terrorist attack?
may i ask what constitutes a terrorist attack? must one be like a journalist and have an official connection to something? and if you dont get orders your not?
meanwhile…
the press doesnt want to bring up the revenge anouncements, and that this has some marks of the incident in INDIA… in mumbai…
what people dont get is that the reason there is not more is not that they are not smart enough or capable, but that it serves a purpose.
toll up to 12, last checked…
but it seems that this liberal state is as lenin said, being led by people with “infantile disorders” and who do not realize what branch they were siting on they were carving up
‘HAPPY DAYS’ STAR POUNCES ON NAVY YARD SHOOTING TO PROMOTE GUN CONTROL
Henry Winkler of Happy Days fame joined the club earlier today
and i would like to report that Navy chief petty officer named Rollie Chance, did not do the shooting. though now his life is in turmoil…
and you have to love this one:
CNN Anchor Can’t Remember the Last Shooting at ‘U.S. Military Facility’
anchor Carol Costello asked when the last time was that a gunman wreaked “havoc at a U.S. military facility.” Hint: Fort Hood
President Barack Obama called the incident a “cowardly act” that would be swiftly and “thoroughly” investigated.
Finally, the president pledged to do “everything in our power to ensure that whoever carried out this cowardly act is held responsible.”
[unless its russia. we dont do anything if they do it]
Sorry dodger… wrong, wrong, and double wrong. It was reported early that one shooter was black. By the Washington Post:
“Two Navy yard employees interviewed on CNN said they were fired on in a hallway by a gunman they described as a tall black man.
A woman who gave her name as Terry Durham said that as she and co-workers were evacuating, she saw a man down the hall raise a rifle and fire toward them, hitting a wall. “He was tall. He appeared to be dark-skinned,” she said.
“He was a tall black guy,” said her co-worker, Todd Brundage, who is black. “He didn’t say a word.””
At least 12 dead in Navy Yard shooting; possible suspect at large – The Washington Post
Pat Milton the suspected shooter apparently had a handgun, an AR-15 assault rifle, and a shotgun with him and was wearing dark blue clothing.
Police Chief Cathy Lanier said early Monday afternoon they were looking for two other possible gunmen wearing military-style uniforms, although she said this was more out of an abundance of caution than a certainty they were involved in the incident.
One of them, a white male in a tan uniform, was cleared.
The other is a black male, 40 to 50 years old, wearing an olive, military-style uniform, of medium complexion with graying sideburns.
vanderleun, I saw that too, and I couldn’t help noticing how careful the WaPo was to state that the eyewitness who said the suspect was black was also black himself — and therefore, apparently, is allowed to describe a perpetrator’s race. By implication, a white eyewitness could not state that a shooter was black without being instantly suspected of racism — or the Wapo would be for reporting it.
Oh what a mess we are in.
And then later they went back and expunged the description as black. Very very careful.
Sorry dodger… wrong, wrong, and double wrong. It was reported early that one shooter was black.
she did not say he was backed, she hedged by saying he was “dark skinned” it was the other employee that said he was black.. AND..
Two Navy yard employees interviewed on CNN said they were fired on in a hallway by a gunman they described as a tall black man.
and lots of the news didnt want to report. that is, they were obtuse about it until they didnt HAVE to be any more.
huffington says
Aaron Alexis has been identified by police as the dead Washington Navy Yard shooter
then who is Pat Milton?
by the way… when i started reading there had only been one or two dead. its 12 now. and if i look it may be higher.
Jirus went to an alley where he thought he would be safe, and talked briefly with a man there about what was going on. Jirus said he heard two gunshots, loudly echoing off the building. It caused him to spin around and look in the direction of the sound. When he turned back, he looked down and saw the man he had been conversing with lying on the ground, shot in the head.
Uncertain where the shooter was, he ran.
The suspect in today’s deadly shooting at the Washington Navy Yard was once arrested for discharging a firearm into the ceiling of his Texas residence, according to police records.
Aaron Alexis, 34, was arrested in September 2010 after his upstairs neighbor called Fort Worth cops to report that a bullet had been shot into her apartment. The round apparently first traveled through her home’s floor and then the ceiling.
If Obama had a son…
I really don’t understand how y’all can claim liberals racialize the reaction to these kinds of events any more than y’all do, given the subject and tenor of these first several comments…
I read the victims were targeted. Were all the victims white? If so, obama will let it go.
So you’re seriously suggesting Obama will somehow interfere in the criminal justice process to absolve any living suspects just because the killers were black and the victims white?
Donne, no, but he’ll be tempted.
