Monday, December 17, 2012

It's always about race with these clowns.

Apparently, MSNBC managed to cater to the race-baiting demographic in its coverage of the horror of the mass murder of children:

Leave it to the shamelessly craven NBC News cable outlet MSNBC to find a race-baiting angle on the Connecticut school massacre tragedy.  On the Sunday morning edition of "Up" with Chris Hayes Salon.com columnist David Sirota claimed that the debate about how to respond to the mass shooting would be “much uglier” if the murderer had not been a white male. 
   “The issue with it will be, politically, I think; the profile is white men,” Sirota said as a grinning Ezra Klein nodded. “That’s a profile that’s not, essentially, in America allowed to be profiled. That’s the one profile in America that’s not allowed to be profiled.”  Hayes agreed. 
 
Who are these people?

How are they permitted to walk around without custodians?

Perhaps they were too young to remember how everyone was shocked to find out that the "DC Sniper" wasn't an alienated white guy like all the profilers had predicted?

If so, let's take a trip in the "way back machine." 

Here is one psychological profile of the then-uncaught DC Sniper that wasn't afraid of predicting that this serial killer would be white:

The Washington DC-area sniper, who is most likely a white male in his thirties, may have recently been fired from or resigned from his job under contentious circumstances. It is conceivable that, like many sadistic personalities, the sniper had found a niche for himself in a job that naturally allowed him to make life difficult for others; that is, an occupation in which vengeful hostility, aggressive intent, and belligerent behaviors can be channeled into socially sanctioned spheres. Indeed, aggression may be so integral to his character that his hobbies, pastimes, and recreational activities convey a common theme of violence. Thus, in addition to a variety of firearms or other weapons, he may have a collection of books and videos about weapons and war. If employed in a supervisory capacity, he likely was inclined to make a public spectacle of intimidating, humiliating, and demeaning his subordinates, leaving no doubt as to whom was in charge. In this regard, he may have enjoyed a modicum of occupational success, though ultimately his threatening and belligerent manner or abuse of power was bound to backfire, resulting in his eventual dismissal or fall from grace. Domineering and controlling behaviors that previously enjoyed the imprimatur of social sanction consequently degenerated into vengeful acts directed against arbitrary victims (Millon, 1996, pp. 499–500; Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 512–514).
 
In fact, the "white male in his thirties" profile was so ingrained that it caused the DC police to ignore the real shooter, who was a black Muslim:

From President Bush on down, it seems everyone is opposed to racial profiling -- that is, unless white men comprise the group of likely suspects. For the three weeks that two snipers terrorized the Maryland and Virginia suburbs around the nation's capital, we heard endless speculation by government officials, experts and media commentators that the killings were likely the handiwork of an angry white man -- or men. It's the same rhetoric we heard repeatedly in the as-yet-unsolved anthrax attacks that killed five people a year ago. By assuming they "knew" the race of these killers -- with absolutely no evidence to back up their suspicions -- law enforcement officials may have impeded their own investigations. That certainly appears to be the case with the sniper killings. Washington, D.C., police chief Charles Ramsey acknowledged that police paid little attention to alleged snipers John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, who on 10 separate occasions over the course of the killing spree crossed paths with authorities, according to the Washington Post. "We were looking for two white guys in a white van," Ramsey said in defense of various police jurisdictions' failure to connect the pair to the attacks. As it turned out, Muhammad and Malvo were two black men driving a blue Chevy Caprice. Imagine the outrage if the murders had been committed by two white men, but police had 10 times passed up the opportunity to apprehend them because a phony racial profile -- and nothing more -- told them to be on the lookout for a black man? There would have been cries of racism, justifiably so. I have consistently opposed racial profiling, not only because I think it's morally wrong, but because it leads to sloppy police work. In the absence of information from witnesses about the race of a perpetrator, it's not enough to know that similar crimes have been committed more often by members of one racial or ethnic group. But if police reliance on racial profiling helped lead them astray in tracking down the D.C.-area snipers, their reluctance to probe other important characteristics about the alleged snipers is equally troubling. Muhammad's race is clearly irrelevant to his alleged crime -- but his political and religious views may be very important in understanding his motives. Yet both government officials and most of the media are assiduously avoiding any discussion of Muhammad's conversion to Islam -- or, more accurately, the radical Black Muslim sect -- and his reported sympathy for al Qaeda, which are legitimate avenues of inquiry. If the snipers had turned out to be two white guys who were members of some extremist Christian sect and had voiced sympathy for Timothy McVeigh, you can bet we'd be watching endless investigative reports on the evening news about right-wing Christian and militia groups.
 
That's just the historical facts.

So, where do these MSNBC morons get off creating an "insta-conventional wisdom" that's so wrong?

Why are they so misinformed?

No comments:

 
Who links to me?