| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Tommy" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2005 04:41:58 AM |
| Object: |
As usual, 'hate crime' faked |
========
KKK, swastikas and the "N" word on a smashed mirror all pointed to a hate
crime.
"We don't have to hate anyone for doing it - it's OK to be upset about it -
but we just have to move on," said Washington at the time.
But moving on just got a lot harder now that that couple has learned their
own 16-year-old son is under arrest for the crime.
=======
An Everett family who spent the last week wondering who could do such a
thing, has now learned their own son is under arrest for what looked like a
hate crime.
Wes Washington and Crissy Kitchel couldn't believe the destruction or the
time the crooks spent burglarizing and then trashing their Everett house.
"When you look at it, whether is race or personal, it's still hate. You
can't tear apart someone's house like this and not call it hate," said
Kitchel last week.
Full story below.
http://www.komotv.com/stories/36407.htm
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell, 1984
.
|
|
| User: "Kevin" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, 'hate crime' faked |
24 Apr 2005 09:20:26 AM |
|
|
"Tommy" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3482884.aBUPVo437U@(FreeBSD)...
========
KKK, swastikas and the "N" word on a smashed mirror all pointed to a
hate
crime.
"We don't have to hate anyone for doing it - it's OK to be upset about
it -
but we just have to move on," said Washington at the time.
But moving on just got a lot harder now that that couple has learned
their
own 16-year-old son is under arrest for the crime.
=======
An Everett family who spent the last week wondering who could do such
a
thing, has now learned their own son is under arrest for what looked
like a
hate crime.
Wes Washington and Crissy Kitchel couldn't believe the destruction or
the
time the crooks spent burglarizing and then trashing their Everett
house.
"When you look at it, whether is race or personal, it's still hate.
You
can't tear apart someone's house like this and not call it hate," said
Kitchel last week.
Full story below.
http://www.komotv.com/stories/36407.htm
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary
act. -
George Orwell, 1984
I think we'd be surprise at how many faked hate
crimes actually take place. But it's TNB.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Byker" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, 'hate crime' faked |
24 Apr 2005 05:28:01 PM |
|
|
"Kevin" <no_spam@none.net> wrote in message
news:ZUNae.96809$f%4.74579@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
I think we'd be surprised at how many faked hate
crimes actually take place. But it's TNB.
And even more surprised at how many are actually reported on after the
liberal media learns the truth...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
School "kill list" was a hoax
13-year-old trying to "fit in" with fellow black students
By Karen Rouse
Denver Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Aurora - A 13-year-old African-American boy who was trying to "fit in"
confessed to a hoax that prompted parents to pull their kids out of Laredo
Middle School on Wednesday, officials said.
The boy, a Laredo seventh-grader, created two "kill lists," discovered
Tuesday, that included a racial slur and threatened harm to roughly a dozen
black students, police said. The suspect included his own name, said
Kathleen Walsh, spokeswoman for Aurora police.
One list was scrawled in pencil in a boys' restroom, Walsh said. An
African-American student reported finding a second list in his locker.
News of the boy's arrest stunned parents.
"It's a shock," said Rachel Turk, one of more than 40 parents who pulled
their children out of Laredo on Wednesday after hearing about the threats.
She said she was "horrified" by the kill list.
Turk's son, who is black, went to school Wednesday, but her husband pulled
him out. The thought that the list was made by a black student had crossed
her mind, Turk said.
"I said to my husband, 'I hope it's not one of our kids playing games."'
Walsh said the boy may have been motivated by a desire to fit in with other
black students. Another possible motive is that he was worried about getting
into a fight and created the list as a distraction.
The suspect was released to his mother and may face misdemeanor charges of
racial intimidation, harassment and interference with an educational
institution.
He has also been suspended and could be expelled, said Michelle Ancell,
spokeswoman for the Cherry Creek School District.
The suspect confessed to Aurora police on Wednesday. Inconsistencies in one
list and a handwriting analysis led police to him.
One list included the nicknames or partial names of eight students, each one
numbered one through eight, said Walsh. However, the suspect's name appeared
to have been later added to that list, between two of the names. His name
wasn't numbered, she said, which made officials suspicious.
Police had interviewed six students, including the suspect, based on a
videotape of students entering the boys' restroom during the time they think
the list was written.
A mother whose seventh-grader was listed said she hopes police don't lock up
the suspect.
"He's still a child," Lenell Simms said. "You can still teach him."
She said she was frustrated, however, because no one from the school
contacted her.
"A dire threat of violence on your child should be a priority," she said.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E2779096,00.html#
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 11:44:20 AM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <3482884.aBUPVo437U@(FreeBSD)>:
"As usual," brat?
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
When you give up, you agree never to lie online again.
If you win, I agree never to point out another lie of yours.
Deal?
Or are you just going to run away like usual?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 02:08:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:44:20 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
When you give up, you agree never to lie online again.
That's what they call irony.
Looking in the mirror again?
You lying, girly-man kike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 02:22:15 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
<1114369083.6e3ede12de2ad621de69e54d671ae1d0@bubbanews>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:44:20 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
I'm still waiting for proof of *your* crap about hate crimes to -- you
were 0 for four when you decided to admit defeat by forging posts.
And one notices that "jack" cannot support the brat's lies either.
When you give up, you agree never to lie online again.
That's what they call irony.
Looking in the mirror again?
You lying, girly-man kike.
