Friday, February 21, 2014
Media is desperate to censor horrific hate crime torture murder of twelve year old Texas boy
The trial is underway right now for Mona Yevette Nelson. She is a black woman who allegedly kidnapped a white child and tortured him to death with a blowtorch in Houston. There has never been any serious media coverage of this case.
The trial started this week, and it has only registered a tiny blip in the local news. Only one local media affiliate, KTRK Houston Channel 13, even appears to be covering the trial. Other Houston media outlets only published tiny blurbs that the trial has started, but none of them even mentioned how the boy died.
If the races had been reversed, this would be the biggest media event in the Western world. People in Finland would be hearing about the “racially motivated torture murder” in every gruesome detail. Scores of media vans would be lined up and down the street in front of the courthouse.
If you follow this website, you know that hundreds of media outlets now openly admit to having a policy of censoring black crime. The media bosses no longer deny that they manipulate the news to promote a political agenda. They are desperate to keep this crime a secret. It has received about one millionth of one percent of the coverage that Trayvon Martin received. If you think America should know what happened to Jonathon Foster on Christmas Eve 2010, then you need to help us get the word out.
Kind women fatally misled by media coverup
Every day the liberal Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) reports on black dysfunction.
Often it is stories about white women dating or married to black men but ending up dead as a result. On January 21, for example, a mother reflects on the pattern of abuse suffered by her daughter Ashley, age 28, who feared for her life as the wife of Edly Atherly, a possessive, violent man.
Ashley texted her Mom with this message: "Mom, I'm an Idiot, I need to come home." [Mom hopes Ashley Atherley's story will warn others of domestic abuse, By Dan Sullivan, January 21, 2014]
On Thanksgiving weekend she was stabbed to death by her husband. Ashley was known to be pretty, kind, and very open to the clarion call of diversity.
As usual all reporting by the Times-as well as its editorials, omits race but includes photos that allow readers to ascertain the race reality.
Ashley Atherly (Deceased) and Edly Atherly (Arrested)
James Fulford writes: The late Lawrence Auster used to refer to women who put themselves in this position as "eloi" (an H. G. Wells reference, it refers to a race of victims) and I can't help thinking how much angrier they'd have been at John Derbyshire if his Talk had been a warning to young women to avoid the fate of Nicole Brown Simpson, (1959 – 1994)
Beyond Affirmative Action
As a child growing up in Detroit and Boston, I had many opportunities to experience the ugly face of racism and witnessed the devastating toll exacted by its mean-spirited nature.
I was a victim of the racism of low expectations for black children, but in retrospect, I can see that many of those attitudes were based on ignorance. Large numbers of white people actually believed that blacks were intellectually inferior, and there was a host of other inaccurate beliefs that whites held about blacks and that blacks held about whites.
Many of those misperceptions probably would have persisted if measures had not been taken to abolish the separation of the races. One of those measures was affirmative action, which was based on the admirable concept that we should take into consideration inherent difficulties faced by minorities growing up in a racist society.
I believe that I benefited from affirmative action. When I applied to Yale University, I thought my chances of being accepted were favorable only because I was somewhat naive about admissions requirements for a high-powered Ivy League institution.
I graduated third in my high school class rather than at the top, largely because my sophomore year was a total waste after I got caught up in the negative aspects of peer pressure and abandoned my studies for the sake of social acceptance. I had a healthy grade-point average by the time I graduated, and one of the Detroit newspapers printed an article that stated I had the highest SAT scores of any student graduating from the Detroit public schools in 20 years. I was also the city executive officer for the ROTC program and had a long list of extracurricular activities.
In my mind, I was pretty hot stuff. Only after I got to Yale and became cognizant of my classmates' many accomplishments did I realize that the admissions committee had taken a substantial risk on me and that I had been extended special consideration. My early academic experiences were traumatic, and but for the grace of God, I would have flunked out.
