Dec 10, 2015 | Politics
Supreme Court Justices’ Comments Don’t Bode Well for Affirmative Action - The New York Times
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”
[...]
The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who says the University of Texas denied her admission in 2008 because of her race. She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.[...]Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned the value of diversity in at least some academic settings. “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” he asked.
'Affirmative action' is racism -- and those who advocate it are racists. There I said it. Such collectivist approaches make the problem worse for disadvantaged American black and Hispanic students as they do not change the systemic problems -- ghetto culture, broken homes, lousy public schools, etc.-- which hurt students of all colors. Funny how certain minorities -- Asians, Koreans, Nigerian immigrants etc. -- who are foreigners and can whose parents can barely speak English end up in one generation doing better then whites.The real diversity you need in college is intellectual.
Dec 8, 2015 | Politics
Ex-Muslim Suraiya Simi Rahman MD on Moderate Muslims Have Hit Their “Wall”:
....when it comes to being able to tell a moderate from a radical in Islam, you can’t.You really can’t tell until the moment before they pull the trigger, who is moderate and who is jihadi. Tashfeen has broken our moderate backbone, by revealing that she lived among us, unnoticed, normal, experiencing motherhood, enveloped in our secure community and yet, had radicalized.And that’s the problem, that there are many others like her with exactly the same beliefs, who may not have been ignited yet by a radical cleric, but if the opportunity presented itself, they would follow. They’re like a dormant stick of dynamite, waiting for the fuse to be lit. The TNT is already in there.What’s it made of? Not the 5 pillars, belief, charity, prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. Not the sayings of the prophet as to how to lead a good and just life. Not the celebration of Eid ul Fitr.[...]
I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met with educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn’t do it. We couldn’t do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy.And so, to understand the moderate mind, you have to envision it on a continuum from radical to middle, but the closer you get to liberal, there is a wall. It creeps up on you, in the condemnation of homosexuality, in the unequal treatment and subjugation of women, but it’s there. Beyond that wall that they are afraid to look over, for fear of eternal hell fire and damnation, is where the answer lies though. So being a Muslim moderate these days is like running a race with a ball and chain attached to your feet. A handicap. Unless you can imagine what the world beyond that wall looks like, you can’t really navigate it. If you’re so terrified of blasphemy that you refuse to look over, you’re forever stuck. Right here. And behind you is the jihadi horde, laying claim to real Islam, practicing it to perfection, as it is laid out in the Quran. A veritable rock and a hard place. I feel your pain. I’ve been there. And it was untenable.
Dec 8, 2015 | Politics
Writes Maajid Nawaz on Why ISIS Just Loves Profiling - The Daily Beast:
If early indications are correct, the mass shooting in San Bernardino would be the deadliest ISIS-inspired attack on US soil to date. Yet the chief suspects, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, were “clean skins” completely unknown to the authorities, and assumed not to be a risk to US homeland security.The most disconcerting part of this, therefore, is the knowledge that it almost certainly could happen again, and not knowing how to stop it. Neighbors have reported that their suspicions were aroused, but that they did not want to report anything out of fear of appearing racist.[...]So what should Tashfeen Malik’s neighbors have reported?She and her husband Rizwan Farook were indeed arousing suspicion. They should have been reported, but not for their ethnicity, or overt displays of piety—his beard and her face veil—or lack thereof. They should have been reported simply because, according to those same neighbors, they were behaving suspiciously. Psychological and behavioral patterns are always a more reliable indicator that something is afoot, over religious or ethnic markers. And to report strange behavior, is not racist or anti-Muslim. Overt signs of nervousness, regular deliveries of obscure items at strange hours, or adopting an extremely dogmatic mindset, are more suspicious than mere appearance.Islamist radicalization is a process. It begins when a person, whether originally of Muslim origin or not, starts to become convinced that a certain version of Islam must be enforced over society, and that it is incumbent on them to work to resurrect a theocratic “Islamic Caliphate” in order to achieve this. Usually, this is accompanied by the false notion that the entire West is at war with all of Islam.This process of radicalization is complete when jihadist violence is prescribed to “resist” the West.If the above was more widely understood, people would feel less reluctant to report suspicious behavior for the right reasons. Likewise, the wider public—and my fellow Muslims—will better understand that what is being reported is suspicious behavior, and not a racial or religious stereotype. This combination of sharpening what we are looking for, while reducing the potential stigma about looking for it, could literally save lives and bring our communities closer, which is everything the terrorists hate.
Dec 7, 2015 | Politics
Imagine each state in America was a country like Europe. Here are the two extremes in America. Wyoming is the state with the most guns per capita. District of Columbia is the least -- yet Washington D.C. has the most gun murders. Simply banning potential victims from having guns will not stop criminals from using them. It will only leave the victims disarmed. Further Reading:
Great Quote:
"Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade." -- Sam Harris: The Ethical Importance of Guns
Dec 5, 2015 | Politics
From the egalitarian ("social justice"), partisan, left-wing Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law:
Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people. Americans who lived through the 1960s and 1970s remember the fear associated with a real surge in violent crime. In fact, the violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980.
[...]
Government statistics show that, except for some small blips, serious crime has decreased almost every year from 1994 through 2013. For over a decade Gallup has found that the majority of Americans polled believe crime is up, contrary to the fact that crime rates have plummeted in almost every small and large city since the 1990s. This is not to say that all cities and areas are experiencing decreases in violent crime year after year, but the overall rate of violent crime is significantly lower than historic levels.
[...]
As with the Gallup polls data, the narrative of violent crime -- at least in the popular press -- doesn't have much to do with the crime reality. Crime across the nation is at an all-time low. We need to recognize that and embrace effective policies to keep it even lower. Just as with the case of airplane crashes, the public may see the extraordinary event as representative of the norm when it is not. [America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates]
Hat Tip: Violent Crime Rates -- US Statistics | National Review Online
Dec 5, 2015 | Politics
From The Riddle of the Gun: Sam Harris
Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defense elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
Until a better form of self-defense like a blaster that can be set to stun comes around, a gun is the ethical weapon of self-defense when the police are not there to protect you.Thoughts?
Imagine each state in America was a country like Europe. Here are the two extremes in America. Wyoming is the state with the most guns per capita. District of Columbia is the least -- yet Washington D.C. has the most gun murders. Simply banning potential victims from having guns will not stop criminals from using them. It will only leave the victims disarmed. Further Reading:
