Month: June 2022

Sometimes its the little stories that really piss me off

Miguel touched on this but it threw me into a tizzy.

https://twitter.com/mtwrighter/status/1541561048398024704?s=20&t=96k3ltVutrOdvnKvT_lu7g

https://twitter.com/mtwrighter/status/1541562540773326850?t=WQS0j8HryI7s070eXncEEQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/mtwrighter/status/1541564140392677384?t=dt8YN6KgNQx3ID2dyhfNjA&s=19

 

She stole a full automatic weapons from the Texas National Guard.

She smuggly bragged about it on Twitter thinking she’s a good person.

She chastised and insulted the Guardsmen who are patrolling our borders and goes so far as to nit pick them for not wearing seat belts.

She’s a Leftist so she’s smug and secure in her knowledge that she won’t get in an ounce of trouble for this.

Had anyone else stolen an M4 from the Guard out of a Guard vehicle, they would be the recipient of their own one man Waco re-enactment.

But she’s safe to act like a stern kindergarten teacher taking away a naughty child’s toy.

God damn our system is broken.

Your Standards Are Racist

Over the course of the last few years there have been more and more calls to remove or lower standards. The reason most often given is that the results of standards is not equitable.

The math goes something like this. If you have a 1000 people/institutions being tested and the break down of that population is 597 Pink, 186 Blue, 126 Cyan, 59 Green and 32 purple and you give a standardized test that is suppose to select the 100 best you would expect to get 60 Pink, 19 Blue, 13 Cyan, 6 Green and 2 purple.

If that standardized test instead gives you 65 Pink, 16 Blue, 5 Cyan, 9 Green and 2 purple something is wrong.

This is the problem. What happens if the Pink group consistently scores better than expected and the Green group as well. Regardless of the sample size or when the sample is picked in less random ways. What does it mean when the sample is skewed to have more Cyan and less Pink and still the Pink dominate those being chosen as best?

What does it mean?

In one sample, of nearly 400, there were 35 Pink, 364 Cyan, 1 purple. When standards were used to select “best” 29 Pink, 1 Cyan were picked as “best”.

Is the test biased to the Pink group?

Well the answer is often times “yes, it is biased.” But not based on color. It is based on objective measurements. It turns out that different groups value different things at different levels. Because of this differentiation different groups perform better when objectively measured.

Standards must be evaluated to see if they have a bias. If a test is asking about history and it focuses on the civil war students that live in the south are more likely to do better than people in the north. If on the other hand it focuses on the revolutionary war, people in the north are more likely to do better. Because of this, having tests with an unbalanced focus can result in unbalanced, biased, results.

What we know is that certain groups score better on standardized tests and when judged by objective standards. A standard that requires a certain number of pull ups in a given time, humping a certain amount of weight a specific distance or height will show a bias towards males over females.

Does this mean that females can’t meet those requirements? No, it doesn’t.

One of my younger friends was over along with his wife. His wife was in the US Army and was talking up how well they had done in PE and how much they could lift. This women was strong. She was in great shape. She is showing me her bicep development and is telling me to squeeze it to see just how strong she was.

I did. I’m old. I’m fat. I’m out of shape. I did squeeze. And she was on her knees squealing in pain. My hand grip is a little more than she expected. I knew this. So the first squeeze was gentle. She demanded that I actually squeeze. Nobody had ever actually done that to her. I’m an ass. I know this too. I showed her that there was a difference.

She was by and far the most physically fit and strong woman I’ve ever met. She was the best in her unit, all females. She looked down at the “soft bodies” of the other women in her unit that didn’t even try to meet male standards. She still wasn’t as strong as an old man. (Ok, sneaky old man, I do know where all those pressure points are.)

Unfortunately, bias is sometimes required. If what you are looking for is the best students you are going to be looking for students with good scores in standardized tests as well as good grades. If one group doesn’t perform as well as another group they are not going to be represented within the selected group at the same rate as in the applicants or population at large.

Consider Nobel prizes, Israel has 12(13?), Egypt which is larger in size and population has 4, Turkey 2, Iraq 1, Iran 1, Palestine 1, Yemen 1. 12 v. 10? Why? Is there discrimination based on religion for Nobel prizes? Or is there a cultural difference?
Source: Nobel Prize Winners By Country Wikipedia claims Isreal has 13, WorldAtlas says 12.

Should Israel have been denied Nobel prizes until the Muslim countries have received their “fair share” of Nobel prizes?