We’re racializing it because we’re sick and tired of everything being racialized, so we respond with humor and absurdist commentary, because we know, no matter how absurd we get, we won’t be that far from the true face of liberalism.
============
Pat Milton the suspected shooter apparently had a handgun, an AR-15 assault rifle, and a shotgun with him and was wearing dark blue clothing.
Indications are he came in with only the shotgun, shot an armed security guard with a 9mm auto pistol, then lay in wait for the armed first responders, killed one of THEM in an ambush and took his FULL AUTO, non-civilian AR-15.
So gun control would not have done squat with this. You could’ve gotten much the same results going in armed with only a nail gun.
But the thing is it’s not apparent yet that anyone in the major media is racializing this. So why start?
Though I agree, it’s probably inevitable.
John Donne, 4:54 pm — “I really don’t understand how y’all can claim liberals racialize the reaction to these kinds of events any more than y’all do, given the subject and tenor of these first several comments…”
-1- Liberals racialize virtually anything and everything. Nothing new.
-2- We righties are g#dd#m FED UP with liberals racializing virtually anything and everything.
-3- The incidence of black on white crime *far* dwarfs the incidence of white-on-black crime.*
-4- But the latter news reports are beat into the ground, while the former are overlooked, usually completely.
-5- We righties are g#dd#m fed up with that, too.
-6- We are finally fighting back, calling a XXXX a XXXX. (No, you’re not gonna get me for using a racial pun. Try harder.)
-7- Don’t like it? YOU GUYS STARTED IT.
-8- Any questions?
*This is spite of blacks being only 10, 13 percent of the population. YES, we’re going to speak plain truths from now on. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else, where you can rest in your delusions peacefully.
—–
While we’re at it, you mean they haven’t yet found a way to connect him to the Tea Party?? Give it time . . .
My point is that pretty much any American who sees the face of this shooter will pretty inevitably make the discussion (at least, the internal discussion) into a discussion about race, so we’d all be better off if we just acknowledged this and got down to the brass tacks of figuring out why we think so differently about race, rather than treating every horrible event like this as just one more piece of evidence in an unwinnable debate about who “shot first,” so to speak.
Basically, how are you so confident that we (liberals, I guess) “started it”?
John Donne, your coming in the middle of the movie…
its been a long time noticing the press and other things around incidents. maybe you haven’t noticed it, doesn’t mean we haven’t and have not talked about it from time to time over the past few YEARS.
here is the point you wont get from our posts, nor most other places. IF your opposition thinks of war, then you have no choice, but to prepare, and have to think about that. IF your opposition or a power base uses race, then you HAVE to think in those terms, whether you want to or not.
this is why things have exploded under obama. their idea of thinking about race constantly to eradicate race, has us looking at race all the time.
and the skin type, which has nothing to do with race, as race is a cultural thing to them, not a melanin condition – prior to the modern ages, melanin and location tended to follow, now it doesnt. which is why the left sees the people who defeated the nazis, as nazis, and hates their idea of loving themselves. ie slavophiles now americophiles.
they are nazis not because they follow nazism, they are nazis because they want to hold onto american culture, ways, ideas and so on. they do not want to be acultured.
but now i hear, in full inversion upon inversion, its racist to be acultured. and to them, america is racist because it wants them to assimilate to its ways, not adopt the ways of others entering. ie. the slavophiles want people who want to live in slavic land to be more like slavs so they can insure they can hold onto thier culture. and since this is done along borders, they are nationalist to the internationalists… (you can add socialism on top, and the distance between the german brand and now us, is not that far)
anyway…
the discussions are not wishful thinking
its trying to peg how US press will spin things.
one thing i can point out is that they played the equalization game. ie. you have one man down, no one knows him (till now). they say there may be two others. so they are searching for a white man, and a black man… then suddenly the white man is checked out ok.
so, what does that add up to? Two black men went into the shipyard and shot it up.
but we are already used to articles being constructed differently based on such things. in fact to the point where we have worked out the rules which apply to most of it.
we are not the press, we are not the ones playing games. however, come in the middle of the movie and you might not get that this is a cynical but real based view and guesses of how the press will act. which, forces us to model several ways they may think.
you have to pay attention to notice the games
otherwise they have an effect on you and you dont know it. noticing them doesnt mean they dont affect you, but at least you have a chance to think about it.
remember. if i tell you not to think about white polar bears, you have to think of white polar bears to compare your thoughts to, to know your not thinking about them. ergo, you think about them.
same with race once the leaders play this game and never define things, but let people fumble, invent their own and then act out…
duh…
Could you try to explain more clearly? I don’t understand.
