Black on White crime - Urban Legend?

I was reading a great column by Walter E. Williams on WND.com entitled "Media conceal black interracial crimes" and wanted to do a little poking around as to the content that Dr. Williams discussed. The premise of the article is that black on white crime goes mostly unreported while white on black crime is highlighted on every major news outlet and the question is why? First off, some data to ponder. A summary of a crime below from a Canada Free Press article.

On Saturday, January 6, 2007 Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21, were out on a date enjoying themselves. They went to eat at a local restaurant and were supposed to head to a friends house to watch movies, but they never made it.

The night from hell would begin when the young couple was carjacked, bound and blindfolded, then taken back to suspect Lemaricus Devall “Slim” Davidson’s rented house.

Perhaps the young couple only thought they were being dumped someplace else and were only going to lose their SUV and a few personal items. They were dead wrong.

Once at the home the perpetrators brutally assaulted the couple before killing them and dumping the bodies is seperate locations.

Right now Eric Boyd, George Geovonni, Thomas Lemaricus, Devall Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins and Vanessa Coleman who range in age from 18 to 34 are sitting in jail in Knoxville awaiting trial.

Note #1 that Newsom and Christian were white and the rapists/murderers were black. This note didn't make it into the article I quoted from. Note #2 that the Williams article is a little more graphic (both victims were raped and the one of the bodies was discarded in a trash bag with bleach thrown on it for good measure and one body was burned). So I could go into a diatribe about the death penalty (I support it for animals such as these (Boyd, Geovonni, Davidson, etc.) but I won't do that here. What I will say is why is this not common knowledge? Why isn't Nancy Grace or Greta Van Sustern taking this on? We certainly heard a lot about the Duke Lacrosse players (of whom I have written about before on this space) so why not about these scumbags? As usual, Dr. Williams has a response.

You can bet rent money that were the victims black and the perpetrators white, Knoxville would have been inundated with TV crews, with Jackson, Sharpton and other civil rights spokesmen and politicians from both parties condemning racism, possibly blaming it all on George Bush.

Isn't this true? Wouldn't the media be on this if the colors of the victims and the perpetrators were switched? I firmly believe that this would be the lead of each broadcast as all the white anchors from the Major Networks have a chance once again to showcase how racist America is and how minorities are routinely abused and victimized in such a country as this. I am sure the BBC would even pick it up to showcase what a terrible people we are that we can't get away from our racist history. Oh and of course there is no "bias" in the media.

I heard from a friend that this might be an urban legend so I checked it out. SNOPES.com does report this crime to have happened but it also takes time to note that the lack of National media stories on this doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy to not highlight savage black on white crime. Actually the reason SNOPES.com offers is that crimes like this are too frequent to garner national attention. Interesting theory but one I don't buy. Every single day, editorial boards make decisions on what stories to run and what stories to bury. You mean to tell me that not one of the Mainstream or Cable News shows wouldn't take this on? This story certainly strikes me as more interesting than many of the lead stories (like the Food Pyramid being re-worked). Where is the ever dapper Keith Olberman on this? Or Katie Couric for that matter? This story is compelling and actually showcases a horrid fact. Racism is not just white on black and hate crimes are not just straight on gay. Shouldn't the FBI be brought in for possible hate crimes charges? Thank God the Bloggers are on this and keeping this story alive.

This lack of coverage on this is shameful. Newsom and Christian deserve at least as much publicity as Matthew Shepard got. At least Shepard has a foundation and shrine. What do Newsom and Christian have? Let's hope they at least get justice.

Outspoken Roman

The Left and Katrina - still on-going

Michelle Malkin has a great set of articles on the "riot" that happened in New Orleans as protesters raised hell over the planned demolition of various public housing units. Including the most recent post of a protester telling a "white boy" to "shut up". Malkin notes:

(one rioter shouted) “I will not be treated like a slave!” and “Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!” at a citizen attending the council hearing. Watch closely and note that there is a child behind her being subjected to her diatribe against the man. She’s your tax dollars at work.