TAOILHTN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 03:22:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:22:15 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
<1114369083.6e3ede12de2ad621de69e54d671ae1d0@bubbanews>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:44:20 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
You apparently thought it was 90+% redneck.
We haven't heard from ya since. So I reckon that we'll never see those
"lists" of safe American cities where the black population is high,
and dangerous American cities where the black population is low, as a
counterpoint to the lists showing the contrary, provided by the other
side.
I'm still waiting for proof of *your* crap about hate crimes to -- you
were 0 for four when you decided to admit defeat by forging posts.
Such an obvious lie on your part is the height of kikosity.
And one notices that "jack" cannot support the brat's lies either.
Actually, Jack grew weary trying to follow your *****, but did read
enough to notice that you didn't counter him effectively.
But what else is new?
Cordially
____________________________
When you give up, you agree never to lie online again.
That's what they call irony.
Looking in the mirror again?
You lying, girly-man kike.
TAOILHTN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 03:28:23 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426c0032.34995921@news.prodigy.net>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:22:15 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You apparently thought it was 90+% redneck.
Yet another lie.
We haven't heard from ya since. So I reckon that we'll never see those
"lists" of safe American cities where the black population is high,
and dangerous American cities where the black population is low, as a
counterpoint to the lists showing the contrary, provided by the other
side.
But then you recon forgery is a valid debating tactic...
I'm still waiting for proof of *your* crap about hate crimes to -- you
were 0 for four when you decided to admit defeat by forging posts.
Such an obvious lie on your part is the height of kikosity.
LOL -- you deny posting forgeries?
And one notices that "jack" cannot support the brat's lies either.
Actually, Jack grew weary trying to follow your *****, but did read
enough to notice that you didn't counter him effectively.
Still waiting for those 1234 hoaxes...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maureen" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 07:49:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:28:23 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426c0032.34995921@news.prodigy.net>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:22:15 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
You apparently thought it was 90+% redneck.
Yet another lie.
See above, Izzy.
We haven't heard from ya since. So I reckon that we'll never see those
"lists" of safe American cities where the black population is high,
and dangerous American cities where the black population is low, as a
counterpoint to the lists showing the contrary, provided by the other
side.
But then you recon forgery is a valid debating tactic...
Perhaps you prayed to your fairy kikemother to deliver the lists?
She let you down.
I'm still waiting for proof of *your* crap about hate crimes to -- you
were 0 for four when you decided to admit defeat by forging posts.
Such an obvious lie on your part is the height of kikosity.
LOL -- you deny posting forgeries?
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
And one notices that "jack" cannot support the brat's lies either.
Actually, Jack grew weary trying to follow your *****, but did read
enough to notice that you didn't counter him effectively.
Still waiting for those 1234 hoaxes...
This Tommy fella seems to have your number. Just accept it.
Your obsession with him is unhealthy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 07:55:45 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Maureen wrote
in message <426c3e9f.50977343@news.newshosting.com>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:28:23 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426c0032.34995921@news.prodigy.net>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:22:15 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
You apparently thought it was 90+% redneck.
Yet another lie.
See above, Izzy.
Do try to keep track who you're responding to, that's a good bigot.
We haven't heard from ya since. So I reckon that we'll never see those
"lists" of safe American cities where the black population is high,
and dangerous American cities where the black population is low, as a
counterpoint to the lists showing the contrary, provided by the other
side.
But then you rekcon forgery is a valid debating tactic...
Perhaps you prayed to your fairy kikemother to deliver the lists?
She let you down.
Keep making false claims, it'll really add to your credibility...
I'm still waiting for proof of *your* crap about hate crimes to -- you
were 0 for four when you decided to admit defeat by forging posts.
Such an obvious lie on your part is the height of kikosity.
LOL -- you deny posting forgeries?
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
Note that "jack" was 0 for 4 when zie decided to distract with the
forgeries.
Not that the idiot child and "scott" still have 1233 hoaxes before
they even get a third, let alone the brat's lie about "most" hate
crimes.
And one notices that "jack" cannot support the brat's lies either.
Actually, Jack grew weary trying to follow your *****, but did read
enough to notice that you didn't counter him effectively.
Still waiting for those 1234 hoaxes...
This Tommy fella seems to have your number. Just accept it.
No, I have zir: 1233 at last count.
Your obsession with him is unhealthy.
I dislike liars, especially when they lie about me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
25 Apr 2005 05:17:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Maureen wrote
in message <426c3e9f.50977343@news.newshosting.com>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:28:23 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426c0032.34995921@news.prodigy.net>:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:22:15 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
Note that "jack" was 0 for 4 when zie decided to distract with the
forgeries.
We note that you whimpered, babbled, and tried to save face when data
indicating the presence of a double-standard were submitted.
http://www.discriminations.us/storage/001906.html
Earlier this week Daisy Lundy, a 19 year old biracial second year
student -- described in the Charlottesville Daily Progress yesterday
as "of black and Korean background" -- was assaulted in Poe Alley,
just off the University's historic Lawn, after leaving a friend's room
at 2:00AM, by someone she described as an 18-20 year old white male.
Ms. Lundy, a candidate for president of the Student Council, told
police that her assailant said "no one wants a ***** to be
president." According to the Vice President of Student Affairs,
Patricia Lampkin, Ms. Lundy was sent to the emergency room and was
released with "what were diagnosed as minor injuries." The Washington
Post reported this event today.
