All posts by Uncle's Politics

Lynching Race


Jim Rockford, well-known television private detective, sits with his female client at his favorite taco stand.  A mother and her daughter have died violently in separate incidents within six months of each other.  They both died in the same jurisdiction in which only two autopsy surgeons manage the medical examiner’s office.  Rockford’s patron, a newspaper reporter, suspects corruption at the office for several reasons but needs Rockford’s investigative skills to help her discover the truth.

 Jim Rockford: well known fictional detective

Rockford muses to his customer, “What’s the chance both autopsies were done by the same surgeon – 50/50?” “No”, she says.  “It’s 50/50 that he does the mother.  It’s only 25% probable that he does both mother and daughter.” Rockford straightens with the insight this provides.  “Right!” he says.


With the nomination of Ms. Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama has apparently confined his choices of candidates for Attorney General (AG) to certain offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ).  Out of the 10,592 employees of the Executive Office of US Attorneys and US Attorneys (DOJ), 58% are female and 14.3% are black.   Employing the Rockford Understanding, these statistics can be used to compute the probabilities associated with picking two Attorneys General (AGs) from this DOJ pool, or any subset thereof (e.g., only US District Attorneys), that is chosen without consideration of either gender or race.  The underlying presumption of such computations is that talent is not confined by, or to, either race or gender.  Our president should have also abided by this presumption.


It should be obvious to the most casual observer that Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Holder, followed by his selection of Ms. Lynch, is a case so rare that it would, under unbiased circumstances, occur less often than 5 times in every 1,000 similar scenarios.  The only selections more rare would have been for our president to have chosen two black men from these offices of the DOJ as his AGs. If the president’s plan was to further certify his concern for minorities, then he could have easily chosen more probable cases and still have been viewed as a man for women and for blacks.  For example, compared to the rare event associated with the demographics of his actual picks, it would have been 50 times more likely that two non-black women would have been selected, and more than 10 times more likely that, having chosen Mr. Holder, he would have then selected a non-black, in race and gender neutral searches within these portions of the DOJ.

WHAT RACISM IS . . . .  

The essence of racism is the unjustifiable assignment of characteristics to humans on the basis of their . . . .  errrr . . . . . . ahhhhhhh . . . . . skin color.

What is now abundantly clear is that being black is no bar to either incompetent or unethical behavior as AG.  Further, one may now correctly claim that all of America’s black AGs have been held in contempt by Congress, while none of America’s non-black AGs has ever been held in contempt by Congress. In addition, being black has not prevented Mr. Holder from displaying an inappropriate personal ethnic and cultural agenda during his six years as a Cabinet Member in this administration. Thus, beyond the establishment of a black legacy of AGs, Mr. Obama’s preference for higher quantities of epidermal melanin in his Department of Justice (DOJ) Cabinet Members does not seem to qualify one in any exceptional way to be a competent, much less ethical or impartial, AG.  Then again, neither does being white, brown, red, yellow, etc., – a message the emotionally oversensitive, along with our president, will probably have missed up to this point.


Mr. Obama’s improbable nomination of Loretta Lynch for AG generates a curiosity regarding Barack’s racial corruption.  This interest is closely related to, and as benign as, questioning the nepotistic corruption of a president who nominated his brother for AG.

  Loretta Lynch: less well known Attorney General

There is certainly nothing wrong with being a brother (no pun intended).  However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications a sibling might possess in order to be a good AG. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being black; and there is nothing wrong with being simultaneously black and female.  However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications representatives of two national minorities might possess to be good AGs.


Why, then, would our black president express his apparent preference for black AGs? Practical people will understand that any president would want to ensure that his secrets are kept, his policies are followed, and his opinions are supported by any nominee for whom he seeks Senate approval.  However, this only begs the question whether Mr. Obama believes that he must rely on skin pigmentation similar to his own in order to acquire and hold such allegiances. Alternatively, Mr. Obama may have wished that his black AG foster further discussion on race in America, under his presumption that blacks have more credibility in these discussions.  Unfortunately, he knew the results of this tactic long before he selected his second black AG.


