Archive for race

White Americans Become More Conservative the More they Fear Becoming a Minority

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

white

Please note: this is a repost via repost.us from our friend Alan Colmes's site, Liberaland.. Please let us know if you have any technical difficulties viewing this page. Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

White Americans Become More Conservative The More They Fear Becoming A Minority (via Liberaland)

A Northwestern University study reveals that as white Americans learn of America’s changing demographics, the more conservative they become. Psychological scientists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson of Northwestern University noticed a substantial…


Read More →

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

No Race Based Assumptions Here -- Really? Watch The Cops

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

race

For those who think race assumptions and racial bias are slackening and tolerance is improving in this country, here's a quick reminder that we haven't moved very much. If you're white, go ahead, steal a car. It's okay because you're, you know, white. You're superior.

Now if you're black, don't even try to walk by a car. You're obviously trying to steal it.

Here's a very unscientific experiment caught on video. I think it will reassure you that we have a long way to go -- especially if you're a cop.

)

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Letting Ex-Felons Vote -- A Racial Thing

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

voting booth

What is the purpose of sending those convicted of crimes to jail? Is it punishment? Yes. Is it rehabilitation? Yes. So it's two mints in one as the Certs commercial goes.

And are most felons guilty of violent crimes? Actually, no. Most are incarcerated for non-violent (yet still serious) felonious crimes like embezzlement, tax fraud, mail fraud, auto theft, racketeering, drug possession charges, burglary, counterfeiting, possession of restricted pornographic material, spying, and various drug-related offenses.

Wikipedia:

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.

Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

Then why, if so many of these felonies are non-violent, is it that when you become an ex-felon, all of your rights aren't returned to you? According the the ALCU, ten states severely restrict voting from ex-felons (seven require long waiting periods, applying for reinstatement and review; three others - Iowa, Florida and Kentucky - ban it lifetime for these ex-felon offenders -- most of whom are non-violent). I can understand restrictions on getting a gun, but on your vote?

So far in the 40 states that allow for ex-felons to vote there haven't been any issues at the polls. So why not make voter reinstatement upon completion of incarceration national?

We non-felons take voting for granted. But it's majorly important. Look at the crazy people that are getting elected these days. Their choices and legislation affect all of us. Yet if you're an ex-felon, chances are you are obstructed from casting a vote.

With the racial make-up of our prisons today, that appears to be a punishment that affects minorities disproportionately. And the Justice Department, led by AG Eric Holder, wants to fix that. And surprisingly he's meeting resistance on both sides of the political spectrum. Many Republicans are against it because they see the reality that minorities are the overwhelming majority of  the prison population. Minorities, for good reason, tend to vote Democratic. If you unleash hundreds of thousands of potential voters after they do their time, GOP'ers will have a tougher go of it holding their political offices. So the Republican reasoning is understandable: keep minorities away from the vote. It's wrong, but you can see their reasoning: self-preservation.

But for those Democrats on the fence, this is purely a heinous act of villainy. Why should non-violent convicted felons be subjected to lifetime sentences after they're released? It flies in the face of just punishment -- that fitting the crime. C'mon Democrats, you know better. You stand for social justice. Now promote it. Make "inclusion" more than just a catch word.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Only Today, 2014, Has A Federal Court Ruled To Let LGBT Jurors Hear Trials

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

LGBTJuryw354h244

What's next for the right-wing conservatives to try in making this country fair for only white, Christian, and homophobic citizens? Why the justice system, of course. If you can't get a law passed banning anything that prohibits them from excluding balanced, fair or common sense thinking in the jury room, these narrow-minded conservatives may face extinction. And they're not going down without a fight.

Here's the latest from the LA TIMES:

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court became the first in the nation to rule that prospective jurors may not be excluded because of their sexual orientation, a decision that expands juror protections beyond race and gender and provides legal ammunition to challenge laws that limit gay rights.

The sweeping, unanimous decision Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a mixed jury verdict in an antitrust case involving an AIDS drug. The 9th Circuit said the case would have to be retried because an obviously gay juror was unjustifiably excluded from the jury.

Truthfully, I had never heard of the jury system excluding people for sexual orientation, but evidently I was just unaware. Here we are in 2014 and someone's sexual direction could be used against them in a court of law. I know accused criminals have the right to remain silent, but evidently those determining their guilt were supposed to exclude themselves if the crime was federal.

But really there's two issues that I've put in bold print that I find nothing short of amazing. To start with, this case quoted above is the FIRST in the nation to make this discriminatory ruling out of bounds. Really? Only now?

And the second issue is the more important one. "...an obviously gay juror" -- what's an obviously gay juror? Did he/she wear make-up? Did they hit on the same-sex foreman? Did they have a membership card they were flaunting in the RuPaul fan club? What makes someone "obviously gay?"

That's the amazing part of this outrageous but eye-opening story. Until now, if someone looks differently than another person and fits a stereotypical image, they can be excluded from a jury? And according to the article, part of which is quoted below, they still can be.

Lady Justice

I thought justice was blind. Look at Lady Justice balancing her scales. Did you notice something else about her? She's blindfolded. There's a reason for that.