The University's response was swift, massive, and impressive. In less
than a day a "Voices of Diversity" web page had been added just off
the main page, with links to powerful and heart-felt statements by
University President John Casteen, offering a $1,000 reward for
information leading to an arrest and conviction; the Vice President of
Student Affairs; the Law School; the Arts and Sciences chairmen; and
the Alumni Board of Managers. Less than a day later the reward was
doubled, to $2,000. By the second day after the attack the Council on
African American Affairs, a Washington research institute in which
many UVa alumni are active and that is closely affiliated with the Ron
Brown Scholar program in Charlottesville, announced that it is
offering a $20,000 reward.
Inevitably, I suppose, some of the University's response was somewhat
less charitable and more institutionally self-interested.
An attack on a biracial student early Wednesday could cost the
University of Virginia both donations and potential minority
applicants, the dean of UVa's Office of African-American Affairs
warned Thursday.
The dean, M. Rick Turner, said he has received many phone calls from
worried black parents this year. Hearing about the assault on
sophomore Daisy Lundy and last fall's controversy over three white
students dressing in blackface for a party, "they might say, 'We're
going to William and Mary. We're going to Virginia Tech,'" Turner
said.
"'Why should I let my daughter go there? She might get attacked,'" he
asked. "Parents read those kinds of things. There's no question why
we've had a lower yield."
Dean Turner's fears notwithstanding, I think the University's and the
community's response to this nasty incident has been commendable.
Still, I can't help being struck by their marked contrast to their
responses to a series of highly publicized racially motivated attacks
against University students a little over a year ago.
In February 2002 ten black Charlottesville High School students were
arrested for a series of six separate attacks on primarily white UVa
students (there were two Asian victims) that occurred between
September 2001 and January 2002. In addition to various minor injuries
one student suffered a concussion and another a badly broken cheekbone
that required surgery. Several of the arrested students told police
that they selected their victims because they were (or they thought
they were) white. The Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney's decision
not to prosecute these assaults as hate crimes stirred up a good deal
of controversy, including complaints from David Duke's
European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO). (See this
article in the Washington Post and, generally, this web site, put
together by a public-spirited Charlottesville family that includes in
one place many of the articles from the Charlottesville and UVa papers
from which my account is drawn.)
In fairness to University and town officials, the victims in the
earlier attacks did not report racist slurs, and it was not until the
assailants had been arrested and confessed to selecting their victims
on the basis of their race that the nature of these crimes was
confirmed. Nevertheless, after two or three or four, much less six,
episodes of black teenagers attacking white UVa students, clearly
someone had a clue what was going on. No matter, for even after the
admission the racial dimension of these assaults was minimized and
even denied. After an initial look the FBI refused to get involved (it
is actively investigating the current incident as a hate crime), and
the students were not charged under federal or state hate crime laws.
There were no university or alumni rewards for information about the
perpetrators, no anguished presidential or deanly speeches or revised
web pages. Indeed, the University's main concern seems to have been to
ask what it had done wrong to provoke such attacks and to improve its
"bridges" to the community. More on that in a moment.
I am not claiming that the attackers should have been tried under hate
crime statutes. I don't like hate crime laws, and I am sure there are
technical matters of evidence, etc., that may have made such
prosecutions difficult in these cases. The Charlottesville
Commonwealth's Attorney explained that he had been "unable to find
sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prosecute the assailants
for hate crimes." Although that sounds like an unusually high standard
for a prosecutor (not the jury, after all) to meet, perhaps he was
right.
What I am claiming is that the response of town and gown to these two
episodes (rolling the previous six assaults into one for purposes of
comparison) reveals a troubling, deep-seated double standard. I have
less than no sympathy for David Duke and his white rights organization
(all Americans deserve equal rights, not white rights or black rights
or brown rights), and in fact one of the things I find most detestable
about double standards is that their adherents often make people like
David Duke appear reasonable. (This is the thrust of Carol Swain's
marvelous book, THE NEW WHITE NATIONALISM IN AMERICA, which I
discussed here.) For example, Ron Doggett, Virginia state president of
EURO, sounded quite reasonable to a number of people who are not
bigots when he wrote, in a letter to the Cavalier Daily:
It's truly amazing to witness the racial double standards and
hypocrisy that exist in America today. But what is taking place in
Charlottesville is going way beyond the anti-white norm. A group of
black youths admit to attacking people who were white or they thought
were white and the mayor, police chief, Commonwealth's attorney and
media can't figure out if it's a racially motivated hate crime. If the
races were reversed, would they have so much trouble figuring it out?
With the recent attack on Daisy Lundy the races were reversed, and
there was a virtual riot of town and gown rushing to see who could
most convincingly prove Doggett correct. The University response has
already been noted. The attack occurred early on the morning of Feb.
26. On Feb. 28 the main Charlottesville paper, the Daily Progress,
featured a long editorial (alas, not online) under a headline
announcing that the city was "United Against a Hate Crime."
When will we ever learn?" [it began]. Oh, when will we ever learn?
The hate crime attack again stings this community into a mix of shame
and anger.
Shame, that one among us could, in this day and age, express such
bigotry, venom and cruelty. Anger, that one among us has been
attacked, injured in body and spirit, by bigotry, venom and cruelty."
These sentiments, even if they are a bit self-congratulatory (Oh, what
a sensitive community we are!), are noble, and I agree with them. But
announced as they were before an arrest, even before an investigation,
their certainty stands in marked contrast to the paper's response to
the previous series of serious racial attacks. For example, after the
police revealed that several of the arrested assailants had admitted
that they had selected their victims based on race, the Daily Progress
commented in an astonishing editorial:
Whether mass attacks on students were motivated by racism perhaps has
yet to be determined....