This has moved into education in a huge way. I’ve watched our local gifted and talented program be destroyed. It doesn’t exist any longer as it wasn’t fair. Having all those smart kids, all from the same cultural group be pulled out of class harmed those that didn’t meet the standards. They modified the standards three or four times and kept ending up with the same group of smart kids. Until they removed standards and it was “who wants to join this club?”

We saw it when magnet schools stopped using standardized criteria and suddenly had students that were just not as good.

Now we have this from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Philadelphia school board Thursday night began a process to pull the charters of three schools it cited for academic, operational, and financial flaws.

They accused the district of using an unfair evaluation process that had resulted in the closures of a disproportionate number of Black-led charters — both Laboratory and Southwest Leadership Academy have Black leaders — and board members of ignoring the needs of Black communities.
Philly board moves to close 3 charters amid allegations of bias against Black-led schools

Once again, standards are under attack as being racist. We didn’t get equality of outcome so the standards used must be biased.

This totally ignores the possibility that it could be something else. Especially as there are operational and financial flaws listed.

How come the other charter schools can meet the standards but these schools can’t?

We don’t know, it is just easier to scream “RACIST!” and leave it at that.

UPDATED: Spelling/grammar fixes.

Hollywood celebrity wants a second Civil War

 

Yup.

The United States of New York and California with everyone else being told to shut up and obey.

Really embracing the idea of a Constitutional Republic with that one.

This is how civil wars and balkanization happens.

Clarence Thomas want to bring the media to heel

Having secured gun laws for the people and overturned the judicial activism of Roe, Justice Thomas seems to be aiming his mighty Gavel of Justice at the fake news industry.

Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media

It’s about God damn time.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday expressed a desire to revisit a landmark 1964 ruling that makes it relatively difficult to bring successful lawsuits against media outlets for defamation.

Thomas’s statement came in response to the court’s decision to turn away an appeal from a Christian nonprofit group who disputed their characterization by the civil rights watchdog group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Coral Ridge Ministries Media sued the SPLC for defamation for listing them as a hate group on their public database, which led to Amazon excluding Coral Ridge as a recipient of charitable contributions from online shoppers.

Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the lawsuit, which had been dismissed by lower courts for failing to overcome the decades-old legal standard, established in the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, that public figures who sue for defamation must not only prove defendants made defamatory statements, but that those statements were made with “actual malice.”

“This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity,’” Thomas wrote.

Trump really showed how dishonest the media is and how they get away with it.

The media has been taking liberties with Sullivan to overtly slander the Right then say “oopsie” and get away with it because there is insufficient evidence of malice.

Four years of “Russian collusion” and “pee-pee tapes” but no malice.

Bullshit!

It’s not the first time Thomas has called for revisiting the actual malice standard, which many journalists and free speech advocates see as a fundamental protection for reporting on public figures.

Last year, he dissented in another instance where the Supreme Court declined to take up a defamation case that had been stymied by the 1964 precedent.

“The lack of historical support for this Court’s actual-malice requirement is reason enough to take a second look at the Court’s doctrine,” Thomas wrote in his 2021 opinion. “Our reconsideration is all the more needed because of the doctrine’s real-world effects. Public figure or private, lies impose real harm.”

It’s unclear how much traction his argument is getting among the other five conservative justices. While none of his colleagues joined Thomas in dissenting on Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion last year concurring with his call to revisit the New York Times v. Sullivan decision.

Good.  This needs to be revisited.

The media has too long, since Watergate at least, seen it’s job to be the assassination of Republican careers by any means necessary.

A free press can’t be an unaccountable super PAC.

I hope Thomas succeeds at this.

The racism and bigotry of the LA Times and its readers

Miguel posted a screen shot but I wanted to dig into the article.

Column: Is California ready for more Black people to legally carry guns in public?

Nathan W. Jones leads the Bay Area chapter of the Black Gun Owners Assn. But until a few years ago, he wasn’t even into guns.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. And George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, sending racial justice protesters into the streets. And white supremacists trashed the U.S. Capitol in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“I had visions of mobs dragging people through the streets, and something just kind of switched,” Jones told me. “We can’t rely on anybody else to come and save us. It has to be us.”

On the one hand, he wants it to be easy for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves “if and when the time arises.” But on the other hand, he’s a 50-year-old realist who knows that fear and hatred of Black people run deep in the United States, especially when we’re armed.

“There’s no overt racism when we go to the gun range, but we know how people are looking at us,” Jones said of the dozens of Black members who meet up to go shooting. “We know the things that people think.”

