From the Chicago Tribune on Sunday morning, police beat reporter Peter Nickeas' standard summary:
At least 8 wounded in overnight shootings
Shootings left at least 8 people on the South and West sides wounded overnight, according to police.
Three of the shootings happened between 4:50 and 5:40 a.m., police said.
A 60-year-old woman was shot in the chin about 4:50 a.m. in 4500 block of South Wolcott Avenue in the Back of the Yards neighborhood on the South Side. Police said she wasn't the target and are investigating whether she was stuck in crossfire between two shooters. She was taken to John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, where her condition has stabilized.
And so forth and so on.
These are just the usual dog-bites-man (or thug-with-poor-marksmanship-wings-grandmother) stories, which help explain both the pit-bull like obsessiveness with which the national media glomped on to their Trayvon-Zimmerman man-bites-dog story, and also why it predictably unraveled.
These are just the usual dog-bites-man (or thug-with-poor-marksmanship-wings-grandmother) stories, which help explain both the pit-bull like obsessiveness with which the national media glomped on to their Trayvon-Zimmerman man-bites-dog story, and also why it predictably unraveled.
Posts
32 comments:
It's called "keepin' it real".
NAACP pressuring Obama to pursue civil rights case against Zimmerman.
Could anything crater the Obama presidency more quickly and effectively than that? I don't think so. He harasses Zimmerman now and he's pretty much admitting he is every bit as radical and race-obsessed as we've suspected all along.
I hope he does it. It would kill the Dem's chances in the '14 elections, and would probably help sink the amnesty bill.
In an earlier post I noted that one's view of this trial determines your side in the cold civil war. Well, the celebrities have proven as predictable as ever:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/07/13/celebs-react-to-george-zimmerman-verdit/2515113/
Donald Trump wins the weasel award, as usual.
Zimmerman can probably counter with a civil suit against Obama, Holder, the City of Sanford and NBC, and maybe more.
Obama made the public comments about Trayvon; Holder had the police chief fired (he may be able to sue as well) and then leaked info to the Team Trayvon. Not sure of the level of evidence needed in civil suits, but the fact that Obama was running for reelection, Holder's actions and Obama's public comments would seem to indicate an abuse of power and Zimmerman's civil rights designed to help Obama win the election.
For an insight into why there are so many innocents wounded in the inner cities, check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb4RPY9eekQ
This is a very funny video on Ghetto Marksmanship.
Albertosaurus
But those shootings are part of black culture, don't you get it? It would be racist to make a big deal of stuff like that.
People on the left live by, and for, racist double standards. Remember the story of the hippy chick who spent time in Latin America and complained about how sexist all those Latin American men are? She was found guilty of HateThought for holding Latino men to the same standards as the average white guy.
Zimm Sala Bim!
With these magical words, the media make the black thuggery VANISH! Only Carnac the Magnificent is powerful enough to pierce through the veil of deceit. (Carnac is rumored to also operate under another name: The Sublime Sailer. But this has never been confirmed.)
And the beat goes on
La de da de de, la de da de da
(written by Sonny Bono)
Yea screw you Donald sure you are the only celebrity on twitter not calling for Zimmerman's blood, but you didn't drop an n bomb so you are a race traitor.
You guys don't even want to win do you? Because then when you still can't get hot chicks you won't have the narrative to blame.
Off topic - but only today's topic it is very relevant to this month's topic.
I recently bought a big tablet. I lost my 7" Galaxy tablet but now have a 10" Google Nexus tablet. This thing has no phone connection and it is awkward to carry around outside so it is portable device for those who seldom actually go outside. That's me.
I bought it to serve in my teleprompter but I discovered that it has a wholly unexpected use. It is sort of a super-Kindle. I have had a real Kindle for years but I've always hated it. The Nexus however seems to be the best possible way to read a book.
In addition, Steve, to begging for contributions you could just package your numerous blog articles as a Kindle book. I paid about there dollars yesterday for the Cochran-Harpending eBook 'West Hunter' (very good book).
It appears that packaging web content into an eBook is relatively easy. Ann Coulter repackages her web columns periodically into regular paperbacks and hard bound books. But this appears to my unschooled eye to be a clumsy process. It seems to require frequent personal appearances on all sorts of TV shows to hawk the merchandise. It also requires I imagine considerable editorial involvement.
But eBooks are very web-like already. It shouldn't take that much work.
On my Nexus the screen is a bright and clear white surface with excellent contrast. I got a conventional paperback from Amazon yesterday. Under my incandescent reading lamp and with yellowish pulp paper pages the color temperature seems to be about 3700K degrees. The Nexus as a reader has better than printed resolution and a color temperature of about 5600K degrees. The Nexus is easier on the eyes.
So if I were you I'd just wrap up a hundred or so old columns and sell them as an eBook. I'd price it at about three dollars - low enough to qualify as an impulse purchase but high enough to yield some money.
Albertosaurus
To give proper credit, saw a link to this piece in a comment at the GLPiggy site:
The Guardian: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.
As if the absurd, incendiary title was not enough, check out the comments. These people are deluded. Absolutely deluded. They have no regard for evidence.
And note the use -- again, and after all the revelations about the thuggish, nearly adult Trayvon Martin -- of a foto of TM when he was a child.
There is no reasoning with them.
What enrages me is the media are responsible for all of it. Black violent crime has been a problem for SIXTY years and something could have been done about it if the media hadn't lied, covered it up and attacked anyone who talked about it.
Not only have there been MILLIONS of unneccessary victims because of this media cover-up but the consequences of that hidden crime problem is exactly why people "profile" teenagers like Martin and why every rational person with experience of reality tries to move away from black people.
If the media told the truth then things could be done which would reduce black violent crime down to the same sort of levels seen in other ethnic groups and the problem would be reduced rather than worsened all the time.
Google "Clarence Bourne Murder." This is from the LA Times Homicide Report. Bourne was shot dead a few nights ago walking home from his girlfriend's house. The MSM has no interest.
"Google "Clarence Bourne Murder.""
Yes, exactly. It's not just what they report it's what they don't. The overall effect is like a stage magician waving one hand in the air to distract the audience from what he's doing with the other hand.
Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago, which shocked the city and the country, was seven kills.
Now, seven kills in Chicago is Same Ole Saturday Night.
The reason for the Trayvonapalooza obsession among blacks relative to their lack of outrage when it comes to black on black is pure tribalism: There's always more rage over outgroup-on-ingroup violence than there is with ingroup-on-ingroup violence. It's human nature.
OT, but a reminder that this country used to be populated by white people.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/30-photos-of-new-york-city-in-the-summer-of-69
"There's always more rage over outgroup-on-ingroup violence than there is with ingroup-on-ingroup violence. It's human nature."
Deliberately inflamed by the media in an anti-white direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keC-YQeG1S0
"Crossfire" co-host Van Jones wonders, "Do I now have to dress my kid in a tuxedo so he can go buy Skittles?"
Blacks 'think' rhetorically than factually.
The Guardian: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this
I lived in England for a few years, and they put black men on an even loftier pedestal than American's do. It's sacrilege to harm a hair on a blacks head even in self-defense. It's like an entire country populated by New York Times subscribers.
It's not just what they report it's what they don't.
Just to show how absurd these media people are:
Mugger Robs Elderly Blind Man Twice in Queensbridge Houses, Cops Say
A few days ago I followed a link on the Drudge site to this story. Note the published description:
The suspect — described by cops as a man in his 20s wearing a black t-shirt, blue jeans, sneakers and a Yankees hat...
No race or skin color, although the crimes were heinous, so you'd think they'd want to catch the guy ASAP. Along with the article there's a video, apparently a surveillance video, which clearly shows the suspect is black. But for some reason they just could not publish that info. Did the "cops" omit that fact? Or did the reporter or her editor decide not to publish it?
If I still wasted my time doing that sort of thing, I'd email the reporter and ask -- politely -- why the published description omitted the race of the wanted suspect.
But I don't waste my time like that anymore.
Feel free.
"How is Zimmerman's guilt even disputable? The guy is clearly the psychopathic version of Paul Blart Mall Cop: a wannabe badge wearing enforcer of the law who had to settle for a voluntary and self-appointed role as a security guard. He happens upon an unarmed teenager, harasses him in order to provoke a response that would justify him using force and kills him. End of story. He went out with a loaded gun clearly with the intent of either shooting or intimidating someone he deemed "suspicious". He pursued his "target" even after he was told to step away and wait for the police to come. Likely Zimmerman knew he didn't have cause to confront his victim in the first place and decided to take matters into his own hands, hoping to put himself in a situation where he could bring down a 'banger' in "self-defense" and satisfy some homoerotic urge to be surrounded by law enforcement - giving statements, going through a lengthy interview process, and generally having large uniformed men hanging on to his every word. Let's face it: Zimmerman is a shady and cowardly little worm who can only compensate for a lack of "manhood" with a loaded weapon. Trayvon Martin was merely an expendable bit player in this dark-sided fantasy role play where Zimmerman performed as both 'top' and 'bottom'."
-Jennifer Matsui
Typical liberal rant.
As long as the Black Race "Keeps it Real" they will never be a viable force for anything other than destruction in this country.
Wow, that Jennifer Matsui rant crystallizes every reason why I couldn't be a liberal any longer.
Matsui sounds Japanese-American. Doesn't she know that most Asian-Americans are racially attacked by the likes of Trayvon Martin?
But I guess she went to the right schools and hangs around the right kind of people. Such a drone.
"The Guardian: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this"
It's been open season on black boys for decades. Of course, the hunters are other black boys.
There is an easy way to solve this problem.
It seems to be the case that lower class whites and hispanics are horrible and murderous 'racists' who wanna kill blacks for no good reason.
BUT, affluent white liberals are the finest people filled with love for the Negroes. Then, the thing to do is to resettle all blacks in white liberal communities. What can go wrong? Blacks are wonderful and peaceful folks, really! And white liberals are so full of tolerance and compassion. Win win for both sides.
Meanwhile, those nasty poor white trash and hispanics will be so sad and distraught because they won't have innocent black kids to practice target practice on anymore. But that is the punishment they deserve!
How many thousands of blacks have been murdered since T.M. was shot? But you won't hear anything about this.
Here's the problem with the Jennifer Matsui rant, Trayvon could have foiled psycho George's evil genius by just running away. But, no, being a violent thug, Trayvon attacked the pudgy spud because he didn't like what he was doing. He decided to make George's day, so to speak. Why? because he was stupid and violent. Trayvon wins a Darwin award.
As my brother says, if you intimidate me so much that I get out my gun, I am not just going to show it to you, I am going to shoot you. So, stupid Trayvon wails on George enough that George shoots him.
"Crossfire" co-host Van Jones wonders, "Do I now have to dress my kid in a tuxedo so he can go buy Skittles?"
Blacks 'think' rhetorically than factually.
Give 'em rhetorical, factually-sound answers:
"If being gunned down is such a danger to your poor teen son, maybe you should tell him to tuck his shirt in so no one will think he's carrying a gun. And if he takes the threat seriously, maybe he'll do it.
Oh, and tell him not to assault strangers, they might be armed."
Seriously, if black teens really think being shot by non-blacks is a significant threat, maybe they should tuck in their shirts, buy pants that fit, wear belts, etc., to distinguish themselves from the thugs. Maybe they should stop polar bear hunting, knockout-king-ing, wilding, flash-mobbing, etc?
The reason for the Trayvonapalooza obsession among blacks relative to their lack of outrage when it comes to black on black is pure tribalism: There's always more rage over outgroup-on-ingroup violence than there is with ingroup-on-ingroup violence. It's human nature.
Where's the "universal human nature" angle on what the media chooses to highlight (rare white on black violence), and to ignore (much more common and brutal black on white (or "white") violence)?
Where's the "universal human nature" angle on how blacks behave in these situations, vs. whites?
I lived in England for a few years, and they put black men on an even loftier pedestal than American's do. It's sacrilege to harm a hair on a blacks head even in self-defense. It's like an entire country populated by New York Times subscribers.
It should also be noted that liberals in the UK believe the US MSM to be 'right wing'.
The reason for the Trayvonapalooza obsession among blacks relative to their lack of outrage when it comes to black on black is pure tribalism: There's always more rage over outgroup-on-ingroup violence than there is with ingroup-on-ingroup violence. It's human nature.
After thinking more about it, I realized that if your observation about human nature is true, it suggests that the media is controlled by a hostile outgroup.
Post a Comment