In other words, the attacks might have been racially motivated, in
that skin color determined the victims, but they might not have been
racistly motivated - deliberately intended to do harm to persons
because of their race.
A student columnist in the Cavalier Daily tried to tackle this subtle
distinction, but it easily escaped him.
The issue of motive versus intent is an often-overlooked distinction,
and one that is difficult to prove in court. However, this is the
criterion we should apply when examining such criminal acts.
While motive and intent practically are synonyms, there is a
significant difference, one that becomes all the more important when
looking at purported hate crimes. With the incident in
Charlottesville, the motive of the alleged assailants is clear, but
the intent still is unknown.
According to local officials, this was a crime of racism....
In the Charlottesville case, valid arguments can be made on either
side, but this is for the police and prosecutors to delve into in
deciding whether or not to press charges. But racial targeting, of
whites or of blacks, does not necessarily amount to a hate crime.
Defined simply, motive is the reason behind any crime. A motive may be
greed, love, hatred, revenge or racism. While motive may be the "why"
behind a crime, it does not affect the act itself. A crime is a crime,
regardless of why it is done.
But distinctions between motives are meaningless unless they affect
the crimes themselves. Intent, on the other hand, is the larger goal
of the criminal....
Again, my point here is not that this argument is legally wrong
(although if hate crime prosecutions in fact depend on distinctions
like this they are even harder to defend that I have thought). My
point is that both University and community grasped at whatever straw
they could find to avoid regarding the five-month series of
black-on-white attacks as hate crimes, but those hesitations and
restraints and legalistic niceties (if that's what they were) were
non-existent in the case of a single white-on-black attack.
It gets worse. There was a good deal of guilty, soul-searching
self-flagellation at the University. Although the individual victims
were never blamed for "asking for it," the University itself was.
"This is not an attempt to justify the beatings in any way," went one
such student column,
however, it is to suggest that the University community from which the
victims came must address factors that may contribute to such
incidents, specifically apathy toward racial and economic issues.
University executive vice president Leonard Sandbridge was quoted in
the Washington Post saying, "We want to know why this occurred for the
sole purpose of addressing anything that might have been the catalyst
that caused these crimes to occur." Mea UVa Culpa. "Race and
everything else aside, these are our kids, on both sides, victims and
suspects," said Charlottesville police chief Timothy Longo.
Charlottesville mayor Blake Caravati, was quoted expressing the same
sentiments, said "the city is approaching the incidents as 'a
teachable moment.'"
'Sure, they did wrong, but they're our young men and women who are
going to live in the community a long time,' Caravati said. 'We need
to be supportive of them. This is an opportunity to talk about the
situation, use it to learn and change our community in a positive
way.'"
Although there is reasonable speculation that the perpetrator of the
Daisy Lundy assault is actually a UVa student (who else would care
about who's president of the Student Council, and recognize a
candidate at 2:00AM?), there is no concern being expressed that he's
one of "our kids" who needs to be understood and supported.
In the community the all too predictable "midnight basketball" and
"increase diversity" proposals were put forward.
A community group formed in response to a series of assaults and
robberies near the University of Virginia and dedicated to discussing
problems faced by Charlottesville teenagers suggested Sunday that a
youth-oriented coffee shop or roller-skating night could help keep
city teens busy and out of trouble.
[....]
In addition to the coffee shop and skate-night ideas, Robert Jordan, a
representative of the youth committee, said students have discussed
forming a diversity council to attend School Board and City Council
meetings.
(Didn't anyone consider that having high school kids sit through
school board and city council meetings might incite them to more
violence?) And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it
does: there was actually a good deal of sympathy and support in the
community ... for the assailants. Rev. Alvin Edwards, pastor of the
Mt. Zion African Baptist Church who is also a former mayor of
Charlottesville, led a prominent and noisy faction that was much more
solicitous of the attackers than the attacked. He denied that the
attacks had anything to do with race, claiming that "many local
teenagers, particularly African Americans, resent the university
because they consider it largely inaccessible to them."
Committees Rev. Edwards set up had bake sales and raised over $3000,
all of which was going to be donated to the legal defense of the
assailants until criticism caused 30% to be donated for the victims'
medical expenses.
This was perfectly consistent with Rev. Edwards' outspoken belief that
these were not hate crimes because it is not possible for blacks to
commit hate crimes against whites. In a revealing interview with The
Hook, a weekly Charlottesville paper, Edwards said, among other
things:
[If a crime is basically] against African-Americans, Jews and so
forth, there should be stiffer penalties.
It is a hate crime if it's against these [historically-persecuted
groups].
Q. Do you feel the same way whether it's a member of a majority or
minority group doing the violation?
A. You don't have [the same] history of hate crimes against whites -
if there's a problem it is because of what was done to [blacks] -
going back to slavery, and since.
Caucasians are not really in a position to draw conclusions about
racism, they really can't understand it [the way African Americans
can]. Whites have lived with it so long that it's acceptable and
normal behavior [to them]. (Note: the brackets are in the online
version. I don't know if they were in the original or put there by the
person who put the article online on his site - jsr.)
