Racism - It's a Black Thing

Racism - It's Not A Black Thing

Any fair-minded observer believes that O.J. was guilty. At least there was as much or more evidence of his guilt than for any other murderer on death row, but there are those who see the trial as a matter of right vs. might. as this yahoo snippet shows. As the unconsciously racist writer says,

What she found was someone whom people believed was probably guilty — but who'd been framed by the police... "It didn't really matter to the black population if Simpson was guilty or not. They knew the police lied," she says... "We say, 'So what? Cops always lie.' But if you're black, it's different. The black community doesn't really want justice — they've given up on justice — they just want equality.

And the racism does not stop at the whites. Says a black observer,

"I asked one of the people I interviewed, a professor, if anyone [in the black community] thought Simpson was guilty," Bikel says. "He said, 'I did, but I liked the verdict. When you're black in Los Angeles, every one of us is hassled.'... "It doesn't matter to blacks if Simpson was guilty or not. It's very striking and difficult [for whites] to understand... "What I discovered is that we really live in different countries — the [racial] divide is huge," she says. "We don't pay much attention to it . . . but when something like [the Simpson trial] happens, then we realize it's really two countries.

Two countries? So both sides think that there is a racial divide here, one that the founders never saw. Indeed, our system of justice is based upon the proposition that the power of the state is manifested in the criminal justice system, and that we must have checks on the state's police power. indeed, it is enshrined in our founding documents that, if the constable creates evidence, the only recourse that the people have is to acquit the defendant; that police misconduct must be punished in this, the only way that we have to exert the people's power over the system of justice - by acquittal.

There is really no racial component in this, yet our public discourse is so poisoned by racial - and racist - thinking that most of us can only see this with a racial filter. O.J.Simpson was indeed guilty, and the LAPD did indeed bring evidence that was stronger than that left by the killer. That the jury acquitted Simpson is actually a victory for justice, or at least a necessary exertion of the peoples power over the ultimate power over the police. If we did not have this power, well, then we would have nothing on Stalin's or Saddam's police state.


Back at the farm. Cindy She-Hen goes on dishonoring her son's good name, as this blog post has a fair roundup of the fatuity of it all.

Michael Yon

Michael Yon

I never do this, but never before have I read such a combination of great writing and information at the same time. This is no infotainment, but the dispatches of a very brave soul who is in deep, living and writing from Mosul, Iraq. He deserves our support, and our prayers.

After reading his latest dispatch of Michael Yon's Online Magazine, and then the archives, and signing up for email notifications of any updates, you will contribute. That's not an order, but it is a prediction. Yon's stuff is the best stuff I have seen yet coming out of Iraq. It compares well to the best stuff that came out of Vietnam. Michael Herr's Dispatches, finally, has some competition, at least in the literary sense. but the immediacy, and the reality, is absolutely mind-boggling.

Do not click the link unless you have time to read. Really. This stuff is riveting.

Sex With Women is Different

Sex With Women is Different

Yes, that headline is deliberately provocative, but I just couldn't resist it. It is, however, an accurate starting place for this essay. Recent research reveals that women do, indeed, have a startlingly different response to sexual stimuli than men do, which is completely congruent with the ages-old knowlege of humanity that women respond differently to sexual situations. What interests me today is more the way that the media use this research to push their agenda.

We start with this post at Gene Expression, one of my favorite blogs, where the discussions are frank, open, and anything but politically correct. There one can go to explore the relationship between our genes and our behavior without any agenda beyond the discovery of scientific truth. It is exactly the opposite of most media outlets, where facts are seen as convenient tools, or inconvenient obstacles, only there to help one make one's point. But GNXP is there with the facts, ma'am, only the facts. And today, the facts are these:

Men are only physically aroused by either male or female stimuli, and men do not exhibit a bisexual arousal pattern (i.e. men who are aroused by male stimuli are only aroused by male stimuli). Men who report being gay or ‘bisexual’ are also aroused only by male stimuli. Women, on the other hand, exhibit physical arousal to both male and female stimuli, which does not track their subjective/psychological arousal or their stated orientation (lesbians and straight women are physically aroused by both male and female stimuli).

Of course, it has not been a secret to zero base thinkers that women see the world through a sexual filter, but that fact is not a part of the common wisdom, and it is anything but politically correct. Even as research has demonstrated that female sexual arousal is nonspecific, whereas, in males, sexual arousal is strongly related to sexual orientation, our society is spending a large amount of effort "gender norming" various human activities, and trying really hard to get us to accept as normal the tiny portion of humanity who self-identify as male homosexuals. Thus the mainstream media use this research in articles such as "What Makes People Gay?" While this particular article offers a wide-ranging review of a lot of recent research, its beginning, its end, and especially its headline declare exactly what the "correct" result of the research should be. As hard as he tries to be even-handed, the author reveals his biases throughout the piece. And he never mentions that women get aroused at the sight of animals doing it. Or the fact that all women are bisexual. Or the fact that no men are.

Why it is so hard to just allow that human sexuality is incredibly complex, and varies hugely from person to person? Beyond our physical equipment, we have the mind, which is very different from each to the other. Not surprising, since we each have to write the software for this fine instrument ourselves, and do it at an extremely early stage of life. Now we can see proof that women have a relationship with their sexuality that is very different from that of men. We can now understand why a threeway with two girls is so much more satisfying for all concerned than one with two guys. We now know that the differences between the sexes are quite basic, and efforts to "norm" the sexes are doomed to failure. And we can appreciate one of the few examples of French culture that remains valid still ; Vive le difference!