#racism

Impeachment Trends, Biased Sampling and why Batman knows best

Trump Nixon.png

Monmouth University has conducted an impeachment poll. It is not hard to see where the bias lies. 27% Republicans, 30% Democrats and 43% Independent. In nearly all polls conducted by the university, this is the respondent stack skew. It is so obvious that one could be forgiven for thinking the ABC Q&A programme must be taking the roll call. No surprise that Trump’s approval rating remains firmly stuck in the low 40s according to Monmouth. Monmouth had Hillary Clinton at a 9% lead over Trump in mid-October 2016. CM wonders why? Rasmussen, which was the most consistent and accurate poll leading into the 2016 election, has Trump at 48%, ahead of Obama at the same point in his presidency by 2%.

Monmouth wrote in its most recent poll, “At this time, 44% of Americans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency, while 52% disagree with this course of action. These numbers mark a shift from Monmouth’s prior poll in August (35% supported impeachment and 59% did not), but it is not the first time these results have been found in the two years Monmouth has been asking this question.”

There is something telling that there have been impeachment talks for over 2 years. Just the subject matter has continually shifted. Maybe the August 2019 Monmouth impeachment poll made the level of reasoning more clear. The 25% Republican, 30% Democrat, 45% Independent produced the following results,

– A good idea or bad idea to impeach Trump. 41% plays 51% respectively,

– Why would it be a good idea to impeach – Top 5 responses – Need to follow evidence (18%), Broken the Law (17%), Moral Character (17%), Bad Policies (16%), Racism (11%).

– Why would it be a bad idea to impeach – Top 5 responses – Trump has done nothing wrong (27%), Waste of Time (22%), Partisan Witch Hunt (13%), Trump has done Good Job (12%), Congress should work on other things (10%).

Interesting to see that racism, moral character and bad policies are viewed as plausible grounds for impeachment. The March 2019 poll from Monmouth, the question put as to whether Democrats are more interested in the truth vs undermining Trump, the results were 31% vs 46% respectively.

So even with a high proportion of skew against Republicans (Consistently at 25-27%), the results are rarely pointing to massive landslides against Trump. It should come as no surprise that when analysing the party affiliation in the poll, there is heavy partisan bias which sort of defeats the purpose of the poll putting out meaningful data. If anything the “independent” people who have contributed to the poll do not seem to be giving Monmouth the results they are hoping to get.

Of course, the mainstream media made extra effort to report that 4 in 10 Republicans thought Trump “probably did” mention the possibility of investigating Biden implying 60% didn’t. If you read the hyperlink address, it clearly makes out the majority of GOP supporters don’t believe which is disingenuous. 31% said, “don’t know.” Do we assume that all people read the transcript?

In this day and age the number of people that make kneejerk reactions – driven by media headlines (or suspiciously cut videos to remove context) on both sides of the partisan divide – without even reading the body of the article, let alone facts means such data polls tell us little. 

Last week, Rasmussen noted, “But 46% think it’s more likely that Trump will be reelected in 2020 than defeated by the Democratic nominee or impeached, unchanged from late July…28% see a win by the Democrats’ candidate as more likely, down from 33% two months ago. 17% believe Trump is likely to be impeached before serving his full term in office, up from 11% in the last survey but down from a high of 29% when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017.”

In the end, Batman knows best. “Don’t trust the polls.

#CancelWhitePeople Sarah Jeong dumped by NYT

What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.

CM wrote back in August 2018,

“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”

Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.

Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.

Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.

Was the CIA too white at the time of 9/11?

Central Intelligence Agency

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII? That was 54 years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

What a spectacular own goal. How could the BBC be so careless? It should be completely down to the CIA’s white supremacist backgrounds that led to an agency completely driven by irrational fear to facilitate any old excuse to bomb the crap out of shithole nations. Does CM need to do the BBC’s work for them?

Passing the CIA aptitude tests are bound to be pretty tough in the intelligence areas. The day the CIA starts to prioritise skin tones, sexual proclivity and what is between the legs of candidates as opposed to what is between their ears one should expect even more misses to result. It might be too late – find the CIA Diversity webpage here.

Diversity of thought is all that matters. The BBC would do well to seek introspection. If the CIA had been predominantly staffed by blacks and Hispanics, would this article have ever seen the light of day? Of course not. Good to know BBC practices racism. Or is the journalist gunning for a position on the NY Times editorial board alongside the sweet #cancelwhitepeople Sarah Jeong?

63m gun repossessions?

Kamala Harris’ brilliance knows no bounds. She intends to repossess guns from “racists”. If we use the strict definition from the Democrats, all 63mn Trump voters will lose their guns.

Oberlin College sued $44m for libel. Good

This is what happens when the identity politics of the radical left backfires spectacularly. Oberlin College in Ohio has been sued for defamation and charged $44.2m in damages. It was awarded by the court to Gibson’s Bakery for unsubstantiated claims of racism.

The whole issue started when a student from Oberlin College was caught shoplifting two bottles of wine from Gibson’s Bakery while trying to buy another with fake ID. Allyn Gibson, son of the owner chased down the shoplifter but was attacked by his accomplices. The perpetrators claimed racial profiling by the store.

Oberlin College’s Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo, joined in student protests calling Gibsons a “racist establishment.” It was then that Oberlein ended all business with the bakery (which had been an ongoing supplier to the college since 1885). Flyers were printed and the store attacked.

Several faculty staff joined the protestors who tried to shut down Gibsons despite the college president Carmen Twillie Ambar suggesting they were on private time and only representing their First Amendment rights, not representing the school.

After a police investigation turned over nothing to suggest racism on any level, Oberlin resumed its contract with Gibson’s but refused to publicly retract the accusations.

Gibson sued for defamation and won. The three perpetrators admitted they’d made it all up and that the shop owner had a right to charge them for their crime. Jussie Smollett style!

Gibson family attorney Lee Plakas concludes in a statement, “The recent efforts of Oberlin College and President Ambar to reframe this as a First Amendment issue, while undermining the jury’s decision, should be incredibly concerning to us all. Oberlin College was never on trial for the free speech of its students. Instead, the jury unanimously determined that Oberlin College libeled the Gibsons. Despite what spin the college places on the facts of this case, libelous statements have never enjoyed protections under the First Amendment.”

Get woke, go broke! Many at Oberlin College are the very racists they condemn.

Woodie Guthrie, that evil white supremacist

It is unlikely that Woodie Guthrie ever channeled his inner racist when he penned ‘This land is your land‘. Yet native rights activist Mali Obomsawin said his lyrics,

…as they are embraced today evoke Manifest Destiny and expansionism (‘this land was made for you and me’). When sung as a political act, the gathering or demonstration is infused with anti-Nativism and reinforces the blind spot.

Just to clear the air, the lyrics (also sung by African-American Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings)

This land is your land, this land is my land
From the California to the New York island
From the Redwood Forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
And saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me , a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun comes shining, then I was strolling
In the wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land…”
So it is hardly anything more than Aussies celebrating in our own national anthem the words, “our land abounds in nature’s gifts of beauty, rich and rare”
Although Obomsawin contends,

This land ‘was’ our land, through genocide, broken treaties, and a legal system created by and for the colonial interest, this land ‘became’ American land. But to question the legitimacy of American land control today instantly makes one the most radical person in the room–even in leftist circles. And because Indigenous critiques of this country are so fundamental, our voices are often marginalized to the point of invisibility.By critiquing ‘This Land Is Your Land,’…I don’t mean to imply that Guthrie himself promoted conquest, but the song is indicative of American leftists’ role in Native invisibility

As Alyssa Duvall points out, “How do these people not walk into more telephone poles when they’re so busy watching out for racism, overt or covert, everywhere?”

When will the insanity end?

83yo murals at George Washington High School in the San Francisco Unified School District are apparently traumatizing students of non white backgrounds. Activists have successfully voted for their removal.

The Reflection & Action Group committee comprised of activists from minority groups, students, teachers and local artists reported,

At its conclusion the group voted and the majority recommended that the ‘Life of Washington’ mural be archived and removed because the mural does not represent SFUSD values.

Why not just stop teaching history all together? Or better still just a concocted version of it. Demonize these horrible white supremacists. Stage public floggings in place of detention for white kids in the schoolyard to atone for the sins of their forebears.

If only these teachers started to teach reality of how far society has come over the decades? Take the FBI hate crime stats which is close as we can get to true figures surrounding victimization.

Anti Black Hate Crimes have more than halved since 1996. As a % of the black population, Anti-Black hate crimes have fallen from 0.0131% to 0.0046% of their background.

As a % of all hate crimes, African Americans have fallen from 51% to 28.1%. Anti-White hate crime has also slid from just under 16% to 10.3% between 1996 and 2017.

As a % of the total population, anti-white hate crimes have slid from 0.00052% in 1996 to 0.00023% in 2017, up from 0.00016% in 2011. The media would never run a narrative that hate crimes against whites have jumped 44% since 2011.

The rest of the data can be found here.

It boggles the mind that these apparatchiks think that erasing history and reversing discrimination is the way forward to seek a better society.

How about the latest US history textbook which paints Trump as a liar and many of his followers are racists? Then the publisher wrote that an independent review justified such ridiculous additions as adding to debate and critical thinking. After you!

The media is no less complicit. Just as they wrote about racial bias in high schools. The data proves them emphatically wrong. Yet it paints a narrative so they push it that a cabal of racist teachers are deliberately targeting kids of colour.

Surely time to rename the George Washington High School to the Barack Obama High School instead?

This oppression obsession must end. We must stop bending over for activists who find problems where they don’t exist. This will end up in civil disruption if we aren’t careful.