Double standards, based as they are on rejection of the principle that
individuals of different races and ethnicities and religions must be
treated according to the same standard, lead not only to "hard"
preferences of differential treatment (in admissions, hiring, etc.)
but also to what might be termed the "soft" preferences of
differential sensitivity and compassion. Thus if black students attack
whites, such attacks must be understood, if not justified, as
expressing frustration and resentment based on real grievances. Those
students deserve a compassionate and caring community's sympathy and
support. But if a white student attacks blacks, his attack can be
understood only as expressing what the Daily Progress editorial quoted
above called "bigotry, venom, and cruelty."
Bigotry, venom, and cruelty should be condemned wherever they are
found, but on a colorblind basis, for continuing double standards
guarantee only that we will have continuing seething resentments.
Charlottesville should have learned that by now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
25 Apr 2005 08:21:47 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426cc3cb.1263921@news.newshosting.com>:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
Note that "jack" was 0 for 4 when zie decided to distract with the
forgeries.
We note that you whimpered, babbled, and tried to save face when data
indicating the presence of a double-standard were submitted.
No, that's only in your delusions -- you were reduced to forgery when
I kept pointing out the lack of hate as a motive
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bro Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 06:41:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:21:47 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426cc3cb.1263921@news.newshosting.com>:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
In fact, you said that there were "lots" of them.
Still waiting.
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
Note that "jack" was 0 for 4 when zie decided to distract with the
forgeries.
We note that you whimpered, babbled, and tried to save face when data
indicating the presence of a double-standard were submitted.
No, that's only in your delusions -- you were reduced to forgery when
I kept pointing out the lack of hate as a motive
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
EXAMPLE: You deleted my "forgery" from the last post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 07:06:48 AM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Bro Jack wrote
in message <426e28e1.3103718@news.newshosting.com>:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:21:47 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426cc3cb.1263921@news.newshosting.com>:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
And evasive too -- two for one.
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
In fact, you said that there were "lots" of them.
Still waiting.
As am I, for an apology for forging posts in my name and a sincere
pledge not to do it again.
Note the failure to address the hate crimes.
Note that "jack" was 0 for 4 when zie decided to distract with the
forgeries.
We note that you whimpered, babbled, and tried to save face when data
indicating the presence of a double-standard were submitted.
No, that's only in your delusions -- you were reduced to forgery when
I kept pointing out the lack of hate as a motive
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
EXAMPLE: You deleted my "forgery" from the last post.
How many posts *did* you forge in that thread, and if you were so
obviously carrying the day, what use were they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 12:44:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:06:48 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Bro Jack wrote
in message <426e28e1.3103718@news.newshosting.com>:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:21:47 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message <426cc3cb.1263921@news.newshosting.com>:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
And evasive too -- two for one.
Shifty, evasive, sneaky, deceitful describes you to a T, but you're
also an amusing diversion from those who discuss issues seriously.
So you have your place.
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
__________
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:05:30 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
There are lots of cities where the black population is low but crime is high
such as Dallas and lots of cities where black population is high but crime is low.
Last time I checked, the black population of Dallas was 25%.
At any rate, show us lots of those cities over 75,000 where black
population is under 10% but suffer high crime, and those where black
population is 25% or more and enjoy low crime rates.
In other words, the opposite of the trends shown here:
(...)
_________
In fact, you said that there were "lots" of them.
Still waiting.
As am I, for an apology for forging posts in my name and a sincere
pledge not to do it again.
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
Face it, your role here is one of jester.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 05:36:19 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
<1114536848.f6c8b4d63148117aff632d0af90e4173@bubbanews>:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:06:48 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
And evasive too -- two for one.
Shifty, evasive, sneaky, deceitful describes you to a T, but you're
also an amusing diversion from those who discuss issues seriously.
So you have your place.
So, what *is* the national average percentage of black citizens?
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
__________
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:05:30 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
There are lots of cities where the black population is low but crime is high
such as Dallas and lots of cities where black population is high but crime is low.
And where is this "pledge" or "promise" you keep lying about?
Last time I checked, the black population of Dallas was 25%.
At any rate, show us lots of those cities over 75,000 where black
population is under 10% but suffer high crime, and those where black
population is 25% or more and enjoy low crime rates.
In other words, the opposite of the trends shown here:
(...)
_________
In fact, you said that there were "lots" of them.
Still waiting.
As am I, for an apology for forging posts in my name and a sincere
pledge not to do it again.
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
Face it, your role here is one of jester.
Keep whistling past the graveyard -- even *you* cannot hide from the
fact that you couldn't prove your point and so started forging me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 07:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:36:19 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
<1114536848.f6c8b4d63148117aff632d0af90e4173@bubbanews>:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:06:48 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Denial.
And evasive too -- two for one.
Shifty, evasive, sneaky, deceitful describes you to a T, but you're
also an amusing diversion from those who discuss issues seriously.
So you have your place.
So, what *is* the national average percentage of black citizens?
So where are those lists of cities you promised us?
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
__________
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:05:30 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
There are lots of cities where the black population is low but crime is high
such as Dallas and lots of cities where black population is high but crime is low.
And where is this "pledge" or "promise" you keep lying about?
See above.
Last time I checked, the black population of Dallas was 25%.
At any rate, show us lots of those cities over 75,000 where black
population is under 10% but suffer high crime, and those where black
population is 25% or more and enjoy low crime rates.
In other words, the opposite of the trends shown here:
(...)
_________
In fact, you said that there were "lots" of them.
Still waiting.
As am I, for an apology for forging posts in my name and a sincere
pledge not to do it again.
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
Face it, your role here is one of jester.
Keep whistling past the graveyard -- even *you* cannot hide from the
fact
Why should I want to hide from the fact that you're unable to post
those lists of cities?