Malkin notes that the woman yelling about being treated like a slave is actually Sharon Jasper that was profiled in an article on the New Orleans Times-Picayune which showcased the slum that she was living in, complete with a 60 inch tv and I guess one of the reasons she is angry is that she was hit with a high utility bill. I mean those plasma screens do consume the electricity right? But Michelle and others have noted that absolute inanity of this riot (including the fact that most of the protesters were not from New Orleans and that this was an attempt to move folks away from the public trough (perish the thought!). Also Malkin notes how ABC News removed the "white boy" language, instead noting that Sharon Jasper was just talking to a man (see the caption at the ABC News Website here). So what is my point right?

Here is the image from ABC News and Sharon Jasper is the woman with the headband on (notionally talking to a man) but actually with her daughter on the left telling the "white boy" to "shut up". Take a look at the black shirt that Sharon Jasper is wearing. It says from my vantage point "WANTED FOR MASS MURDER" and has photos of President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others presumably in the current Presidential cabinet. So I don't presume any impartiality there. So I had to find out what exactly the shirt says so I Googled the T-shirt and found this link that actually had the shirt for display (bigger image here).

So here is the image that Sharon Jasper is wearing. This crazy crap is actually a common belief on the left today and one of their biggest problems - the inability to present anything other than their side good, my side evil. Mass Murder as part of the Katrina Fiasco? That is so ludicrous but unfortunately folks are easily led to believe the absolute worst about someone, especially when that person is a political enemy and open to ad hominem attacks by racial hucksters who exploit part of this country's past to showcase not where this country has done good but where it has fallen from the vision its founders imagined. Note of course the left are the same ones who advocate non-judgmental "ism" and of course peace and tolerance. As long as you agree with the left I guess. This is shameful that this woman either believes this tripe or is being used by people who actually thrive on racial discord and smear attacks. It is interesting that this woman has actually been the recipient of this president's largess through the Government support programs that she is enjoying (along with the apartment to house that fancy new TV) but instead of saying thank you, she wears a ridiculous shirt that showcases not her "cutting edge social commentary" but her lack of appreciation for the leadership of this country and its handouts to her as well as her indoctrination into the lunancy of the left.

To wit, the Democratic Underground has taken up the cause of how cool the T-shirt is. Discussion thread to Democratice Underground is here but warning, it is a real loony site and you may be lured to spending hours on this site trying to figure out what the hell went wrong with these people.

Outspoken Roman

Tigers Kill Man Who Stuck His Arm Into Zoo Cage

Darwin strikes again. Fox News is reporting that there was an unfortunate incident that occurred in Gauhati, India.

Two tigers killed a man who stuck his arm into their enclosure in northeastern India on Wednesday, ripping off his arm as his family and dozens of visitors looked on, zoo officials said.

The man, identified as 50-year-old Jayaprakash Bezbaruah, avoided zoo safety precautions in an apparent attempt to photograph the two adult Bengal tigers up close, said Gauhati zoo warden Narayan Mahanta.

I wonder if he got that shot he was looking for. But in any event, I have never wondered why there were safety precautions around tiger cages (or lion cages or any of the big predatory cats). I can only imagine what sort of insanity came over this unfortunate soul to try something so stupid.

Story here.

Outspoken Roman

Boston Globe endorses McCain and Obama

The Boston Globe has (not surprisingly) endorsed as Presidential Candidates for their respective parties John McCain and Barack Obama in a story published on 15 December (story is here). In part the story states that McCain is honest (which means critical at times of President Bush) and also has this little ditty:

As a lawmaker and as a candidate, McCain has done more than his share to transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States. He deserves the opportunity to represent his party in November's election.

This should not be surprising and should not be anything that McCain should be happy about. Any endorsement from a liberal mag like the Boston Globe is not a reward for any conservative credentials but actually is noting where the candidate bucks the Republican party planks which again is not something McCain should be proud of. The Globe wants the candidate that best represents its views and it is not Mitt or Rudi or Ron Paul, but John McCain on the Republican side? What does that say about McCain's policies that he has the support from the Globe. What is next, endorsement from the NY Times? This should be the kiss of death for a Republican candidate rather than something to crow about.

Also Joe Lieberman has endorsed John McCain. So we have a Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate endorsing McCain. Another reason not to vote McCain as you have to wonder why a liberal Democrat like Lieberman would be supporting a Republican like McCain over someone like Chris Dodd or Hillary? Is it all about the war to Lieberman?

Well so much for taking the Outspoken Roman's advice. The NY Times is reporting that McCain is seeking to leverage the Globe's endorsement (and others) into attracting independent voters to his campaign. The story states:

Senator John McCain, seeking to capitalize on a string of highly sought newspaper endorsements, is making an aggressive push to attract independent voters, who helped drive his victory here eight years ago.

(It) is the string of recent endorsements from The Des Moines Register, The Manchester Union Leader, The Boston Globe and other newspapers that has helped energize the campaign just two weeks before the first nominating contests.

Let me be clear. These endorsements are not a good thing for McCain who is a war hero and has done so much for his country. But to be honest (to quote Jay Severin, a local talk radio host) it is time for him to get his gold watch and retire. He has fought many a good fight but he is not the standard bearer the Republican Party needs for 2008 and beyond. His views are against free speech and are at times even liberal and why would any self respecting liberal vote for John McCain when there are a slew of liberals running as Democrats? Answer is they won't.

Outspoken Roman

Michelle Malkin » Pearl Harbor: 66 years

Michelle Malkin » Pearl Harbor: 66 years

7 Dec 2007 is certainly a time for reflection and for all of us to honor those who lost their lives in this attack and of course to put in perspective those who took on the task of going to war against Germany, Japan and Italy. Great pics at Michelle Malkin's site (follow the link above).

It is sad that more people care about Britney Spears' activities than those that took place 66 years ago yesterday at Pearl Harbor. Take a minute to think about what transpired that day.

Visit http://www.pearlharbormemorial.com

Visit http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm

Say a prayer of thanks that America can take on an attack like that and come back stronger than ever and say a prayer for its veterans.

Outspoken Roman

Where have all the Iraq Stories gone?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Television Networks Fade To Black As The U.S. Surge Succeeds In Iraq

The above link is a great story from Investors Business Daily on the reduced coverage the Media is giving Iraq now that it looks better than it had earlier this year. The article highlights a study by the Media Research Center that notes in looking at the newscasts of the ABC, CBS and NBC a trend that "as the news from Iraq has steadily improved, the war has practically disappeared from TV screens".

The article notes that during the President's talk of the troop surge (11 months ago) the networks were "openly hostile" and now since the early fall, there has been a marked change in what is being reported from Iraq and the number of stories that are coming from the networks' anchors.

From the article:

In October, as the number of U.S. troop deaths dropped to their lowest levels in a year and a half, the networks trimmed their war coverage by 40%, to 108 stories. Most of the coverage continued the negative spin. NBC's Richard Engel argued in an Oct. 14 report that the continuing war has hurt U.S. security. "The war in Iraq created a giant recruiting tool for al-Qaida," Engel asserted.

Only in November did all three networks begin to shift their coverage away from the pessimism that prevailed for most of the year. Yet as the news became unmistakably good — fewer casualties, displaced refugees returning — TV coverage dropped by another 38%, to a mere 68 stories.

Combined, all three networks in the month of November aired just 11 reports actually from the war zone itself. ABC's World News has stood out as the best of the Big Three in documenting this new, more encouraging phase of the Iraq War.

Next time you are watching the news and a article on Iraq comes on, note the tone in the story. Does it reflect the overall pessimism that the media anchors openly expressed on the Iraq war and/or the surge. And if there are no stories on Iraq, ask yourself why? Certainly if things were continuing as is or were even getting worse, we would be hearing about it as the top story. Can things really be turning around in Iraq. If the metric is how much is being reported by the evening newscasts, I would venture to say yes.

Outspoken Roman

Continuing the no spanking debate with Dr. Laura.

I wrote in a previous blog that some local lawmaker are considering working and passing legislation that would effectively ban spanking. I have followed this story and even saw the lawmaker who was pushing this legislation on The O'Reilly Factor. I was really surprised that the lawmaker, Rep. Jay Kaufman, basically back pedaled on the issue saying that he was only doing this for a constituent (what?). A recent story on the Sun Chronicle Online noted that Rep. Kaufman "signed the bill as a petitioner for his constituent, not as a supporter". Why would anything be brought forth by a lawmaker that he or she doesn't support. Seems a little shady to me. The Chronicle story also has this quote (which is good news) - "Area lawmakers say the bill to ban corporal punishment on children under 18 is expected to go to the "round file."" Thank goodness there is still some common sense on Beacon Hill.

So what was the real issue here? Well it was notionally child abuse. As the Chronicle story states:

Kaufman said the bill is not designed to stop parents from disciplining their children to maintain order or control, but the goal is to stop child abuse.

More than 19,000 cases of abuse have been reported to the Department of Social Services during the last three months.

So ok, if child abuse is a concern (and who is not against child abuse?) I offer this solution from Dr. Laura.

On her blog post entitled "Child Abuse More Likely in Shack-Up Relationships" she writes:

Children living in homes with unrelated adults are nearly fifty times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as are children living with their bio-parents. (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005). Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents (National Incidence Study, 1996). Children living in stepfamilies, or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with their bio-parents (University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center). Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, regardless of which bio-parent they live with (Family Law, Washington and Lee University).

So it seems to be one potential way to stop abuse is to encourage and promote stable relationships between a man and a woman and to stop people from entering into this "casual" relationships that are usually based on something fleeting whether it be sex, the feeling of being with someone just to be with someone, a person thinks that he or she is owed happiness by society, or the other tired amoral beliefs that a person gets from Reality TV, Sex Therapists, Liberals, or Soap Operas. Maybe I should send Dr. Laura's post to Rep Jay Kaufman and he can introduce it to the legislature. It is at least a better proposal than the one that has the Government interfering and intervening in an area that it should remain disengaged with. Isn't it about the children?

I wonder if I would get a shot at appearing on the O'Reilly Factor?

Outspoken Roman

The return of Don Imus

Don Imus back on the air - Yahoo! News

So as the story above notes, Don Imus returned to the airwaves today. Truth be told I liked the Imus show and much preferred it over the other local chat shows (although I did like Scotto on WRKO but he was removed to make room for a criminal who wanted a talk show - go figure.) Anyway I had written earlier what on the remarks of Don Imus and the aftermath and didn't think he should be banned from radio and I guess seeing that he is back, he must have paid his dues by being away from the microphone and saying he is sorry.

But it was interesting that the Yahoo story notes that while his crew remains somewhat the same, he has brought on some new cast members:

Don Imus returned to the airwaves Monday eight months after he was fired for a racially charged remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team, and introduced a new cast that included two black comedians.

One thing I have never considered is that Imus is stupid and it was interesting to say the least to hear that with expanding his cast to include black comedians, he is still in a sense placating the community that was so outraged by his comments, inflamed in my opinion by Rev Sharpton and others who exploit issues such as this for their own gain (similar to what we saw in the Duke Lacrosse rape case). Why would Imus hire black comedians otherwise? Isn't this just a shameless attempt to continue the appeasement? The Imus I remember would not be such a rear end kisser.

It is sort of coincidence that I was watching HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm on DVD last night and watched the episode from the first season where Larry David makes a joke about affirmative action to a black doctor and spends the entire episode justifying his liberalism, his support for affirmative action and for apologizing to many of the episodes black characters. He is called on the carpet as the show Seinfeld had few if any black members in the cast (and not regulars that I can recall but the cook at the diner where the characters would eat). I think there is something to this as it demonstrates that Larry David is a racist as he didn't include any black characters in Seinfeld (forgetting for a moment that this show is developed on himself and people he knew). Maybe he should pull an Imus and Computer generate some characters to put on the DVD releases of the Seinfeld series to insulate himself from attacks on his racial sensitivities. Come to think of it, I don't recall many white members on The Cosby Show - but I suppose that is a different issue all together.

Welcome back Imus - we will miss you.

Outspoken Roman

NewsBusters column on Republican You Tube Debate

As all of us know, the much watched You Tube debate with the Republican Presidential Candidates was so far the most watched debate of the season. I read a number of blogs that thought that this debate went quite well and showcased the real differences in the two parties, with the Republican candidates actually answering the questions that were asked rather than using each question as a platform to bash President Bush. I agree though with Rush Limbaugh and others who noted that the debate also showcased the actual "moderate" nature of most of the leading candidates and when I hear that each candidate is looking to be the "conservative" in the race, my feeling is that each of them have a long way to go before the mantle is bestowed on them (if at all). I have long maintained that the current administration is not really conservative but more moderate in many things and quite liberal with its spending policies - which any real conservative needs to make policies away from the current Governmental largess.

So it is looking like CNN has egg on their face again as many of the supposed undecided Republican voters have ties to the various Democratic Presidential Campaigns (Edwards, Obama, Clinton) and some of the others have dubious Republican credentials (one was a former CAIR intern, another questioner worked with Dick Durbin's staff). See Michelle Malkin's excellent write up on this here and here. It seems Michelle is getting some flak for daring to type in a questioner's name in a search engine and seeing what pops up. And CNN didn't do this why? Also the blog "Nice Deb" has a great article on the retired General who had the question about Gays in the military. BTW I have a response for him. It is never a question of the professionalism of the military that is in question, it is the avoidance of the United States Military openly endorsing a deviant human behavior and being used as a way of social promotion of the gay lifestyle with the military as a conduit. But as usual I digress. What I would have loved for one of the candidates to have the guts to say something like that!! We don't have to accept every sort of strange behavior that individuals decide is their choice or "orientation" and elevate that to the level of normal.

I also find it interesting that the Republicans will go on CNN and have "activities" like the ones these bloggers have uncovered occur but the Dems will still avoid Fox News. Which group shows more leadership and courage? I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Finally Newbusters has a great post about looking at this issue from a "what if" perspective. Can you imagine the lefties uncovering that during one of the debates, a questioner was revealed to have ties to the Fred Thompson campaign? The post writer Tim Graham quotes Eric Deggans (a reporter/blogger from the St. Petersburg Times) who states:

And even though some liberal bloggers are saying the political background of questioners shouldn't matter, I have a hard time believing they would have tolerated seeing Hillary Clinton asked a tough question on an issue important to conservatives by someone with hidden ties to Rudolph Giuliani or George W. Bush.

It's an ironic turn, given that so much initial concern about the CNN/YouTube debates centered on whether the questions would be good enough. Turns out, we all should have been playing closer attention to who was asking the questions -- especially CNN.

Mr. Deggan is right. The political background is not important if it is stated as such but this was supposed to be a debate to help undecided Republican voters get the answers that they need to make their decision as to who should they support. It was not supposed to serve as a forum for any crank to get a microphone and try and either cause a rift between candidates and their supporters or to showcase how potentially "nutty" Conservatives are. If the shoe was on the other foot (and this was done at Fox News) the left would be in a virtual meltdown and there would be plenty of condemnation to go around (and rightfully so). Shame on CNN who I think is better than this. Or CNN can check this site out (again h/t to Michelle Malkin).

Original Newsbusters Story below.

Would Liberals Tolerate Hillary Questioner With 'Hidden Ties' to GOP? | NewsBusters.org

Outspoken Roman