Since I’m coming in at the middle, can you describe the start of this movie for me?
Basically, how are you so confident that we (liberals, I guess) “started it”?
wouldn’t you prefer to know why? not how?
why has to do with knowing history. not revisioned history. and history that often is not part of the teaching system any more, if ever.
this is why there is this divide between young and old and so on.
Divide and Conquer – Philip II, king of Macedon (382-336 BC)
for instance…
what party was the party that represented freedom for all men based on the constitution (as so elegantly explained by ex slave Frederick Douglas)
what party was the party of the KKK, the Knights of the White Camellia, and tried to fix a presidential election by murdering, torturing, and mutilating over 1000 people?
what modern liberal organization had its start in the eugenics movement as the negro project? with the intent to exterminate certain classes of people who were not fit. today she is celebrated as a liberal hero, which makes sense given that their other heroes, have murdered similar numbers of people world wide
but the larger point is most liberals (who were something else in the past) don’t know much about the past, or who is who in the game, or what each is doing and their pedigrees…
raised on advertising they have settled on their brands and are quite loyal to their ketchup.
Democrats, yeah. But liberals and Democrats of today aren’t exactly the Democrats who supported segregation and slavery, so I still don’t see your point.
The connection between progressivism and eugenics and scientific racism is much clearer, but I still don’t see how that answers my question about your understanding of the beginning of the “movie.”
It’s like you’re talking in innuendo. Could you try and be clearer?
Since I’m coming in at the middle, can you describe the start of this movie for me?
for some it started (in the modern eras) from the french revolution. for others who are detailed, they can go back to the 1850s. for others, its the 20s and 30s.. and then for others its 1968, etcetera….
heck, some will reference back to the new harmony colonies, and even go to platos republic.
take your pick, they all lead to today.
but you will get more if you know about the 20s, the 30s, the spies, the movements, and so on.
for instance… you do realize where chaing went when mao defeated him thanks to the help of American politicians here? and how it would explain a thorn in their side ever since?
as far as our commenting, its because we have been discussing trends in print and news and methods which then construct realities that are in conflict and so divide.
in a way, when your older you have more information that patterns are more easily noticed and traced.
you remember how for weeks they were following profiles. you know, like the ones they complain we shouldnt use for criminals, and things like frisking or airports. well these profiles conveniently said that the shooter was white, and so on. so for weeks people were looking for this white guy who fit this profile, yet Malvo was black as was his protoge, and we will never know how much was wasted that way.
we are all born in the middle of the movie. and when you come to a blog, yoru in the middle of the movie that is in that bigger movies that is your life.
Democrats, yeah. But liberals and Democrats of today aren’t exactly the Democrats who supported segregation and slavery, so I still don’t see your point.
you think so?
they are exactly the same
whats different is what gets power
in the antibellum period, they thought the way to power was to support the white racists, and in the north, things like white mans union. drumming up fears that the blacks after the war were going to come up north and take the jobs. (which was also used to prevent them from fighting the war too)
you confuse what is done for power with what they believe, and what they believe is nothing, but power.
they sided with those things not because they believed the same things, but because they believed that to believe would get them power from those people who had no represnetation and still had wealth and a dream that could never be they would tap.
when they saw that the populations demographics was going to collapse thanks to things they did, they switched sides to be with the side that would win the demographic game, and played hate politics to show them who their “friends” are.
if you read old texts from that period, and compare their behavior then, with now, only what they cant get away with limits them. today, with modern news, they cant get away with outright torture and mutilation…
over time, you find out about the props that got you to think a certain way at a certain time that was convenient for them. like matthew shepard. the truth is now coming out that he wasnt killed cause he was gay, but because he was a crystal meth dealer. a gay author investigated, then said something to the effect, but the story served its purpose for its time, even if it wasnt what it was.
when you see people making their bets, they are guessing what these people will do. not suggesting what to do. we are trying to bet on whether they are going to pull things or not. nothing is 100%
anyway…
other than reading a lot till you get an understanding, i am not going to be able to say a bunch of words and you will get it.
i was just trying to be a bit helpful in saying that things are not always as they seem or someone else tells you…
and in this game, someone has told you what to think when you see certain things, and what your reaction should be. as they have told everyone.
from a recent article as an example:
US authorities said Monday another gunman may have been involved in the attack. One shooter was believed to be dead at the scene while two more male suspects wearing military-style uniforms may still be at large, police said. One of those men was later eliminated as a suspect.
all day none of the news articles said what the man who was killed was until we had a name, and then pictures came out.
now, they are reporting that they are looking for two people but one of them was eliminated. which one?
so before the shooter was identified, they said two people one white one black… then at some point, they tweeted one was found, and eliminated. then the shooters image came out, and now, its searching for two, one eliminated. and no description again.
compare that with trayvon, where they were running wild in the other direction…
the writers and such think they are crafting the worldview of the readers, but in truth, not all. and a whole lot can see and notice this stuff and how rote it is.
have to go…
thats enough wasted time off subject
no more off subject
M J R Says, 5:55 pm — “Don’t like it? YOU GUYS STARTED IT.”