I relish that fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 08:23:55 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
<1114562298.11d33c8f2bbecd2dd04ca889d4c16bf9@bubbanews>:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:36:19 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
What promise? Was that in another forgery of yours?
Actually, you did bravely attempt to supply a list. If you can call
one city a "list." You offered Dallas as a dangerous city, which is
true.
But then someone pointed out that Dallas is 25% black, which you
didn't know.
Proof that I didn't know?
You wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place as an example of a
city where crime is high and black population is low.
Duh.
And less than a quarter isn't "low?"
25.9% isn't low when the safest cities all had black populations in
the single-digits.
But is when considered against national averages.
Ever the shifty Jew.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Denial.
Truth. It's only your ideological need that it be so that drives you
to lie like this.
And evasive too -- two for one.
Shifty, evasive, sneaky, deceitful describes you to a T, but you're
also an amusing diversion from those who discuss issues seriously.
So you have your place.
So, what *is* the national average percentage of black citizens?
So where are those lists of cities you promised us?
So where's the promise you keep lying about?
The safest cities contain a black population of from 1-7%. The most
dangerous contain black populations beginning at 26%.
You pledged to show lists of cities to counter those.
Wrong, but then you must be getting used to that by now, hmmmn?
__________
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:05:30 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
There are lots of cities where the black population is low but crime is high
such as Dallas and lots of cities where black population is high but crime is low.
And where is this "pledge" or "promise" you keep lying about?
See above.
I did -- there's no promise there.
<snip>
Still waiting.
As am I, for an apology for forging posts in my name and a sincere
pledge not to do it again.
Because of your inability to prove any point and attempts to deviate
from the discussion into irrelevancy and face saving, you are viewed
as an amusement, someone meant to be tweaked and not taken seriously.
Face it, your role here is one of jester.
Keep whistling past the graveyard -- even *you* cannot hide from the
fact
Why should I want to hide from the fact that you're unable to post
those lists of cities?
You want to hide from the fact of your inability to support your crap
about hate crime, and your use of forgery to try and distract from
that fact.
I relish that fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 01:45:56 PM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Than explain the irrational hatered you have for all White Gentiles.
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell, 1984
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 06:01:54 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2648211.9CvRxUPWIY@FreeBSD>:
Roger wrote:
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Than explain the irrational hatered you have for all White Gentiles.
Since I have no such hatred, there's nothing to explain.
Now -- when are going to see the rest of those 1233 hate crime hoaxes?
*Then* we can get back to your other lies...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 02:03:13 PM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2648211.9CvRxUPWIY@FreeBSD>:
Roger wrote:
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Than explain the irrational hatered you have for all White Gentiles.
Since I have no such hatred, there's nothing to explain.
Denial isn't a river Roger.
Now -- when are going to see the rest of those 1233 hate crime hoaxes?
I've posted 21 thus far, you have yet to post one.
*Then* we can get back to your other lies...
Ain't any.
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell, 1984
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
26 Apr 2005 06:22:45 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <1599942.c86mnnH9eT@FreeBSD>:
Roger wrote:
I eat shifty Jews for breakfast; so you could say that I'm used to
you.
You could, if you were looking to ignore the fact that I'm not Jewish.
Than explain the irrational hatered you have for all White Gentiles.
Since I have no such hatred, there's nothing to explain.
Denial isn't a river Roger.
Let's see you try to prove, using what I have posted in various news
group, that I hate all gentiles. then.
Now -- when are going to see the rest of those 1233 hate crime hoaxes?
I've posted 21 thus far, you have yet to post one.
I've posted 2489 directly from the FBI site.
You responded by mumbling something about ZOG while running away.
1232 to go, little boy.
*Then* we can get back to your other lies...
Ain't any.
LOL -- right.
Why did you lie about the FBI in Boston?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 10:15:31 AM |
|
|
Way Back Jack wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:44:20 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
I'll challenge you again: for every faked "hate crime" you post, I'll
post two that weren't.
We're still waiting for those lists of cities you promised.
When you give up, you agree never to lie online again.
That's what they call irony.
Looking in the mirror again?
You lying, girly-man kike.
He still hasn't shown one documented hate crime.. Yet, he now claims he can
show four to my one..
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell, 1984
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 02:27:27 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2107170.PlIEMLzfiy@FreeBSD>:
He still hasn't shown one documented hate crime.. Yet, he now claims he can
show four to my one..
I *have* shown, more than that, unless you come up with a thousand or
so hoaxes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 10:25:36 AM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2107170.PlIEMLzfiy@FreeBSD>:
He still hasn't shown one documented hate crime.. Yet, he now claims he
can show four to my one..
I *have* shown, more than that, unless you come up with a thousand or
so hoaxes.
You haven't shown 'one' documented hate crime. Much less the forty that
you're on the hook for.
--
In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell, 1984
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 02:38:04 PM |
|
|
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2466027.T9pWnWGOl0@FreeBSD>:
Roger wrote:
He still hasn't shown one documented hate crime.. Yet, he now claims he
can show four to my one..
I *have* shown, more than that, unless you come up with a thousand or
so hoaxes.
You haven't shown 'one' documented hate crime. Much less the forty that
you're on the hook for.
So, you dispute the FIB's figures?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bro Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
24 Apr 2005 07:58:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:38:04 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <2466027.T9pWnWGOl0@FreeBSD>:
Roger wrote:
He still hasn't shown one documented hate crime.. Yet, he now claims he
can show four to my one..
