Thursday, May 26, 2011

Vanishing American on the 2012 Election: “You can have any color you want, as long as it's black.”

Vanishing American has written a scary essay on the ominous statements being made by Republican activists about black candidate Herman Cain:

2008 All Over Again

I realize it's early yet, but it's starting to look like the fix may be in. The GOP nominee may well be Herman Cain, judging by the mania that is developing out there.

At Fox News, there is gushing over Cain as the next Ronald Reagan.

See also this American Thinker piece and the comments following.

Some examples:

''Herman Cain is the Black Ronald Reagan of our time…. Imagine if Obama's opponent was a black Reagan. It blows the race issue away, creates for once a truly positive role model for black youth and I see no down side as of today….''

'Real diversity.' The 'real big tent party.' This is what it has come to.

''Herman Cain will drive the libtards nuts, especially those at the Lame Stream Media outlets. They lose their Ace in the Hole, RACISM! What the hell will they have to talk about? Mr. Cain can slam dunk everyone of the clunkers policies and walk away unscathed. He is hugely loved in Fly Over USA!! YES WE CAIN!!!!''

Yes we Cain? No, we cain't.

The last commenter above shows how little has been learned after seeing every 'conservative black' on the GOP side be called 'Uncle Toms' or 'Aunt Jemima', like Condi Rice. The race card has been played against Clarence Thomas and every other black 'conservative' paragon they wheel out. Black conservatives will not nullify the race card, as these Republicans keep saying. And even if they could, what would that imply? That we ourselves can't speak for ourselves, we must have blacks to intercede for us with the gods of Political Correctness?...

The fact that Cain is gaining so much momentum is worrying, because what will our choices be in the next election? A choice between black candidate A and black candidate B….

I've said before, back in 2008, that electing a black president would be crossing a bridge, and it would establish a precedent that would then become the new norm, the default. A White nominee, from now on, will be at a decided disadvantage. Pale, male, and stale, as our foes put it. Now in our new and improved non-racist America, a black and/or female must henceforth be the only viable candidates. Anything else will be the fabled ''big step backward'' and 'proof that ugly racism still thrives in America'' and all the rest of it….


Anonymous said...

You might get more comments on your posts if you weren't so blatantly racist.

I found your page when I googled unreported violent crime in NYC, and your name came up. I don't care if it's primarily black and Hispanics who are committing violent crime. Just go after all violent criminals regardless of race, lock them and report the crimes accurately. I don't want to turn it into a race issue. Let's just clean up the crime. Race just makes the waters murky, and often makes otherwise logical comments seem ridiculous. The race issue made obscured the real issue, which is underreported violent crime. I'm not saying vital statistic of the crimes shouldn't be part of the public record (sure make public race, age, sex, etc., of both perp an victim), it just shouldn't be a focal point. Why? Because the inevitable truth is that most often it's whites who hurt whites, and blacks who hurt blacks. Criminals tend to victimize those in their own communities.

Most Americans just want the whole race issue to go away. We don't want people pulling race cards. We don't want people using race as a defense. We don't want people using race as an excuse for affirmative action, etc.. We just want the entire race issue to go away.

Years ago, when I was in college, I spent a lot of time and energy convincing my minority friends that most whites we're racist. I didn't witness it in my family, and I shouldn't be made to pay the price for racism that existed before me. Then I see commentators like you who keep perpetuating the divisiveness. You're just making things harder on the rest of us.

Please make it stop.

Anonymous said...

"...most often it's whites who hurt whites..."
More often doesn't mean more likely.
Whites don't interact only with whites. When they interact with blacks, whites are more likely to be hurt by blacks.
People are attacked by dogs more often than by lions and sharks. Does it mean that dogs are more dangerous than lions and sharks?
Stop drunk driving? But sober drivers kill too.
Blacks, 12% of the population, commit 51% of all murders.
Who is more likely to kill?
Like all apologists for black criminality you don't know what likelihood of committing a crime is. Read a book "Probability for Dummies" or better yet "Probability for white liberals".
Nicholas is getting carried away once in a while but overall he is doing a good job. When animal attacks a human or another animal I would like to know all available information about the animal, including race.

Anonymous said...

More often means more often... plain and simple, it's best described as prevalence. What you may be thinking of is a proportion. You're attempting to establish a single probability for an event with multiple variables... yeah, that is far more complex a process than you've set forth. Nevertheless, if you're white, you're far more likely to be murdered by a white. And if you're black you're far more likely to be killed by a black. You may argue for the remaining percent (which ends up with the remaining less than 10% being interracial murder, according to the DOJ), there are interracial murders and black are more likely than white to kill outside their race, but there it is.

The following has been abstracted from the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics:

Most violent crimes committed by what is referred to as "intimates", meaning someone you know.

In the case of whites, homicides are committed by someone they know 56% of the time. Blacks are murdered by someone they know 41% of the time.

White women account for 67% of the sex related murder, while black women 31% of the time. With white men accounting for 55% of these murders and black 44%.

Whites are ~2x more likely to be killed by family members than blacks.

Victims of murder:
Whites = 50.9%
Blacks = 46.9%

Whites = 45.8%
Blacks = 52.2%

Whites are 4x more likely to murder someone by poisoning them.

Serial murders are almost always white males. However, where multiple murder are committed outside of serial murders, whites are still 15% more likely to be the offenders.

"... most murders are intraracial [within same race]" (DOJ)

For both blacks and whites, they are killed by the other race less that 10% of the time.

60% of hate crimes target Blacks.

Commentary: what is not parsed out of the above DOJ stats is that whites also includes Latinos, such that a large proportion of black on white homicide would be better described as black on Latino.

An ad hominem argument is fine, if that's all you have. But tossing around insults is an occupation best left for children and those cognitively challenged. When you're ready to discuss like an an adult, cite your sources and resist the urge to use emotive argument that appeal to an unhinged element. Otherwise, you're not giving Nicholas's blog credibility.

Btw, I can serve up statistics however you choose. Do you want to start with confidence intervals? P-values? Correlation coefficients? Standard deviation or standard error? It's always a good idea to get a feel for who you're addressing before you select an attack strategy... I'm an MD with a masters in public health, right here on the UES of Manhattan, which is why I was researching unreported violent crime in NYC. I live for statistics. And by the way, I'm Republican. I'm just saying...