Fortunately, I was able to adjust to the academic rigors necessary to qualify for medical school admission at the University of Michigan. Medical school was transformative, and I was subsequently accepted into the selective neurosurgical residency at Johns Hopkins. By that time, no special considerations were expected or needed.
Today, there are many young people from a variety of racial backgrounds who are severely deprived economically and could benefit from the extension of a helping hand in education, employment and other endeavors. Such extra consideration is actually helpful to all of us as a society. For each individual we prevent from going down the path of underachievement, there is one less person who will need support from governmental entitlement programs. More importantly, there is one more person who may make substantial contributions that benefit mankind.
The real question is this: Who should receive extra consideration from a nation that has a tradition of cheering for the underdog? My answer to that question may surprise many, but I don't believe race determines underdog status today. Rather, it is the circumstances of one's life that should be considered.
For example, let's take a child who is a member of a racial minority with parents who are successful professionals who have given their child every imaginable advantage. The child applies to a prestigious university with a 3.95 grade-point average, excellent SAT scores and a great record of community service. This child would obviously be an excellent candidate for admission.
Let's take another child who is white, but whose father is incarcerated and whose mother is an alcoholic. Despite these disadvantages, the child still has a 3.7 grade-point average, very good SAT scores and a resume that includes several low-paying jobs. Without taking any other factors into consideration, the choice is clear: The first student would be admitted over the second.
However, I think extra consideration should go to the second child, who has clearly demonstrated the tenacity and determination to succeed in the face of daunting odds. If that second child happens to be a member of a racial minority, obviously he would receive the extra consideration, as well.
I call this "compassionate action." Such a strategy demonstrates sensitivity and compassion, as well as recognition of substantial achievement in the face of difficult obstacles. The groups who benefit from compassionate action will probably change over time, depending on which ones have the greatest number of obstacles to overcome. The point is, it's time to be more concerned about the content of character than the color of skin when extending extra consideration.
Some people are still willfully ignorant and wish to look at external physical characteristics in determining a person's abilities. These people are unlikely to change even when equipped with information, because they already think they possess superior knowledge and wisdom. All we can do is pray that someday, they will have a change of heart
Snakes, guns and abortions
When Jamie Coots, the Pentecostal snake handler who rose to fame as the subject of National Geographic's “Snake Salvation,” died from an untreated rattlesnake bite, Slate's William Saletan took the opportunity to call for gun control. Apparently, any excuse will do. Saletan begins by asking, “How many people must die before the U.S. gives up this insane practice?”
He recounts story after story of accidental deaths caused by guns but replaces each instance of the word “gun” with the word “snake.” “I took these stories from Slate's archive of post-Newtown gun deaths,” he writes. “The archive captures a year's worth of reported fatalities, from December 2012 to December 2013. It includes more than 12,000 victims. We are killing one another, our children, and ourselves. We are a nation of gun handlers, as reckless as anyone who handles serpents.”
We note that Saletan doesn't mention gang-related murders, which account for a significant number of those 12,000 victims. And even using his number, more Americans are killed by cars and drug poisonings than guns.
“We need more than laws,” Saletan concludes. “We need to change our culture. We must ask ourselves whether the comforts and pleasures of owning a firearm are worth the risks. Having a gun in your home is far more dangerous than having a snake.”
To be sure, he recounts horrific incidents of negligent gun handling, and it's shameful that each death could and should have been prevented by simple respect for the tool being used. Every gun owner should have the sense to realize they're handling a deadly weapon and to act accordingly. The vast majority of gun owners do. But libeling all of them as irresponsible and likening them to snake handlers is inexcusable. Snake handlers deliberately play with a dangerous animal – one capable of acting on its own – practically asking to be bitten so they can display their great “faith.” Law-abiding gun owners, by contrast, handle and properly store an inanimate tool that secures their safety and, more important, their Liberty.
As a parting mental exercise, suppose we recounted story after story of children's deaths but replaced the word “shot” with “aborted.” How would Saletan respond to that? After all, he says, “We are killing … our children.” One million of them every year.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.