John Dunne, 6:07 pm — “Basically, how are you so confident that we (liberals, I guess) ‘started it’?”
By seeing racism and racists under every mattress, in practically any and every incident, whether it’s racial or not. More contemporarily, by ascribing any and every criticism of Dear Leader (blessed be His name) to racism, whether it’s racist or not, whether the criticism had merit or not.
And most righties cowered in fear. Not I, not most posters on this forum. But the politicians/pundits, who want to be liked rather than respected — who need the donations in the case of the politicians — who still are under the illusion that we can all get along if only we swept obvious truths under the table, overlooked continuing insults to our integrity, and all came over for a beer.
Wellll, the times they are a-changin’.
You think you-all were gonna get away with this cr#p forever? The blowback’s just begun.
I don’t know who the “they” you’re talking about is. Progressives/liberals, I guess? If you’re gonna insist on talking in innuendo like this, could you at least give me hints that are a little more explicit?
Is the idea that there’s some kind of transcendent progressive spirit or worldview that has through history driven people to seek power and nothing else?
the above reply was to artfldgr, who I didn’t realize had left.
MJR, I get the feeling this discussion is gonna go nowhere fast, but to take just one point: it’s just not the case that “any and every criticism of [Obama]” is taken as racist.
And you talk about “blowback.” What exactly does this blowback consist of? And no, I’m not insinuating something about gun violence. I just mean to ask how you’re going about responding to liberal… scare-mongering, I guess?
And I wanna point out that you didn’t really substantively answer my question. How, specifically, can you be confident saying that liberals somehow “started it”?
John Dunne-
As artfldgr says, you come into the middle of the movie and have us explain what you missed?
Do your own homework, son, and ask the teachers questions only after you understand the material to date.
We are not going to waste our precious time on educating the lazy. Once educated and up to speed, you will find the posters here a remarkably educated and reasoning bunch (myself perhaps excluded).
You may read and learn, but be still.
“Do your own homework, son, and ask the teachers questions only after you understand the material to date.
We are not going to waste our precious time on educating the lazy. Once educated and up to speed, you will find the posters here a remarkably educated and reasoning bunch (myself perhaps excluded).
You may read and learn, but be still.”
It’s like you think you’re Buddha or something.
J.D.
We can be confident because those of us of a certain age were there when it started.
Decades ago, one of the Detroit papers quit showing pix of perps because, as one reader put it, it made blacks look bad. They got over it after a while, but the point is, the libs are waiting for a conservative to say anything at all which can be considered racist–i.e. show a lib his argument’s bogus–so as to make conservatives self-censor, take some topics off the table altogether.
Remember the Duke lax hoax. Somebody was crying about hot this sort of thing happened all the time. Somebody else looked up the numbers of intraracial gang rape. Oops. Racist.
So, you see, we get it and we’re tired of it. You’ll note your last attempt to get us to shut up didn’t work, either. That was about Zimmernan/Martin.
But, in fact, we’re not racializing this, we’re funning about how it’s going to be presented by the MSM and other clowns. And a guy named John Dunne.
“But, in fact, we’re not racializing this, we’re funning about how it’s going to be presented by the MSM and other clowns.”
The point I was trying to make (like I said up above somewhere) was addressed directly at this kind of attitude. The point is we all racialize things, and that (even allowing the supreme confidence you feel you’ve earned as a person “of a certain age”) it’s useless to frame these kinds of debates as having started at any point. We can’t know who “shot first” in these debates because they go back decades. Trying to figure it out bogs us down in back-and-forth arguments that don’t amount to much more than us fitting each other into ready-made political narratives.
And what does an honest interpretation of the numbers on “intraracial gang rape” (is that even a category law enforcement uses??) say?
What are the topics I, as a liberal, would have taken off the table? The discussion of whether black people are more inclined to rape?