Thankfully the 9th federal circuit court of  appeals court made this first in the nation, unanimous finding. But it only deals with a small portion of this country. It's not national.

Tuesday's landmark ruling extended the restriction to federal courts in California and courts in eight other Western states, lawyers said.

Now let's wake up the rest of the nation. Justice is seriously being challenged.

This particular case had to do with an antitrust lawsuit involving an AIDS drug. For that reason alone, the "obviously gay" juror was dismissed. We allow doctors to sit as jurors on medical trials. We allow lawyers to sit on juries despite perhaps having knowledge not admissible to lay jurors. Why can't we have LGBT jurors sitting in on any case of any origin in any area, AIDS related or not? Aren't they people too?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video Overnight Thread- 2000 Running Santas For Charity

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Via.

Over 2,000 people dressed as Santa Claus raced through Belgrade, Serbia, today to raise money for children who suffer from epidermolysis bullosa, a rare skin disease. The first 1,000 runners received full costumes, all others got a hat and a few days' extension on Christmas spirit.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Video- The Daily Show: White Santa & Megyn Kelly's Apology

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

This Holiday Season Megyn Kelly Wears Ignorance On Her Sleeve And It Suits Her Well -- No Joke

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Black Santa

Oh, so it was just a joke, claims Megan Kelly. Normally, when you tell a joke, when it's over you know the person telling it was not serious. Sadly, comedienne Kelly who's never been known for her comedy stylings, pulled one over on all of us -- or so she'd have us believe. It took her two days to come up with that one?

It's such a relief to know that Fox News' Megyn Kelly is not backing down -- she's staring facts right in the eye and refuses to blink. God, isnt' that the true test of a really strong comic. Make it seem so real. It's reassuring to find someone who sticks to their guns (how appropriate on the 1st anniversary of Sandy Hook's massacre), even when facts seem to be opposing her views. But why let those pesky little morsels of truth or even anthropology get in the way of a good joke.

After Kelly's controversial (though she claims are tongue-in-cheek) statements on Wednesday night, which included two subjects, both relating to race, she was bounced from the air until the firestorm of criticism died down. It only took a day, but it gave her the time to reflect on her outrageous statements and compose a response. The first of her gaffs was a two-fold issue. She claimed as gospel, that Santa Claus was not only a real person, but that he was white. Her second tenet of contention was that Jesus too was unquestionably white.

Well, the second one is easiest to debate. She's probably wrong. Christians are taught that Jesus was the son of God. If we humans were made in His image, Jesus too would be all races and nationalities. But even more anthropomorphically speaking, the population of Bethlehem (the accepted Jesus birthplace - that little manger down near 5th and Main) was not composed of white  people, at least as American consider white people today.

Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples. That would mean he looked like the "natives" of that area. They were much more Arabic in their features -- perhaps even African ethnic would be more appropriate.

Now unless Jesus's mother Mary was knocked up by a Roman and not the immaculate conception that we've all been told was the "cause" of this event, then Jesus most likely didn't look like Meagan Kelly's brother or cousin -- that kind of white.

So, let's say that Jesus's skin color is very much open for discussion, that has not silenced by Megyn's ignorant spouting. Here is what Jesus most likely looked like, according to ScienceMechanics:

face-of-jesus-01-0312-mdn

Next we get to Santa Claus. Well, our fearless hostess with the leastess stands by her earlier statement that Santa is real.

Flesh and blood, a real dude. From everything I have ever read he's a created character. Not the surest of sources, but certainly in sync with everything else I can find, here's the story behind the "creation" of Santa Claus according to Wikipedia:

The modern figure of Santa Claus is derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas, which, in turn, has part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Christian bishop and gift giver Saint Nicholas. During the Christianization of Germanic Europe, this figure may have absorbed elements of the god Odin, who was associated with the Germanic pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky. Over time, traits of this character and the British folklore character Father Christmas merged to form the modern Santa Claus known today.

The truth, which Megyn constantly is a stranger to, is that Santa is a composite of characters, real and fictional. But some people can't separate fact from fiction. Ms. Kelly is one of them.

Now with a last name like Kelly, I'm going to to out on the limb and guess she celebrates Christmas. She has three children. At one point or another, didn't she confess to her kids that there really isn't a Santa Claus? Or worse yet, that he's dead.

Santa as a character has been the source for many movies, plays and books. But evidently, Kelly has never heard of fiction. I can't wait until she see's Saving Mr. Banks and proclaims Mary Poppins was real and could actually fly. She even sights a movie "Miracle on 34th Street" as her source to clear up any Santa conjecture.

Does Santa really come every Christmas and deliver gifts to Megyn's kids? She's so lucky she doesn't have to go shopping like the rest of us parent for our kids gifts. Please Megyn, drop Santa my name so  next year I don't have to fight Black Friday shopping and can just sit back and wait for presents to appear under the tree. Oh, the money I'll be saving.

Now it's to watch Ms. Kelly in action and judge for yourself. Was she joking or was she just demonstrating how ignorant she can be. I'm gonna guess you'll pick the latter.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare