Sunday, November 26, 2006

Do You Know This "Man" ?



"The kid in the picture above doesn’t look very harmful, right ? He’s reasonably well-dressed, anyway. But actually, he is quite a large fellow, and likes to assault random women with the help of an equally vile friend of his."


On Friday they picked on a woman with attitude, a camera, and a blog.


(Jackie Danicki was one of the first bloggers I read, and one of the first to link to me. While we've never met, I still take it kinda personal.)

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is it really a 'he'? Earrings are perhaps not conclusive, but earrings AND a skirt?

JuliaM said...

Nah, it isn't a 'he'. A man doesn't verbally abuse female strangers.....a feeble excuse for a man does that.

Here's hoping the publicity shames the police into doing their job for once.....!

Guessedworker said...

Reading the threads at Jackie D's blog and Samizdata has been an educational exercise. Liberals NEVER tumble to the consequences of liberalism.

No one has mentioned the fact that an atomised, deracinated, de-cultured society will loosen all the bonds of trust and belonging, and loose rapine upon the innocent, along with every other social pathology.

No one mentioned it, of course, because that is a socially conservative observation, and The Unfettered Will doesn't do social conservatism.

No one mentioned the black male and rape. Ninety-eight per cent of inter-racial rape in America is black on white. The incidence of white on black gang rape (there were two blacks assaulting Jackie) is so small it does not statistically exist. One commenter tried to suggest that race might have something to do with it. Liberal Jackie, however, responded:

"This is not a race thing. Only a collectivist would think otherwise."

I mean, really, what can you do with such wilfull stupidity?

Predictably, the Samizdata thread developed into the usual focus on handguns. Children, all of them.

Dave said...

yeah they have wildwest fantasy. The strong and well armed will survive and fuck everyone else.



Imagine what they are saying for a second. An open borders society with no gun control.
Would you feel comfortable if hundreds of thousands of foreign strangers turned up on your doorstep waving guns?
I sure as hell wouldn't.
Madness

I would have been in favour of gun ownership when we were a united country, but not now.

The Happy Rampager said...

yeah they have wildwest fantasy. The strong and well armed will survive and fuck everyone else.

Well you could say that's exactly the situation we have here, the strong (not the same thing as 'well-armed' BTW) survive and lord it over everyone else and fuck everyone who has misgivings about this state of affairs.

Get serious for a second. Do you really think people advocate gun ownership to help the strong (more violent) against the weak? Or do they wish to, y'know, deter the more violent from preying on everyone else? Which makes more sense when you say it out loud?

Guessedworker said...

It makes sense to return society to the collectivism of Nature, where trust and in-group altruism arm us more profoundly than Mr Heckler and Mr Kock ever will.

Playing bang-bang-you're-dead games with co-liberatees at shooting ranges is not a mature political act. It is no different to cowboys 'n injuns. All that's missing are the kiddies uniforms.

Anonymous said...

Ninety-eight per cent of inter-racial rape in America is black on white.

A GUM nurse once told me a cause of widespread AIDS in Africa was the propensity of males there to penetrate unlubricated women; in other words without foreplay and the abrasions caused under such circumstances...............I suppose the lawyers would call that analogous to rape which is possibly why it is so common

Dave said...

Yes Happy Rampager, it is what we have got right now and it is mainly the fault of uncontrolled mass-immigration cheered on by libertarians.

No amount of gun ownership is going to defend a wide open society. We need 'community values' and a common people. Which isn't to say the same 'colour'.

I would advocate gun ownership also in a united society like Switzerland but in our ever balkanising UK I'm not so sure.

I don't think people always advocate gun ownership to help the weak against the strong at all, I think some do it purely for selfish reasons that they happen to be good with a gun and therefore want to be able to use them.

Anonymous said...

There is a paper to be written on the types who become these muscular libertarians. Middle class, above average IQ and somewhat socially inept (esp the boys). If the 'Antoine' she mentions in the blog is the libertarian bod I suspect he is, I can say that I had some passing contact with him as a student, he fits the bill perfectly.

If everybody thought like them I suppose libertarianism would work, but they dont, so in some way they will need to coerce the rest of us into going along with it (hey just like the commies!) - rather buggering the concept of liberty in the first place.

Lurker

The Happy Rampager said...

Oh dear, Mr. Guessedworker blathers on again about how childish gun advocates must be - in his eyes. Which only indicates that you have no conception that armed self-defence is a serious matter. How could it not be, given that it involves matters of life and death - how can that go over your head? Oh yes, because you're fixated on liberally-imposed multiculturalism as the great ill afflicting our society.

I doubt also that what I referred to as the increased ease with which the violent can prey on the innocent is 'mainly' down to 'uncontrolled mass-immigration' - guess what, this is something we have to worry about in majority-white areas too. So how do you explain that? Liberalism as a whole, with its lack of wisdom about how criminal violence affects the citizenry, perhaps? I think so!

Lastly, while you might think you're right in judging the desire of certain kinds of individuals to exercise their right to resist criminal intent (with gun in hand) as 'purely selfish', two things to consider; that desire also benefits everybody, not just the individual, as the net result of satisfying that desire is criminals being too afraid to attack people, and; if you have a problem with people looking out for themselves in such fashion, then you could hardly be described as wanting the best for them, could you?

Why is it that collectivists are fine with the idea of an abstraction (that would be 'society') reaping the benefits of their political action, but are somewhat queasy about individuals, real people in fact, seeing any benefit themselves as a result of any political action?

Anonymous said...

There are the Leaders and the Led and the simply aimless................if you don't lead those who should be led you have problems as their chaotic lives disrupt others

The Happy Rampager said...

Whoops, I suppose I should have made it clear in my last post that part of my comment is for Guessedworker while other parts of it deal with what Dave said. Since I have no sense of when not to click, 'publish', it looks as though I have the two confused!! Apologies for any offense.

The Happy Rampager said...

There are the Leaders and the Led and the simply aimless...if you don't lead those who should be led you have problems as their chaotic lives disrupt others

And yet so, so many who appoint themselves or get themselves appointed as 'the Leaders' are so shockingly bad at being Leaders that they have no rightful place anywhere on your (skewiff) continuum...99% of the time its their opinion of those whom they categorize as 'the Led' that causes the problem.

Let me guess, you're a 'Leader', aren't you? I thought so.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't necessarily endorse Guessedworker's worldview, but I got to say, this is like one of those games where you have to describe something without using certain words.

Lemme see, misogyny + worship of violence + endemic anti-white racism, but the blogosphere's full of people carefully avoiding any mention of whether black culture could have anything to do with incidents like this.

Alex Zeka said...

Gun laws are futile in so much as the criminal elements don't obey them. All they achieve is the disarmament of the otherwise law-abiding citizenry.

Why these are thought to be needed, in other words why crime has increased to the levels which have prompted calls for this panic reaction, now that is the million Paki question.

Guessedworker said...

HR,

I'm 55 and in my lifetime I have seen the alternative to today's anomie. I am a Londoner, and the London of my childhood was SAFE. People were not well-off but they were free because freedom flows from psychological and social stability, not from the Jewish theory of the unfettered will. Second-wave libertarianism always was - and remains - free-market Marxism, because it is towards the same atomised, de-Natured individual that it leads. As Marx said himself, "We are all Hobbes' children".

I believe you to be English, judging from your cadences (non-intellectuality + miffed pomposity ... not an obviously Jewish combination). Well, just so you know ...

We English are a people, not a culture, not "wills" fettered by a false collectivism. If you want to live without white social anomie resile from your liberalism. If you want to live without black violence you must see past your race-blindness.

All your present assumptions about Man and Nature are worthless to your people, to whom you belong and who in some small part you are here to serve. The greatest service you can do them now is to understand the ways in which they are dying, and then do what small things you think you can to help them survive.

In other words, running around waving a gun isn't going to help them. I trust you can understand the ridiculousness of it, and the type of work that would really make a difference.

If not you could read some evolutionary psychology and, if at all possible, keep up with the unfolding genetics of h-bd. And some political philosophy would go amiss either.

Dave said...

Rampager, I am not against gun ownership, what I am saying is that mass gun ownership & carrying is not going to solve the problem of chaos on the streets brought on by mass uncontrolled immigration.


Its not about white vs black, the issue is that the country is becoming fragmented as the people in it have less in common with each other. In my granddads day people on the train would have helped.

Anonymous said...