By the way, I just google “interracial gang rape” and got only porn in response, so… maybe you were thinking of something else>
John Dunne, 7:04 pm — “MJR, I get the feeling this discussion is gonna go nowhere fast, but to take just one point: it’s just not the case that ‘any and every criticism of [Obama]’ is taken as racist.”
I omitted a word. *Virtually* any and every. By virtually, I mean the ongoing, overriding truth of the matter. There may be insignificant exceptions; I would be hard-pressed to find any, previous to the reelection of Dear Leader (blessed be His name), but I will happily grant that a few may have slipped by the thought police.
In general — *virtually* — should anyone to the right of say, Harry Reid, criticize dear Leader (blessed be His name), one could be sure, as the night follows the day, that someone out there would take it upon themselves to deem that criticism racist. AND YOU KNOW IT.
The silence among liberals/progressives was deafening. They didn’t *all* cry racism, racism, but they were all *okay* *with* *it*. Or maybe too cowed to utter a peep in dissent. No matter. That’s how “virtually” (the omitted word) gets to be “any and every”. It’s what is the result *in* *practice*. “Virtually” really need not have been in there, in my rarely humble opinion, but there it now is, if it makes things clearer.
“And you talk about ‘blowback.’ What exactly does this blowback consist of?”
Shoving it right back. Enough’s enough.
“And no, I’m not insinuating something about gun violence. I just mean to ask how you’re going about responding to liberal… scare-mongering, I guess?”
Just doing what I do in my insignificant corner of the blogosphere. Not much (else) I can do.
“And I wanna point out that you didn’t really substantively answer my question. How, specifically, can you be confident saying that liberals somehow ‘started it’?”
I’m taking your question literally. “How . . . can you be confident”? I can be confident because those crying racism *inevitably* come from sources on the left-oriented portion of the spectrum. Like, duh. The criticisms were criticisms of left-oriented policies, because the policy-maker is indisputably left-oriented. Why would a leftie criticize left-oriented policy (unless it’s insufficiently leftie)? Double-duh.
Righties did not cry racism when Dear Leader (blessed be His name) was criticized. Centrist-type people usually held their tongue, letting the lefties do the smearing. See earlier paragraphs of this reply. It was those on the left-oriented portion of the spectrum who’d cry racism when Dear Leader (blessed be His name) was criticized. Do you *really* dispute that?? Dear Leader (blessed be His name) is a left-oriented officeholder, fer cryin’ out loud; do you suppose any on the right were crying racism in response to the criticisms???
I can’t believe I’m even responding to this. Who in blazes do *you* think has been crying racism, if not the lefties???
Anyway, that is why I am “confident saying that liberals somehow ‘started it’.” it’s simple logic. Try this: If liberals (i.e., left-leaning types) were the only ones doing it, then, ipso fatso [to use an old Archie Bunkerism] they were the ones who started it.
End of run-on reply . . .
No, not yet. Mr. John Dunne, you strike me as reasonably literate and intelligent. I hope I am not insulting you by offering the foregoing replies, which strike me as strings of obvious observations. But I cannot help but conclude, since the strings of obvious observations are *obvious*, that you are pulling my (our) leg here, and are wasting my (our) time by responding to trolling.
In which case, my stupidity. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Shame on me.
At the Wat Busayadhammavanaram Meditation Center there, Alexis came to meditate twice a week
Alexis spoke Thai, the language of many other temple worshippers, and also worked as a waiter at a Thai restaurant.
In the Navy, Alexis achieved his final rank of Aviation Electrician’s Mate 3rd Class in December 2009
J.D. Try the FBI crime stats or the National Crime Victims Survey. The white on black gang rape incidence ranges from effectively zero to the low end of a rounding error. Black on white is far more common.
It was/is considered racist to talk about it. This is designed to handicap discussion of things like the Duke lax hoax. IOW, it was, as a practical matter, most unlikely. Just as a matter of likelihood, it was a non-starter.
And, yeah, I was there when it started.
Saw it happen in, even, physical anthropology.
“The silence among liberals/progressives was deafening. They didn’t *all* cry racism, racism, but they were all *okay* *with* *it*. Or maybe too cowed to utter a peep in dissent. No matter.”
See, I think what’s confusing me is how you characterize the way these debates happen. Does “crying racism” actually silence anyone? You’re right that, to take just two notable examples that first came to mind, many liberals have used the idea of racism to explain that congressman who interrupted Obama’s SOTU address and running conservative criticism of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion as amounting to the large-scale “purchasing” of votes. But did that in any real way affect the ability of congressman Whats-His-District to criticize the president or of conservatives generally to criticize the Medicaid expansion and Obamacare?
Have you or any conservative politician you can think of ever really been cowed by the idea that you might be thought racist for saying something?
The only scenarios I can imagine where this would be the case are those related to insinuations about “interracial gang rape” and the like talked about above, because not only is it racist (which is not the dehumanizing slur you seem to think it is) and inaccurate to think that black people are somehow more criminal, but it also is the kind of offensive generalization that generally gets people side-eyed in polite company. Or at least around polite company that includes black people.
I mean, really, would you ever mention the idea that “[t]he incidence of black on white crime *far* dwarfs the incidence of white-on-black crime” around black people? It’s just mind-boggling to me that you think this dubious fact says anything important about race relations in America today.
“Who in blazes do *you* think has been crying racism, if not the lefties???”
Again, my point was that the idea that only liberals “make things about race” is pretty clearly not true. As I also wrote above, in this particular instance I was struck by how immediately commenters here commented on the shooter’s race. We all think about race. We may think very, very different things about it, but politically (more-or-less) active people of all persuasions have to deal with the reality of race.
And I still don’t understand the logic behind calling me a troll. It’s time-consuming to engage yall at length like this. Also, isn’t it pretty clear that I at least make an attempt to understand and respond to the points you make?
I could “cry racism” and be done with things… but that’s not what I’ve done here.
I’m sure you don’t
“I’m sure you don’t”
Thanks. You don’t at least want to help me get the scales to fall from my eyes?
“Saw it happen in, even, physical anthropology.”
What are physical anthropologists not studying that you think they should? Phrenology?
John Dunne, 8:09 pm — “I mean, really, would you ever mention the idea that ‘[t]he incidence of black on white crime *far* dwarfs the incidence of white-on-black crime’ around black people?”
YES. Around black people who can face the situation honestly. Two well-known examples would be Dr. Thomas Sowell and Prof. Walter Williams (both of whose ideas are readily available on-line, as both are syndicated columnists).
I have spoken some pretty blunt such things around black people. I was, for eight years in the 1970s, a member of the faculty at an historically all-black college (I am non-black). I could not speak so bluntly to *most* black people, and certainly not at the beginning (airing dirty laundry and all that), but once we knew each other, and it was heart-to-heart, and I was not in confrontational mode as I am in this conversation, I could and did speak as honestly and bluntly as was appropriate in the situation.
[Run-on sentence that I’m too lazy to break up.]
“It’s just mind-boggling to me that you think this dubious fact says anything important about race relations in America today.”
It says a lot if we continue to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug. We’ve got to have that honest conversation that people like Dear Leader (blessed be His name) and Eric Holder keep wanting us to have. But it has to be genuinely *honest* — blunt but respectful — make that blunt AND respectful — and not the sort of conversation in which the representative of victimized class lectures the representative of the victimizer class, and the representative of the victimizer class listens in remorseful penitence.
“And I still don’t understand the logic behind calling me a troll.”
I shall retract that description, and any sentences on which it logically depends. Welcome to our forum!
To get back to the subject, the WaPo says the accused shooter, Aaron Alexis, spoke Thai and attended a Buddhist temple. the Wat Busayadhammavanaram Meditation Center. I say “accused” because it’s still early enough for the information to be wrong and this guy to turn out to be one of the victims, although the police seem pretty sure he was the guy. He worked for Hewlett-Packard subcontractor “The Experts” and had previously worked for Singlepoint.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aaron-alexis-34-is-dead-gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-authorities-say/2013/09/16/dcf431ce-1f07-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html?hpid=z3
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/16/navy-yard-gunman-identified-fbi/
A blog comment citing Fox News says he worked at a Thai restaurant in Texas and could have picked up the language there. He also apparently visited Thailand at some time.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2013/09/did-aaron-alexis-have-thai-connections.html
Theories lean toward him being a nut with anger management issues who finally snapped, and he probably had a personal grudge against the Navy for tossing him out.
It’s just mind-boggling to me that you think this dubious fact says anything important about race relations in America today.
it must since Obama has suppressed the numbers reporting since 2008..
also, they play a lot of games when explaining it to you. like using single offender stats, and ignoring multiple offender. why? because while your listening to their explanation, your not thinking what they are leaving out and why.
if you give anger management courses to help the angry, then why would you create a situation in which you supress the facts so that these people get no help, and let them roam so they can create what appearance in the minds of people, which you can then exploit if they say something?
not unlike Woodrow Wilson segregating society, so that buses had to follow a segregation law, so that highlander trained Rosa parks can protest as she was taught – by people who moved blacks into white neighborhoods, and bombed their homes afterwards, and whose benefactors later, would fund the Tuskegee syphilis study, ending it before treatment.
i condensed the history…
why attack watson for stating what the medical journals all say, and education department knows, and so on? because he wanted (subsaharan) blacks to get education tailored to them, but you cant do that, because you cant admit what facts? in fact, you have to change society and dumb everyone down, to prove that they are as smart. right? you cant have them learn more by having education tailored to them. right? cause we are not different and so how could you do that?
same old hurt the people that vote for you, direct their anger at jews, or white males, or kulaks, and hurt them more as a way to power.
if they stopped it, then they would have no constituency. the people not doing it that are carrying the blame, cant stop it.