I *have* shown, more than that, unless you come up with a thousand or
so hoaxes.
You haven't shown 'one' documented hate crime. Much less the forty that
you're on the hook for.
So, you dispute the FIB's figures?
You seem to be the only one FIBbing.
BroJack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Way Back Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: As usual, the idiot child spouts off on matter zie cannot understand. |
25 Apr 2005 06:10:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:38:04 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
So, you dispute the FIB's figures?
ANALYSIS OF HATE CRIME Bias-motivated crime has unique
characteristics. As in heterosexual rape, victims and offenders come
from different groups. Unlike rape, however, hate crime is reciprocal.
Each group can prey upon the other. Though not obvious, these singular
aspects incline the data in a unique way. The sizes of victim and
offender groups influence victimization rates in a way that is often
more significant than intrinsic group bias. Methods are developed for
interpreting hate-crime statistics. They are applied to recent FBI
data.
Would you believe that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white? This is not the
claim of a left-wing crazy. It comes from data in the 1998 hate-crime
report of the FBI. Data from the two previous reports yield about the
same odds. We will try to put the facts in perspective.
In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, requiring the
Justice Department to collect and publish annual statistics on crimes
that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity." To comply, the FBI collects data submitted voluntarily
by local law-enforcement agencies, and assembles them into an annual
summary report. Most of the analysis you will find here pertains to
the numbers found in these reports.
Anyone who has pored over Government documents, knows first-hand how
agencies can manipulate data to make a point. Crime statistics are a
good example, the treatment of hate-crime data being especially
egregious. The Justice department has wide latitude in how they comply
with the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Accordingly, it has bent the data
toward its own ends by omitting categories for ethnic offenders. Thus,
Hispanics cannot be hate criminals, only hate victims. When a Hispanic
commits a hate crime, he is counted as white. When he is a victim, he
becomes Hispanic. In this way the FBI pads the number of white
offenders. Despite this baggage we can learn much from the FBI data.
By focusing on victims, we can sidestep Justice Department attempts at
obfuscation.
Minorities suffer simply because they are minorities.
A blueprint for hate-crime data
In a nation of more than 270 million inhabitants, composed of
various ethnic, racial and religious groups, targets for hate crime
abound. Anyone inclined to commit a hate offense will have no trouble
finding a victim. The Census Bureau reports that as of July 1, 1998
there were approximately 223.0 million whites residing in the U.S.,
34.4 million blacks, 30.4 million Hispanics, 10.5 million Asians and
Pacific Islanders, and 2.4 million Native Americans, not to mention
Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Moslems. The target is enormous. For
practical purposes it is infinite.
If there are 1,000 hate criminals in an offender group, there will be
1,000 or more victims in the victim group. Regardless of the victim
group's size, 1 million, 10 million or 50 million, the 1,000 hate
criminals in the offender group will commit the same number of
offenses. For a given hate-crime proclivity, the size of the offender
group determines the number of its offenses. All things equal, a
majority group produces more offenders than a minority group.
Differential group tendencies not withstanding, a majority group
simply has more members.
The size of the victim group is also important. It determines how well
the group absorbs the crime directed toward it. If a thousand crimes
are perpetrated against a group of one million and a like number
against a group of ten million, each member of the smaller group
suffers a tenfold greater risk. Consequently, with respect to hate
crime, minorities are at a double disadvantage having nothing to do
with differential bias. A large dominant group produces many
offenders, whose crimes must be borne by relatively few in a minority
victim group. In other words, minorities suffer simply because they
are minorities. This is a mathematical reality having nothing to do
with differential group bias. One should always view hate-crime
evidence against this backdrop.
Inverse square risk
For simplicity, assume a black and white universe. This is not too
bad a model for the US, because blacks and whites combine to form more
than 95 percent of the population. From our previous discussion, we
know the probability of a white being hate-victimized in a given year
is proportional to the black population and inversely proportional to
the white population. An analogous relation exists for the probability
of a black being hate-victimized.
Quadratic dependence on group size makes it the major determinant of
the black to white risk ratio.
Suppose our black and white universe contains NW whites and NB blacks.
Let pW and pB be the probabilities, respectively, of a white or black
being victimized in a given year. Assuming the average number of
victims per offender is constant across the two groups, we can write,
The quantities, kB and kW , are constants closely related to the
respective probabilities that a black or a white is a hate-criminal.
If there were one victim per offender, the constants would be
precisely these probabilities. We call kB and kW the black and white
hate proclivities, respectively. They are intrinsic group properties.
From (1) we can write the (per capita) risk ratio, pB /pW :
And we have the interesting result that the per capita risk ratio
varies inversely with the hate-proclivity ratio and also inversely
with the square of the group size ratio. Quadratic dependence on group
size makes it the major determinant of the black to white risk ratio.
As the disparity in group size grows, minority group members rapidly
become more vulnerable. At the same time, members of the dominant
group become safer.
In the special case where both groups have equal proclivities for
committing hate crime, kW = kB, and
That is, assuming equal hate proclivity, the per capita risk ratio is
the inverse square of the group population ratio.
We need to ask . . . not why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to
whites is so high, but rather why is it so low?
Equal hate proclivity hypothesis
We began by noting that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white. The actual figure
from the 1998 FBI data is 21.8. We can now correctly interpret this
observation. Because the Justice department skews the data by
excluding Hispanics from offender status, we cannot achieve the level
of accuracy we would like. However, we can come pretty close by
considering only victims and excluding Hispanics from the analysis.