First, of course, no president should employ selection criteria relative to their Cabinet-level nominees that consider anything other than leadership, ability, and ethical standards.  This excludes race and gender as such standards. Second, Congress, in its constitutionally ordained Advice and Consent role, should ensure that candidates who are incompetent, agenda driven, or ethically challenged are not approved for appointment. It’s unlikely that we’ll get highly qualified nominees for AG from a president who is as unable and as unwilling to select competence and ethical behavior over race or gender as this chief executive is.  Nevertheless, hope springs enternal that Loretta will be better than Eric.  Perhaps, she can learn from recent history. We should all be buoyed, however, by the nincompoop-in-chief’s reaction to Bibi’s lecture to him during the Prime Minister’s speech before Congress this morning. Obama apparently can be shamed as evidenced by his immature reaction to pull his “JV” executive branch team members from the audience today.  Perhaps such shame will motivate the president to do a better job at negotiating Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Perhaps such common sense criticism should have been whispered in BO’s ear before he indulged in nation building within Libya, believed the propaganda about ObamaCare being a “big fucking deal”, or thought that another $8 trillion in national debt was acceptable. ` `


The Quest For Social Justice

The Left, that political philosophy whose noble goal is social justice through government, is weakening in America.  This is not only because its outcomes are so often counterproductive or trivial.  It’s also because its announced policies are sometimes so hilarious that no one, except the most intellectual and thereby the least practical, can take them seriously.  In truth, even Leftists are beginning to notice their own peculiarities.

Now come The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Beast to report that:

“ . . . . administrators, faculty, and staff members at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) will no longer use these (‘Mr.’, ‘Mrs.’ , ‘Ms.’, ‘Miss.’) gendered salutations in exchanges with students.

Under a new university policy, CUNY staffers are instructed to omit [these terms] from ‘all types of correspondence’ with students and prospective students, . . . . . . . including ‘address and salutation, mailing labels, bills or invoices, and any other forms or reports.’”

CUNY, in a response to those who called seeking clarification for this incredulity were told that its basis lies in national law, specifically Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (as extended and amended in 1988, 1994, 2002, 2006), which now states, among other things, that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

This spectacular piece of lawmaking gives us female football players at the expense of men’s soccer teams at some high schools and colleges.  It eliminates all athletic programs at coed colleges whose enrollment is mostly female.  It bestows the blessings of 15 males on the 34-member women’s fencing team at Cornell.

On the other hand, CUNY’s ruling now eliminates the gender-based term ‘Ms.’, coined by Ms. Gloria Steinmen, from approved campus communication.  This might be deemed a victory for those who remember an American society in which ‘Mr.’ and ‘Mrs.’ conveyed respect.

Nevertheless, Hallelujah!

The shackles of student gender and marital identification at CUNY have been broken upon the altar of politically correct speech!



The obvious extrapolation of CUNY reasoning is to eliminate gender biases from dormitories, fraternities, sororities, bathrooms, and toilets at educational institutions receiving federal funding.  After that, there will the curriculum adjustment that proscribes any association of the term ‘penis’ to men and the term ‘vulva’ to women.  At this pinnacle of political correctness and intimate obedience to federal law, the fullest use of Title IX in regulating speech may be realized.

No doubt, gender non-conformists will be well pleased and well accommodated under CUNY’s new policy.  This class is, of course, a huge proportion of the American population.  However, even if the gender- and sex-confused were only a small part of our society, CUNY policies are well worth implementing everywhere, eh?

Maybe Bruce Jenner can now proudly enroll again in the university of his choice and repeat his athletic accomplishments as a woman.

Earrings?  Make Up?  Say it ain't so!

At that point, the Utopia that the Left envisions should be here.  If it isn’t, then it will be because there won’t be any from the Left who have the courage to claim their membership in such a perfectly embarrassing and petty society.

I’m An Okie From Muskogee!

Muskogee, Oklahoma

Mr. Terence D. Walker, a 21 year-old black man, was unjustifiably and brutally executed on Saturday, 17 January, 2015, by white police officer Chancey McMillin in this small, eastern Oklahoma town.

The entire incident was documented by Officer McMillin’s body camerapursuant to the deepest desires of our president (Obama) and his Attorney General (Holder).  Both Obama and Holder are convinced, along with their closest advisor in these matters, His Excellency, Most Right Reverend, Al Sharpton, that the most important aspect of the annual toll of 8,000 black deaths in America is the cruel and unwarranted homicides of innocent black men at the hands of white police officers who kill blacks solely because these white, supremacist, privileged, racist policemen hate Negroes.

To the great credit of these three contrarian leaders (Obama, Holder, Sharpton), they believe this despite ample evidence, truth, and logic that does not support their opinion.  However, to justify their emotional conclusions beyond reasonable doubt, the president recently launched a campaign to spend $263 million in order to equip 50,000 additional white police officers, most of whom operate in black neighborhoods, with body cameras.

Truly, there are none as heroic as those who will spend public funds in the quest to rationalize their grossly misguided thinking.

The payoff has come sooner than expected in the town that once was the object of affection for singer / songwriter Merle Haggard.  If Sharpton is as consistent with his principles and as effective with his protests as he was in Ferguson, Missouri, then there won’t be much left of this sleepy, little, Oklahoma backwater after the pillaging and looting next week.

Hallelujah and Amen!


Thanks to the video from Officer McMillin’s point of view, there is ample justification now for Sharpton’s oft-expressed concerns.

Officer McMillin was one of several policemen dispatched to the Old AgencyBaptist Church on a report of a man disrupting pending marital services, carrying a gun, and issuing threats.  The threats included those directed at his ex-girlfriend (who was attending this wedding) such as “I have a bullet with your name on it.”.

So insensitive is the Muskogee police department, largely composed of white men (all of whom have distant relatives who were members of the Ku Klux Klan), that neither the dispatcher nor Officer McMillin understood that such gun rituals and death threats are common expressions of love and affection from the congregation during the liturgy of most black marriage ceremonies.

First, therefore, Officer McMillin, and his fellow officers, should not have answered this call.  Obviously, no lives were at risk; no public welfare was at stake; and, clearly, a pussy white person called this in just to harass Negroes.  This was all, in fact, “normal” black behavior.

It is just as “normal” as 40 shootings per summer weekend among black perpetrators and their black victims in Chicago and just as “normal” as non-police blacks killing each other at the abovementioned rate of 8,000 per year in America.  In short, these are the cases about which we avoid talking, much less about which we avoid doing anything. We prefer to focus instead on the white policeman killing black man cases, of which there may be no unjustifiable incidents.


Nevertheless, this white policeman, and his brothers, stupidly responded and quickly identified Walker as the alleged perpetrator described in the complaint.  As shown in the video, Officer McMillin approached Walker and asked that he, and his nearby associate, remove their hands from their pockets.

This alone was a clear violation of the soon-to-be-ratified constitutional right of descendants of former slaves in America to have their hands in their pockets at any time, as specified in the proposed “Reparations Amendment”.  This amendment was adamantly promoted by the Reverend Martin Luther King, while he hypocritically expressed his hope that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but instead solely by the content of their character.

Further, Officer McMillin made another crucial mistake at this point. Under the ‘Eric Garner Doctrine’ regarding white policemen ganging up on innocent black men, the policemen should have immediately called for the required back up of the local Black Sensitivity Training Squad and (just to be fair and balanced) the Left White Justice Patrol.  Both are easily reached by calling the NAACP, SCLC, or National Urban League and asking for the Tawana Brawley Central Office of Black Victimization.

Second, unfortunately, Officer McMillin failed to take the time to make Walker aware of his pending constitutional rights and to call for the required social support back up.  This failure alone would lead, of course, inevitably to Walker’s unjustified death at the hands of this police officer, who clearly believes, at this point in the video, in his white supremacy and privilege.


Instead, again as shown in the video, Officer McMillin rudely and roughly asked Walker to turn around and place his hands behind his back.  At this point, Walker, well within his rights, went into full “stiffen up” Eric Garner mode, responding to Officer McMillin’s question, “Do you have anything that will stick, stab, poke or hurt me?” with the perfectly legal black lie “No!” and “Why you shakin’ for?” with the well-known, innocent, black man response “Because! . . . .”.

Within two seconds, Officer McMillin feels the handgun Walker is carrying.  In turn, Walker feels Officer McMillin feel the weapon and does what any innocent black man would do under the circumstances.  He bolts.

A short foot chase ensues, during which the handgun Walker was carrying falls out of his clothing onto the asphalt street.  In plain view now, Officer McMillin recognizes the object on the ground as a weapon; and he sees Walker bend to pick it up.

Clearly, at this juncture, the “Michael Brown Doctrine” regarding impending bodily harm is invoked.  However, instead of waiting for Sharpton to appear in order to excuse Walker’s lie about the wedding handgun, to explain Walker’s fear, to justify Walker’s flight to avoid arrest, and to approve Walker’s rearming himself after dropping his weapon, Officer McMillin immediately and ruthlessly proceeds to fire his weapon five times, striking Walker three times.  This caused the death of this unfortunate, innocent, beautiful, black boy, whom everyone knows meant no harm with his (later discovered) fully loaded firearm, prevarication, and attempted innocent retrieval of his personal property that fell from his clothes while he was fleeing the police.

Third, consequently, while the failure of the Sharpton to appear in a timely manner to defuse this incident may be deemed a contributing cause in the death of Walker, this can be rectified by placing Al in charge of the Grand Jury commissioned to investigate this incident with the object of charging Officer McMillin with crimes for which the minimum punishment is death by simultaneous drawing, quartering, burning at the stake, firing squad, and electrocution.

Further, Oklahoma law requires burying while alive anyone who survives these punishments especially after being convicted of the kind of black oppression this video documents.

In the presence of this video, there can be little doubt about the virtue of Walker, now just another victim of white, racist, police, homicidal rage.  Also, in the presence of this video, there can be little speculation about either the unjustified racism or the barbaric brutality of Officer McMillin.

Officer McMillin has expressed no remorse for his participation in the extra-judicial assassination of Walker.  Instead, while shedding false tears, he wondered “Why did he (Walker) have to do that?”  One cannot be more callous than that.

Somebody ought to be ‘lynched’ in Muskogee, Oklahoma; there is no question about that.  We can only hope that our hero, Sharpton, will show up to witness these proceedings and to comment upon them.

The Four Fingers

The first finger is about your significant other, the rest are about you.

A friend of mine, from San Diego, is a widower.  Recently, three of us shared a vacation with him in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  Despite the fact that he lost his wife nearly ten years ago, he spoke often and lovingly of her while we were together.

His fond memories frequently seem rooted in his admiration of her creative ability to keep their relationship affectionate and peaceful.  In this vein, one of her techniques was to teach him about “The Four Fingers”:

The first finger (fore finger) stands for “You’re right.”

The second finger (middle finger) stands for “I’m wrong.”

The third finger (ring finger) stands for “I’m sorry.”

The fourth finger (pinky finger) stands for “How can I make it better for you next time, Honey?”

One might assume that the lover who discovers that he or she is incorrect on any disputed matter recites “The Four Fingers” to the other.  This misses the point.

Arguments between those who profess the significance of the other in their life are regularly the habitual rancor between two debaters, each of whom is convinced that they are correct to the extent that nothing will persuade them otherwise.  Reciting “The Four Fingers” to one’s cohort in such cases sends the message that the relationship is more important than winning.


Initially, reciting “The Four Fingers” to one’s partner is done explicitly and seriously.  Doing so associates the attached philosophy to the significant shift this represents in many relationships.  Certainly, sincerity should always be the foundation upon which this message is conveyed.

However, the magic associated with this message is that, once incorporated within the bond two people share, it only becomes necessary to wave the four fingers in the direction of one’s lover to cause both to smile with the understanding of an inside joke whose significant ramifications are often life changing.

The One Thing Government Should Provide

Barack Obama’s policies and governing style have been soundly rejected after last night’s elections.  Even Salon admits to a “shellacking”.  At the same time, Salon makes its standard dire (and stupid) predictions about what Republicans will now do to end the American utopia, as their editorial board envisions it.

Thom Tillis speaking to Collectivists

Such electoral turnovers are the easily predicted consequence when a president is chosen predicated upon his skin color and not upon the content of his character.  Thus, race is once again proven no indicator of leadership ability, intellectual capacity, or administrative competence.  Further, we now know that a resume of neighborhood organizing, teaching, and legislating at the State and federal level hardly qualifies one for the highest executive position in the land.

On the other hand, to the extent Salon’s predictions imply that Republican control of Congress is no panacea for what ails our country, they are correct.  Republicans and Democrats have both promoted sufficient numbers of self-serving and idiotic politicians to national office during the past eighty years to install a huge system by which many votes can, and are, purchased from the beneficiaries of the national dole.

Our national government now disburses all it collects, and two-thirds of all it spends, on those who claim to be unfortunate.  Few who go to Washington DC seem either courageous enough or smart enough to recognize this.


However, Thom Tillis, who took a seat away from incumbent Kay Hagan (no Democrat has been reelected to a congressional senate seat from North Carolina in 60 years), said this in his victory speech:

“. . . America is made great when we let Americans [not government] make America great, . . . ”  

“. . .  we [must] stop accepting this idea that people want to be provided for by government.  The problem with that is that the only way government can provide you with something is by taking it away from somebody else.”  

“There’s only one thing government can give you that doesn’t come at the expense of anyone else, and that’s Freedom.” 


I wonder how many others Senator Tillis will find in Washington DC who agree with these sentiments?  If there are enough, then there may be hope for America yet.

Race Baiters Aren’t Protesting Antonio Smith

Antonio Smith (pictured) was shot at least four times in a Chicago suburb this past Wednesday afternoon.  One bullet pierced his heart.

number one bro

He was a 9 year old fourth grader who left his apartment after a dispute with his mother.  He died near the border between two south-side Chicago gangs.

On this same day, an additional seven people were shot in Chicago, apparently all black, including a 17 year old boy who was the victim of a drive-by shooting.

Because all the perpetrators of the foregoing are known, or presumed to be, black, Al Sharpton will be unable to appear on their behalf to incite rioting or looting.  Also, Brittney Cooper will be unable write an article for Salon justifying black outrage over the death of Antonio Smith.  Finally, Chauncey DeVega will be unable to concoct ten more reasons to justify his view that white racism plays a role in . . . . . well . . . . .  everything.


Salon, three days after Antonio Smith’s death at the hands of unknown assailants, but more than two weeks after Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, at the hands of a white police officer, has 41 articles on its front page, of which 12 have the following titles:

·        Death in the suburbs: Why Ferguson’s tragedy is America’s story

·        White privilege: An insidious virus that’s eating America from within

·        Michael Brown, senseless death and the weight of history

·        How do you explain racism to your black son?

·        Ferguson is about net neutrality, too

·        Russell Brand absolutely demolishes Fox News over Ferguson coverage

·        Grand jury hearing evidence in Michael Brown case is 75 percent white

·        Dinesh D’Souza compares Ferguson protesters to ISIS

·        Researchers: Police likely provoke protestors — not the other way around

·        Ted Nugent on Ferguson: “Smear on”

·        Alabama teacher allegedly told students to re-enact the killings of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin

·        Ferguson and Gaza: The definitive study of how they are and are not similar

There is not one word from Salon about Antonio Smith.


Perhaps Al Sharpton has a legitimate excuse for missing the Antonio Smith case.  He is polishing his eulogy for Michael Brown, whose funeral will be on Monday, two days hence.

At this time, it is unknown what occupies Ms. Cooper’s or Mr. DeVega’s time to the extent where they cannot comment about Antonio Smith, or any other black-on-black death in Chicago, or elsewhere.


Despite all those (more notorious than the author) who seek credibility and (further) fame by agonizing over Michael Brown’s death alone, it might be time to seek credibility (but not noteriety) by agonizing over both his and Antonio Smith’s deaths.

In fact, it might be time to object to all unjustified deaths.

Salon vs Open Salon

Open Salon may again be more worthy of respect than its parent – Salon.

Today, Salon is full of the suicide of a famous comic.  This may be a saving grace, because, were it not for the distraction of the death of the famous, Salon may have populated its front page with more articles such as this one.

Michael Brown Memorial - Scott Olson/Getty

Written by Ms. Brittney Cooper (Instructor in Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University), the headline of the article proclaims a defence of the black rage of those in Ferguson, Missouri, who are protesting the killing of Michael Brown, a black, 6’ 4”, 300-pound, teenage boy.  He was shot to death by a local, on duty, policeperson.


The police version of this story is that Brown, after being approached by police in a car, attempted to reach into the police vehicle in order to seize the weapon of the police officer who eventually shot him.  Part of the ensuing fight took place inside the vehicle; and the police allege that at least one shot was fired inside the car during this initial confrontation.

The police story is, at the least, incomplete and, at the most, nonsense.  The unarmed victim was shot multiple times, mostly outside the police car.  His body lay uncovered for several hours during the subsequent investigation on the pavement where he died.


The outraged black version of this story is that Brown, while walking with a friend in the street, was approached by police in a car and told to walk on the adjacent sidewalk.  When the boys indicated that they would be home in one minute, and thereby out of the street at that time, one or more policemen exited the vehicle.

The boys ran.  During this foot chase, a white policeman shot Michael Brown.  The victim then raised his hands, while still standing, to surrender.  The policeman who shot him then fired several more times until Michael Brown fell.  Thereafter, this same officer shot the victim at least one more time as Michael lay on the ground.

The outraged black story is, at the least, inaccurate and incomplete.  At the most, it is the fiction derived from witnesses under peer pressure to depict the specific victimization of Michael Brown in the best possible light in order to support a community narrative of general victimization.  It’s neither likely that the police would claim a fight took place inside the police car unless they had solid evidence nor is it likely that the police would use deadly force against an unarmed citizen who had been fully cooperative.


Neither version of this story is relevant to the point, however.  The point is that Ms. Cooper, along with Al Sharpton, are ignoring all black shootings this past weekend, including 26 in Chicago, in favor of placing their sentiments, if not their bodies, in Ferguson, MO, where only one shooting of a black occurred this past Saturday.

Statistically, in every 100 shootings involving black victims in America, 94 will be perpetrated by blacks.  The remaining six will be perpetrated by non-blacks, of whom most will be Hispanic, fewer will be Caucasian, and practically none will be police officers, much less white police officers.  Yet, as common as it is for a black to shoot a black, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Sharpton will neither write, nor speak, about such “black-on-black” incidents.  Instead, they will pounce on the rare case where a black is shot by a (allegedly) white policeman.

Such suspicious activity begs a a review of Ms. Cooper’s titles at Salon.  This yields the result that almost all contain the words “white”, “black”, or “racial” in their names.

A reading of several of her two dozen contributions seems to confirm that her perspective on the world is informed almost solely by race.  She writes about events where she believes the outcomes are determined by race.  She writes about people whom she believes are racial antagonists of blacks or protagonists of white racism.

What escapes Ms. Cooper is that the unjustified homicide of an African American is as tragic whether shot by a black, white, man, woman, Catholic, Mormon, lawyer, doctor, or police officer.  Thus, she fails to write about the most common manner in which blacks become victims (by being attacked by other blacks) in favor of writing only about blacks becoming victims at the hands of whites.

This makes Ms. Cooper a racist.  Based on what inspires her to write, the only black deaths important to her are the statistically rare ones in which the perpetrator is white.

It’s not only nearly 16 times more probable that a black will be victimized by a black than a non-black, but it’s also true that blacks are the perpetrators in 53% of all shootings in America, while forming only 13% of the American population.  Yet, Ms. Cooper writes:

“But the answer . . . isn’t preaching to black people about “black-on-black” crime without full acknowledgment that most crime is intraracial (sic).”

Clearly, Ms. Cooper is correct in her claim that crimes against blacks are mostly “intraracial” (sic).  Such crime, at least with respect to weaponized murder, both attempted and realized, is predominantly “black-on-black”.  Theredfore, why does she only write on the victimization of blacks when the perpetrators are allegedly white?

Again, according to the foregoing, this is also irrelevant.  The black victim is just as dead no matter who did the shooting – a distinction either lost on, or unimportant to, Ms. Cooper.


The comparative absence of articles such as Ms. Cooper’s on Open Salon is a credit to those who write here.  The child is once again more intelligent than the parent.

In addition, it’s nice that Al Sharpton condemned the looting and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri over the past two days.  On the other hand, Ms. Cooper approved the looting.

Unfortunately, both claim that blacks must “fight back”.

Against what?

Michael Brown Protest - Scott Olson/Getty

The best summation here might be to observe that there is a clear racial component to homicidal violence perpetrated against blacks.  Unfortunately, neither Ms. Cooper, nor Mr. Sharpton, nor Salon can deduce, or recognize, what it is.