[and no one who hates others would let so much welfare money go to those others, and lots of other things if they really hated them and wanted them gone. you dont make gone by giving free money to them and bonuses for more children as long as dads are not around… right?]
If you are going to use the colloquial form of you all, for whatever purpose, you need to do it correctly. There is an apostrophe included; i.e. “y’all”. Without the apostrophe, you appear to be some person from the North trying to impersonate, or worse yet mock a Southerner. Just doesn’t sell.
Other than that, having come into this late, and being too lazy to read all of the bombast and verbiage, I am scratching my head. Was there a point to all of this somewhere?
Surely, there is no questioning that the Dear Leader (blessed be His name (oh, I love that)), and his minions have responded to “virtually” every criticism by charging the Critic with racism. It is indisputable and is a matter of public record.
Anyway, with out foreign policy in ruins, with our international reputation in tatters, with our economy in the toilet, surely there are more important debates to consider. How about the fact that Dear Leader (blessed be His name) is shredding our Constitution?
“I shall retract that description, and any sentences on which it logically depends. Welcome to our forum!”
Thanks! I doubt I’ll comment very often, but who knows.
“not the sort of conversation in which the representative of victimized class lectures the representative of the victimizer class, and the representative of the victimizer class listens in remorseful penitence.”
This is something I definitely agree with. Though I assume you think those kinds of categories are themselves the problem, I agree that a good amount of “discussion” about race today seems to amount to this, especially talking across racial lines.
Also, what did the HBCU faculty tend to say in response to the kind of statistics we’ve been talking about? It’s what they seem to imply, taken alone and as supposedly helpful contributions to the discussion, that bothers me.
Artfldgr:
I’m still realllly confused about the overall point of what you’re saying.
Oldflyer:
“Without the apostrophe, you appear to be some person from the North trying to impersonate, or worse yet mock a Southerner. Just doesn’t sell.”
You want me to use youse or yins or something? Given the format of this blog, if I just used “you” it might be confused whether I’m referring to Neo or the community here generally. Since I’ve spent my entire life in Texas and use it in my speech, “yall” seemed an appropriate way of addressing yall.
I’m not affecting an identity for your sake.
“Other than that, having come into this late, and being too lazy to read all of the bombast and verbiage, I am scratching my head. Was there a point to all of this somewhere?”
The point I’ve been trying to make is that liberals don’t somehow make discussions about events like these any more “about race” than do conservatives. And also that black people aren’t more criminal.
John Dunne, 8:46 pm — “Also, what did the HBCU faculty tend to say in response to the kind of statistics we’ve been talking about?”
We talked about many things, usually not having to do with race. It might be campus politics, it might be subject matter, it might be the weather or the traffic conditions — we were all of us just *people*, not white people, black people, or (in many cases) people of Middle Eastern origin. Race tended to disappear when I was with my colleagues.
But I will attempt to answer the question anyway. When not heart-to-heart, when I did not know the individual well, I was smart enough to stay away from things like this that could ruin my career faster than you could say “Jack Robinson”. That covers over 99 percent of circumstances. In the other < 1 percent, they might chalk it up to historical factors or socioeconomic factors (of course, these are intertwined).
"Thanks! I doubt I’ll comment very often, but who knows."
(Of course it's not my place to offer a welcome, as we're all coequal denizens of neo's blog.) I know I'm not the only one who will react very negatively to what we feel, rightly or wrongly, are unwarranted assumptions. (My reasons for that are essentially contained in my replies, and need not be rehashed.) Thank you for persevering.
MJR,
Thanks to you, too.
I’ll be off, now. Especially since the irony of a liberal stirring up a debate about race on a conservative blog by claiming liberals don’t stir up debates about race more than conservatives is getting a little strong 🙂
Not that my intention was to stir up debate in a trollish way!
Thanks, y’all.
Came back to briefly apologize for making what might have been a thread for people to find updates about the shootings into a thread for my (and others’, to be fair) soapboxing.