Dave - It is about black and white, or at least thats a big part of out. Not the colour, the behaviour, falling over yourself to find other causes of societal breakdown is all very well but are only part of the picture.

I do incline to the freedom of gun ownership, only criminals shouldnt be allowed to have them, the opposite of what we have now.

Im sure in Texas (lots of legal handguns) the fat git in Jackies blog would have soon found himself picking 9mm bullets out of his face (good!) but I strongly suspect and I bet the figures are out there somewhere that the black/white crime disparity is much the same as here.

So Dave if you dont want to come as Mr Liberal where are all these places where culture has trumped racial division and all are living happily together?

Dave said...

Anon, I'm not liberal.
What about the balkans, they were white..
Any society can easily descend into chaos when the veneer comes off.
And thats the direction we are heading.

I'm not against the idea that some communities produce more crime than others.
But I still think open borders chaos is the bigger problem. We don't know each other anymore, totally different from 100 years ago when everyone knew of everyone in the local area.

Bert Rustle said...

UK Crime

There is also the issue of the apparently disproportionate ethnic representation of suspects and victims of crime. For example, see:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds
/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf

To zoom in on Lambeth in London see:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds
/pdfs2/hors254.pdf

On page 25 they state “Ethnicity and street crime could easily become a highly
emotive issue and for this reason data needs to be handled with special care.” For Lambeth In particular see the table 3.5 on page 26. There we have black suspects 86%, white suspects 10%, Asian suspects 0%; black victims 12%, white victims 79%, Asian victims 7%.

Table 3.6 on page 27 states for Lambeth that the population is black 31%, white 57%. This suggests that there are roughly three times more black suspects and three times less black victims than their proportion in the population. Not a valid statistical analysis but a good enough reason to investigate fully.

Bert Rustle said...

US Crime

An apparently thorough analysis is:

http://amren.com/colorofcrime
/color.pdf

There are plenty of references to the US Department of Justice and others to enable verification of the data. However, as reportedly some US data counts Hispanic suspects/perpetrators as white yet counts Hispanic victims as Hispanic the white suspects/perpetrators count will be exaggerated.

In a similar vein for Hispanics:

http://amren.com/Reports
/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.pdf

For who is raping whom in US prisons see:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001
/prison/report4.html#_1_27

The one to read in full if you have access is:

Male Prison Rape: A Search for Causation and Prevention.
Knowles, Gordon James. Howard Journal, v. 38 n. 3 (August 1999), p. 267-282. 15 p.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs
/10.1111/1468-2311.00132

To quote from the abstract “Racism perpetrated against white inmates by black inmates is indicated to be the single causal factor in prison rape. Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate a prevalence of predominantly black rapists and white victims nationwide for the last 40 years.” And “The author also considers separation by racial and ethnic categories since literary evidence shows 'lack racism'' to be the common denominator in most prison sexual assaults and rapes of predominantly white inmates.”

JuliaM said...

" In my granddads day people on the train would have helped."

But presumably, Dave, in your grandads day, the people who helped would be expected to do so by the police (who realised in those days that they relied on the public to help them enforce the law).

They would not find themselves in court the next day accused of denying the little shit his 'rights'.....

Anonymous said...

Pull the emergency alarm, instead of bemoaning pepper spray which can easily be turned on you which would in turn have given the police a sporting chance of apprehending the little bastard instead of now writing them off for not jumping at the chance of conducting what...house to house enquiries (?!) with no other witnesses now and a photo of a face in a city of millions. Additionally make more of the gentleman who stood between her and the idiot and took quite a risk in doing so. Theres a heck of a lot of comments loaded up with anti UK, pro weapons drivel detracting from a situation involving a crime that could have been committed anywhere. The police given half a chance would have examined the CCTV footage on the spot, got the evidence they needed, accumulated necessary witness statements and that prick would now be in custody.

JuliaM said...

"The police given half a chance would have examined the CCTV footage on the spot, got the evidence they needed, accumulated necessary witness statements and that prick would now be in custody."

What do you think is stopping them, then, 'anon'...?

Guessedworker said...

The point, Juliam, is that in my youth there was sufficient cultural and genetic connectivity for the expectation of mutual obligations to hold sway.

It is important to separate in one's own mind the white "yob" whose anomie (in liberal-speak, "disadvantage") leads him to fail to recognise or to disregard those obligations from the black male who has NO genetic connectivity and upon whom all expectations of solidarity are wasted.

Among European peoples solidarity requires racial homogeneity, and that's what we must begin to move back to.

The Happy Rampager said...

I believe you to be English, judging from your cadences (non-intellectuality + miffed pomposity ... not an obviously Jewish combination)

Jesus your focus is narrow. I note you didn't answer my query about the likes and dislikes of collectivists (as you have helpfully labelled yourself as), I'm not actually that fussed about that, but here's another question for you. What's with your mission to convince people that the Jooos are chiefly behind this movement to destabilize the West through the use of Third World immigration? (Yes, that's something I picked up on from visiting your usual hangout. It doesn't actually bother me, I've seen worse things on the net)

Seriously. You convince X amount of people of this big Joooish conspiracy and then...what? What happens? All of your effort will have amounted to what? Having everybody know that the Jooos are more to blame than any other party will help solve the issue how?

Not to mention that many supporters of Third World immigration really don't like Jooos any more than you do - which seems to shoot your 'Jooo theory' down in flames, does it not? Plus low-life whites (we call them 'chavs', you may have heard of them) can also be relied on to make life an utter misery for the rest of us. It'd be nice to know that your anti-immigrationism would clear that problem up as well, sadly I don't think it will.

I once met a man getting off a bus who had discovered a big secret. To hear him tell it, you might have thought it had been something kept well under wraps by the scientific community on orders from all the governments in the world. The secret was this - that everything on this planet was made of tar. This man had discovered that cabbages were made of tar, and presumably that had inspired him to do enough research to realise that everything else was made of tar as well.

You remind me of that fellow. I can definitely imagine you using the exact same tone of voice he used, in general conversation.

JuliaM said...

"The point, Juliam, is that in my youth there was sufficient cultural and genetic connectivity for the expectation of mutual obligations to hold sway."

Leave the 'genetic' bit out & your comment would be spot on.

As it is, the rest of your comment is as disgusting as it is false....

alison said...

what wold you propose they do 'julia'. That was me earlier i thought id inputted my details. Pull the alarm get the police to the situation immediately and leave the idiot no chance of getting away. Something wrong with that?!

JuliaM said...

"What wold you propose they do 'julia'..Pull the alarm get the police to the situation immediately and leave the idiot no chance of getting away. Something wrong with that?!"

Well, yes....

The notion that the police are just a pull cord away is a nonsense. They may be, they may not.

What happens if you pull the cord, and no-one comes..?

Guessedworker said...

Juliam,

A race is, to borrow the Steve Sailer formulation, an extremely extended family. It is , naturally, enough, genetic. Why are you so uncomfortable with shared gene frequencies being the basis of social cooperation? It is always so. England was never held together by "civic values" or "constitutional patriotism", but by the self-love of its own people.

Guessedworker said...

OK, HR,

The Jewish conspiracy is a strawman in which few people of intelligence believe. I did not mention it anyway.

I do like to establish if possible whether my interlocutor shares my ethnicity, because those who do not will invariably conceal their contrary ethnic interest. That is arguing in bad faith. It has to be exposed.

As for your Popper-lite assumptions about collectivism and individualism, you will find some substantive commentary here (on Samizdata), here (on individualism), here (on the psychology of freedom), here (on the gulf between libertarianism and Conservatism). At one remove, but still relevant to this discussion, you might go here (for a piece on the reconciling of intellect and racial awareness) or here (obliquely, on the role of Jewry).

I don't expect you to slog through them all, but at least you will understand enough about me to say whether or not I am indeed "narrow".

Anonymous said...

Happy - so disparate groups want the same thing and that invaledates the argument?

Bush wants to flood the with almost unlimited numbers of 3rd worlders esp mexicans (how else can one build a hi-tech 21st century economy otherwise).

Whereas the democrats, indymedia and lord knows who else er,well, oh dear, they want to do exactly the same.

But that means, according to your line of thinking, that Bush doesnt really want to do it, or that the dems dont really want to do it or *gasp* they really do both want the same thing after all.

But, I hear you cry, surely Bush and the dems hate each other, the fact that they want the same outcome means that outcome is not real at all.

JuliaM said...

"Why are you so uncomfortable with shared gene frequencies being the basis of social cooperation?"

Hmm, why am I...?

Oh, right.....because it's bollocks!

The Steve Sailer mention tells me that much.

Guessedworker said...

Juliam,

Am to I take it that you are not wholly or at all white, and that's why genetic Englishness can't be the basis of the English nation, or German-ness of the Germany nation etc?

Claiming that such a crystal clear observation as people<>homeland is "bollocks" or intimating that Sailer is an extremist is the tactic of a typical Marxist. You don't appear to be a left-winger politically. I assume, then, that you must be referring privately to your own ethnic interest in attacking the natural right of the English to an exclusively English England.

If that's the case you are a hypocrite. But if it's not then by all means explain yourself, and explain why genetics is "bollocks", apparently. Just using bad names doesn't cut it.

JuliaM said...

"You don't appear to be a left-winger politically."

Well, you got something right. I guess if you post enough, that's bound to happen....

Look, if you must harbour your ridiculous race fantasies, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that cater to your type. Why pollute this one?

JuliaM said...

From your previous post: "I do like to establish if possible whether my interlocutor shares my ethnicity, because those who do not will invariably conceal their contrary ethnic interest. That is arguing in bad faith. It has to be exposed."

And your current one: "Am to I take it that you are not wholly or at all white.." (wrong, by the way, not that it matters a jot)

There's the idiocy of race fantasists in a nutshell. On the internet, who cares what ethnicity people are...?

Do they write well? Are they funny/serious? Have they researched their subject well? These are the things that concern normal people.

If you spend too much time worrying if the other person is 'one of them' then you've totally lost the plot.

Guessedworker said...

You have avoided the question once again. You claim that Englishness is cultural, not genetic. That is manifestly untrue. But when I ask for an explanation you say that a genetic Englishness is "bollocks" and "race" fantasicm, and that trying to unearth whether you have an ethnic motive for these views is to lose the plot.

Give me something substantive instead of the ad hominem. If you can. How about if I put it like this:-

Why is mutuality not a product of sharing genes?

JuliaM said...

"You claim that Englishness is cultural, not genetic."

Really? Did I...?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out to me where I wrote that phrase in any of my comments.

In truth, I could care less about how anyone defines 'Englishness'. I'm far more interested in the law & order issues this incident brings to light. The ravings of the racial purity nutcases are just that: ravings.

So you are barking up the wrong tree (not, I suspect, for the first time).

Guessedworker said...

Juliam,

Try to comprehent, please. Ad hominem is not your solution. You condemn yourself out of your own mouth.

Now ... remember this:-

The point, Juliam, is that in my youth there was sufficient cultural and genetic connectivity for the expectation of mutual obligations to hold sway.

... to which you replied thusly:-

Leave the 'genetic' bit out & your comment would be spot on.

As it is, the rest of your comment is as disgusting as it is false"


This was the rest of my comment:-

It is important to separate in one's own mind the white "yob" whose anomie (in liberal-speak, "disadvantage") leads him to fail to recognise or to disregard those obligations from the black male who has NO genetic connectivity and upon whom all expectations of solidarity are wasted.

Among European peoples solidarity requires racial homogeneity, and that's what we must begin to move back to.


So it is that I wonder whether you might be black or mulattoe, and that explains why you revolt at the idea of black males being too genetically (or, by phenotype, sociobiologically) distant to respond to English social norms.

You have not argued that they do respond to our norms, presumably because you know it's not true. But failing to do that and repeadedly resorting to ad hominem won't fill the void. Sorry.

JuliaM said...

"So it is that I wonder ...why you revolt at the idea of black males being too genetically (or, by phenotype, sociobiologically) distant to respond to English social norms."

Well, why would any normal person not revolt at the comment you just expressed there...? The situation that the blogger found herself in on that Tube train could so easily have been with a white English chav, a Middle Eastern ne'r-do-well or a Japanese alcoholic. His race is not really significant, except to those who only see such things.....

"You have not argued that they do respond to our norms, presumably because you know it's not true."

I know no such thing. I do know that people are more than just the colour of their skin.

Guessedworker said...

The whole point about the Danicki incident is that, in the aggregate, blacks do NOT observe the same social obligations as whites.