The FBI includes hate crime against property in their tabulation, and
counts "offended" properties as victims. We consider here only crimes
against persons.
If you were one of the 195.4 million non-Hispanic whites in the U.S.
in 1998, there were 32.7 million non-Hispanic blacks potentially ready
to abuse you in some way and vice versa. For the moment assume that
racial and ethnic groups share equal tendencies to abuse members of
other groups. That is, if one in every thousand whites has this
proclivity, then also one in every thousand blacks or Native Americans
or Asians has it as well. We call this the equal hate-proclivity
hypothesis. Under it, we seek the relative hate-crime risk to groups
of various sizes. According to (3), under the equal hate proclivity
hypothesis, a black should have been (195.4/32.7)2 or 35.7 times more
likely than a white to be a victim of hate crime in 1998. Put in this
light, we see that in reality the relative risk of blacks (21.8 times
that of whites) was less than expected assuming no differential group
bias. In fact, the black risk was only 61 percent of that expected
from group size considerations alone. We need to ask, therefore, not
why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to whites is so high, but
rather why is it so low? The answer is simple: The equal hate
proclivity hypothesis is false.
Differential hate proclivities
We can calculate the hate-proclivity ratio from the FBI data. In
1998, excluding Hispanics, we find an observed per capita risk ratio
of 21.8, and from the census, a population ratio square, (NW /NB )2,
of 35.7. Then from (3), the ratio of hate proclivities, kB /kW is
35.7/21.8 = 1.6. That is, if blacks were 1.6 times more likely to
commit hate crimes than whites, the FBI data are explained.
If we also know the number of black and white victims, NVB and NVW ,
respectively, we can evaluate the individual hate proclivities. From
(1), the probability of a black being victimized by a white is kWNW
/NB . This quantity is also the rate of black victimization, or NVB
/NB . Consequently,
The FBI reports the number of hate-offenders by race, though the white
offender entry is inflated by the inclusion of Hispanics. For 1998,
the report lists 1303 suspected black offenders and 2084 suspected
white offenders. This yields a per capita offender ratio (B/W) of 1.7,
in reasonable agreement with the hate-proclivity ratio of 1.6. Table 1
summarizes these calculations for the three most recent FBI reports.
Hate-proclivity ratio
(kB /kW )
Per capita offender ratio
(black / white)
1998
1.6
1.7
1997
2.0
2.0
1996
1.9
2.0
Table 1. The hate-proclivity ratio compared with the per capita
offender ratio.
Church burnings
Between January 1995 and November 1996 the burning of black
churches in the South created a sustained news frenzy. By the summer
of 1996, Americans had been treated to over 2,000 articles in major
newspapers, many on the front page. Not to be outdone, church arson
lead all other stories in the TV nightly news.
Political types of various stripes chimed in. Ralph Reed, then
Director of the Christian Coalition, termed the arsons, "the greatest
outbreak of violence against the black church since the height of the
civil rights movement." Deval Patrick, assistant attorney general for
civil rights, proclaimed the fires to be "an epidemic of terror."
President Clinton, in one of his weekly radio addresses, recalled in a
now famous evocation, "vivid and painful memories of black churches
being burned in my own state when I was a child." (It was later
discovered that no black church had been burned in Arkansas during his
childhood.) Clinton called a conference of Southern governors to deal
with the burnings. He toured burned-out churches, once on his 50th
birthday. The press tagged along. Congress, not to be upstaged, passed
the Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, making church burning a
federal crime.
Not everyone bought in. Michael Fumento, writing in the Wall Street
Journal, analyzed the data and found that much of it was spurious. He
showed that there had been no increase in church arson in the South
from 1990 to 1995. Fumento noted that in 1995, USA Today reported 45
arsons against white churches, compared to 27 against black churches.
He also observed that the 1996 figures were inflated by copycat
crimes.
Eventually, numbers began to roll in indicating that more white than
black churches had been torched. It did not make much difference to
some in the press. Paula Walker, vice president and news director of
WNBC-TV, reacted to the reports while attending a National Association
of Black Journalists convention in August 1996. She concluded that,
"There didn't seem to be much substantiation other than raw numbers."
.. . . while whites were being blamed for burning black churches, and
were drowning in their own guilt, the facts reveal a black was 5 times
more likely than a white to commit bias-motivated church arson.
We can put the Church-burning data under the microscope. Our foregoing
analysis, with some modification, is well suited to the task. Faced
with the fact that bias-motivated crime is only a small fraction of
total crime, hate-crime activists fall back on the position that these
offenses are underreported. But the charred ruins of a burned-out
church cannot go unreported. We include all the burnings in our
analysis, including copycat arsons. We also make the worst-case
assumptions, ascribing bias-motivation to an arson whenever there is
doubt.
We want to calculate, from available data, the hate-proclivity ratio,
kB / kW , as it applies to church burning. For this case it is the
ratio of proclivities of blacks and whites, respectively, to torch
each other's churches. People are the perpetrators, but victims now
are churches. We use asterisks to denote torched churches and write
from (4),
where N*W and N*B are the numbers of white and black churches,
respectively, burned between January 1995 and November 1996. Of the
298 incidents during this period, federal investigations found 43
percent involved black churches. About 2/3 of the arsons were
determined to be bias motivated. If the same fraction applies to both
black and white churches, its precise value is not important.
The states where most of the burnings occurred were Texas, Tennessee,
South Caro | | | | | | | |