JD
There is, or was, a theory of human evolution known colloquially as the “candlabra” theory. Pre H. Sap types evolved at various rates and eventually, each type evolved into the races we see today.
But, according to, iirc, Coon, the blacks were last to cross the line to H. Sap.
Said one kid in class, “but that’s not fair”. and the instructor agreed.
AFAIK, the candlabra theory has been discredited for half a century. Point was, when the facts as understood in our class pointed to it as a possibility, the “unfair” concept prevailed.
I once ran a swimming program for black kids in Holly Springs, MS. Tough. West African phenotypes have smaller lungs than whites, less subcutaneous fat, denser bones. IOW, higher specific gravity. We had a tough time with the usual techniques (“reach and pull”, dog paddle) because the kids kept sinking.
Fortunately, our WSI had taught us rescue techniques or things could have gotten really bad really fast. Funny. Just recall getting a ration from her because my thought was to walk on the bottom of the pool holding the guy up over my head.
Anyway, recounting this, despite physical anthro supporting me, has gotten me called “racist”.
Now, we know you’re not as dumb as you pretend.
Self-censorship is common. And you know that, too.
To Neo commentors: I know it is frustrating dealing with people who cannot see what we have seen over the last few years or longer, but give the John Dunne’s a break-he may realize, even unconscientiously, that he has been fed a false meta-narrative.
John Dunne: If you want to do a crash course in evaluating why conservatives are so crititical and distrusting of the modern media, take a look for a few days at this site, which documents on a daily basis how the masses are being manipulated: Newsbusters.org
JD responded to me:
“It’s like you think you’re Buddha or something.”
That’s the best he can do? Guess so.
Buddhism sure beats Progressivism or Islam, hands down. He inadvertenly paid me a compliment.
Richard:
That was then; very interesting observations. Overall, their sp.gr. has fallen considerably since, as is true for many whites. I am not so sure about the West Africans’ “smaller” lungs then or now, comparatively. That would make exertional dyspnea more common and more often limiting, which I have not observed nor seen reported.
Don…
But you’re showing a pronounced lack of desire.
I hope you’re happy.
Don Carlos
Maybe the physical anthro guys were lying. This bunch of kids had graduated MS high schools ’67 and ’68 and we were doing “premediation” to help them get going at Rust College in Holly Springs. The primary work was math and what we called “communication skills–reading for content ,and composition. Other items such as swimming were as we had the talent in our group.
There were a few nose-tackle types among the guys, but no real fatties in the bunch, including the young women. That has changed.
However, the subject was that talking about what is sometimes called “lived experience” is Not Done because it is “racist”. If my experience were true, then the number of drownings among blacks cannot be a matter of racists not allowing swimming pools for blacks.
And we must have the narrative that racists don’t allow swimming pools for blacks, mustn’t we?
Thing is, we had the swimming program because the racist, redneck crackers of Marshall County, MS, in the benighted Sixties had ponied up enough scratch to build a blacks-only pool. Segregated, but, then, I came from a middle class suburb of Detroit and we didn’t have a pool of any sort.
Conundrum.
I don’t understand blert’s 1 am response to my lung capacity comment. blert’s pretty smart, maybe smarter than I?
Richard, I observed the same thing in LaGrange, GA in the 1970s as you did in Marshall County.
So the politicians responsible for this get to sit happy in their vacations and say that the problem they helped cause, is why they should be given more power….
right, that’s perfectly logickal.
But liberals and Democrats of today aren’t exactly the Democrats who supported segregation and slavery, so I still don’t see your point.
So Robert KKK Byrd wasn’t a Democrat of today because… what the hell is the Leftist cannonfodder verbatim regurgitation again?
There’s somehow a “difference” between the Democrats of the South that founded the KKK to suppress black voters and the Democrats of today who use Black Panthers to suppress Republican voters….
Right, that’s a clue for how “logickal” the Left’s minions are.
Basically, how are you so confident that we (liberals, I guess) “started it”?
Probably because you acted stupidly.
The litmus test for whether a Democrat is being KKKish is:
1. Do they support 2nd Amendment rights and weapons for blacks in inner cities and America at large.
2. Do they talk about how blacks are victimized by whites, creating fear and revenge anger amongst blacks.
3. Do they ignore black on X crimes in order to claim their hands are clean when it comes to violence and murder.
If a person passes any of the above, they are one of the Left’s race baiters, con artists in sheep’s wool trying to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Americans. They, like snake oil salesmen, should be run out of town on a rail.
Correction, fails to pass any of the above.