Here's an article by a mulatto American doctor on Jamaican inherited sprinting ability, also tpouching on the sky-high incidence of aggressivity, criminality and rape among Jamaican males. You should be able to "glean" from this that people are not at all alike, and your remark that "situation that the blogger found herself in on that Tube train could so easily have been with a white English chav, a Middle Eastern ne'r-do-well or a Japanese alcoholic" is deeply untrue.

(Japs, btw, have small weapons of mass seduction. They are genetically very alike Han Chinese, whose percenetage incarceration in this country runs at half their percentage in the general population - ie, they are law-abiding)).

For more data on black criminality check bert rustle's links.

The facts are there if you have the will to challenge your worldview.

Last point, human bio-diversity is not simply "the colour of their skin", as anyone who can think critically will understand straight away.

This isn't an argument you can win, young lady, by relying upon prejudice, political and racial. Wake up. See the world as it is, not as your received liberalism paints it.

Bert Rustle said...

Juliam

Can I suggest that you take a look at “Before the Dawn” by Nicholas Wade, ISBN: 1594200793. He is a New York Times journalist and very mainstream. This book provides a partial introduction to the current academic research of some of the points which you have been debating here.

These topics can be quite shocking at first, as the MSM have not reported on them objectively in full and also because their ramifications are dramatic.

JuliaM said...

"your remark that "situation that the blogger found herself in on that Tube train could so easily have been with a white English chav, a Middle Eastern ne'r-do-well or a Japanese alcoholic" is deeply untrue."

Oh, spare me! The reason I used those examples is because I have seen (or had related to me) incidents of unwanted harassment of women (and in one occasion, a young boy) by just those individuals.

Jerks come in all sizes, shapes and colours. The defining factor is they are jerks - years ago, their actions were not tolerated by society, now they are. This is a law & order thing, not a 'all the (other) are savages' discussion.

"Japs, btw, have small weapons of mass seduction.."

Good grief! And I thought your hang up about race was creepy........

"This isn't an argument you can win, young lady"

Bzzt! Wrong assumption again. You aren't very good at this, are you? No wonder you want everyone to wear their colours on their sleeves on the internet, so to speak ;P

"This book provides a partial introduction to the current academic research of some of the points which you have been debating here."

Well, thanks, Bert, I'll look it up. Will I find a law & order issue in it.....? As that's what I was commenting on, in relation to this incident.

Guessedworker said...

Since you give me no information about yourself, Julie baby, I had to draw the sting. So, you are a homosexual?

A little more seriously, you have not been debating law and order. You have been denying the fundamental truth that racial homogeneity is the foundation of social trust. As yet you have put forward no evidence for your view that everyone is the same under the skin - and for the very good reason that there is none. It isn't true.

It's normal for liberals to lose their rag. You are a liberal, like Danicki. Your worldview does not survive contact with reality.

So change it.

JuliaM said...

"So, you are a homosexual?"

Lol!

"You are a liberal, like Danicki. Your worldview does not survive contact with reality."

Roflmao!

Well, I've been 'positively' identified now as a 'mulatto', a 'young woman', a 'homosexual'.

*shrug*

Now you call me a 'liberal'. How dare you! ;P

Guessedworker said...

Well it's a bit like identity politics. After the Marxian geniuses have given us foreigners they gave us women, then homos, then trannies. Now it's wrinklies. I'm spoilt for choice when an opponent won't explain his first principles. (To be honest, I haven't had to "out" a tranvestite yet for arguing against my oppressive genderism).

giant squid said...

"Jerks come in all sizes, shapes and colours."

Including in that of a fifty-five year old race-obsessed Englishman.

Guessedworker said...

Personally, I don't think you understand anything, squiddy. Why we're in Iraq, why we are all cultural Marxists, why we aren't breeding and why your natural ethnic interests have (if you are English) been rubbed out of your brain ... You are a political virgin sans critique, sans philosophy, sans even the normal manly desire to take control of destiny.

Little sea thing, go away and learn

Alex Zeka said...

The whole is Englishness cultural or genetic question is a red herring. Cultural differences are an expression of genetic ones.

Larry Teabag said...

What a wonderful thread.

Guessedworker, I congratulate you on achieving the impossible: making Julia M seem sane and sensible.

Alex Zeka said...

Presumably, 'sane and sensible' means unwilling to answer the damned question. There are twice as many blacks in jail as in universities. Why is this?