This is interesting.  They interviewed a black gun owners in California who assumes everyone around him watching him shoot is a racist.  Being from California, most of the people he is surrounded by are Liberals.  Given how the LA Times introduced him, it’s highly likely that he is on the political Left himself, and therefore sees race and racism in everything.

Whatever bigotry at the range he’s experienced, I haven’t seen in Alabama.  Nor have I seen it in the gun community that subscribes to high profile gun rights advocate Colion Noir and cheers on the increase in minority gun ownership.

California Democrats are scrambling to craft and enact new legislation this week that would somehow salvage the requirement — assuming local law enforcement continues to enforce it — that residents get a permit before carrying a concealed weapon.

But the governor and lawmakers could fail, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could stand. And then, California could be forced to confront a reality that has long made many self-proclaimed liberals uncomfortable: Black people — potentially a lot of us — legally carrying guns in public.

This is an amazing admission.  That tolerant Liberals/Progressives are uncomfortable with black people owning guns.  They are the bigots they call everyone else.

Lest you think I’m being facetious, recall how California got started on its journey to having the toughest gun control laws in the country.

It was in 1967 that members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense staged a protest at the California Capitol. Armed with the handguns and shotguns they normally used to protect Black neighborhoods in Oakland by “policing the police,” they announced that the time had come for “Black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” And then they went inside.

Lawmakers were so freaked out that they quickly passed the very bill the Black Panthers had been protesting — the Mulford Act, which banned the open carry of loaded weapons without a permit. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it posthaste.

Over the next few years, the Mulford Act, which the National Rifle Assn. supported, inspired a slew of gun control laws in other states and Congress.

Of course, these days, the NRA is very much against gun control, although its stance on Black people doesn’t seem to have changed very much.

Yes, we know about the Mulford Act.  We know how the NRA has shifted over time.  It it, however, a slander without evidence to say that the NRA was and is bigoted against black people.

Considering their aforementioned admission of Liberal bigotry, this is just projection.

Still, over the last few years as Americans have stocked up on guns at record rates, it is Black people — especially women — who have been buying them the most. Between 2019 and 2020 alone, there was a 58% spike, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The defund the police movement and soft on crime policies of the Left have caused massive crime spikes in black communities.  They want to protect themselves.

That meme that has been floating around social media for a few weeks — the one that half-jokingly suggests that Republican politicians could be prompted to support gun control if more Black people were to start packing heat?

The Left can’t meme.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen case, waxed philosophical about how the right to bear arms was crucial for the self-protection of Black people in the South during Reconstruction.

And how in 1868, Congress “reaffirmed that freedmen were entitled to the ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security … including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’”

Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive organizations, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the court to rule exactly as it did.

Ummm…. yes.  Much of the history of gun control was “how do we keep those undesirables from being armed.”

In the South, that was mostly freed blacks.

In New York, it was blacks and immigrants.  Rich people could always afford the licenses.

A business owner in Oakland, his gun club — like Choice’s club — is full of Black professionals. Doctors, even cops. Law-abiding citizens with wives and husbands and children, and deep ties to their communities.

“Still, we know that all eyes are on us,” Jones said. “And so we also know that we cannot be the group that has an accidental discharge. We cannot be the group that is handling our firearms in an unsafe manner. We have to be more in control and knowing what we’re doing more than anybody else, because all eyes are on us waiting for us to make a mistake.”

Welcome to the world of legal concealed carry.  Every responsible CCW owner feels this way regardless of race because if we screw up we will be the case study the Left uses to take down concealed carry.

Talk to white guys with permits.  You’ll be surprised just how common our footing is on this.

Jones sees it as part of the mission of the Black Gun Owners Assn. to challenge preconceived notions many Americans have about who should and should not be able to carry a gun. But he laments that this is the reality, even in liberal California.

Liberal Californians are a bunch of bigots.  Take a CCW class in Miami.

If the Supreme Court’s ruling sticks, Jones believes, more Black people could start carrying their weapons in public — particularly if the white supremacists and Christian nationalists in our midst start doing the same.

Good to know the LA Times assumes the millions of us CCW holders are Christian nationalist white supremacists.

Jones feels he has little choice but to be a gun owner, though.

“What we need to do,” he said, “is redefine the notion of Black people with guns and what that means.”

Again, this is the perspective of someone from California.

I think the perspective of a black or other minority gun owner from Florida or Texas would be different.

The takeaway here is the California Liberals are horrendous bigots.  For all they preach about tolerance, in the end they are no different that Southern Democrats from the 1860s.  They cannot stand the idea of black people having guns.

They deal with this cognitive dissonance by projecting their bigotry onto the Right.