Who is killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks. In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The Post categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest. Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer. Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers—committed vastly and disproportionately by black males. Among all homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only 243.
Violent crime has now risen by a significant amount for two consecutive years. The total number of violent crimes rose 4.1 percent in 2016, and estimated homicides rose 8.6 percent. In 2015, violent crime rose by nearly 4 percent and estimated homicides by nearly 11 percent. The last time violence rose two years in a row was 2005–06. The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect. Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it. Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.
Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.
-
No comments on Protesting the wrong thing
-
We begin with this unusual event: Today in 1978, the members of Aerosmith bailed out 30 of their fans who were arrested at their concert in Fort Wayne, Ind., for smoking marijuana:
Britain’s number one single today in 1987:
Today in 1992 on NBC-TV’s “Saturday Night Live,” Sinead O’Connor torpedoed her own career:
-
Dan Mitchell blogs from Iceland …
… for a conference organized by the European Students for Liberty. I spoke earlier today on the case for lower taxes and I made six basic points.
- Taxes undermine prosperity.
- Taxes reduce competitiveness.
- Taxes are self-destructive.
- Taxes are unfair and corrupt.
- Taxes are immoral.
- Taxes “feed the beast.”
Sadly, not everyone agrees with my views, either in Iceland or the United States.
Regarding the latter, Robert Samuelson expressed a contrary position last month when writing about the tax debate in the Washington Post.
…we need higher, not lower, taxes. …We are undertaxed. Government spending, led by the cost of retirees, regularly exceeds our tax intake.
After reading his column, I thought about putting together a detailed response. I was especially tempted to debunk the carbon tax, which is his preferred way of generating additional tax revenue.
But then it occurred to me that could make an “appeal to authority.” In my Iceland presentation today, I cited very wise words from four former presidents on tax policy. And their statements are all that we need to dismiss Samuelson’s column.
We’ll start with Thomas Jefferson, who argues for small government and against income taxation.
We then take a trip through history so we can see what Grover Cleveland said about the topic.
Simply stated, he viewed any taxes – above what was needed to finance a minimal state – as “ruthless extortion.”
The great Calvin Coolidge said the same thing about four decades later.
Last but not least, the Gipper addresses Samuelson’s point about the difference between taxes and spending.
Reagan is right, of course. The burden of federal spending is the problem whether looking at pre-World War II data or post-World War II data.
Four good points of view from four good Presidents.
The only missing component is that I need to find a President who correctly explains that higher taxes will lead to higher spending and more red ink.
… I would tell you that Govzilla’s ability to suck up revenue exceeds our ability to increase revenue by increasing taxes. Deficits do matter, but between the lack of control over spending, the historically proven fact that tax increases never raise as much revenue as projected, the fact that economic growth and not tax increases increases tax revenues, and the fact that economic growth is what is required to reduce the deficit … well, there’s my message. -
It would take a genius to ease the antagonisms surrounding the national anthem controversy. I know just the man for the job. His name is Ray Charles.
Often called “the Genius” during a long career, Ray Charles performed unique combinations of rock, country, rhythm and blues, soul, blues, jazz and gospel with such energy and style that he invited fans of one culture to cross over and taste the flavor of another. The fact that he was blind from childhood only added to the mystery of his mastery. He attracted appreciation from white folks and black folks, listeners from the country and the city, rich people and poor people, the up-and-coming and the down-and-out.
“This may sound like sacrilege,” said another piano man, Billy Joel, “but I think Ray Charles was more important than Elvis Presley.”
I remember well the day he died: June 10, 2004. I was in New Orleans, scheduled to deliver a professional workshop on writing and music. A day earlier, a young woman slammed a car door on my left hand. When it was time for the workshop and I sat down at the piano, I learned the meaning of playing with pain. Using just one finger to play the bass notes, I offered my best tribute to Charles, brief versions of “What I Say” and “Georgia on My Mind.”
This tribute wasn’t planned, but I was inspired by what I had seen that morning on the news. It turns out that former President Ronald Reagan had died just five days before Charles. The two had a fine moment together during the final minutes of the 1984 Republican National Convention. Ray delivered his gospel version of “America the Beautiful.”
The effect was mesmerizing. While the crowd was overwhelmingly white, you could not help but notice a change in its demeanor. Some cried. Some swayed. Some nodded and looked up as if it were their first visit to a black church. The Reagans and the Bushes looked on with a curiosity that turned to warmth and then delight. When it was over, Reagan and Vice President George Bush climbed down to where Charles had been at the piano and lifted him up to the top of the stage, where the love of the crowd could wash over him.
Move forward now to Oct. 28, 2001. It is the second game of the World Series between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the New York Yankees, a series delayed by the attacks of 9/11. The debris of the Twin Towers had fallen on a cross-section of Americans, and for a brief interval we were together in our misery, and resolved toward our recovery. Who better to express this emotion than the Genius. At a piano on home plate he once again performed “America the Beautiful.” As he sang and played with an easy soulful pace, people on the field, soldiers and first-responders unrolled a flag that covered the entire outfield. Cheers went up. When they created the illusion of the flag waving, cheers reached a crescendo. Charles rose from the piano bench. I am not sure I have ever seen a performer so moved by the response of an audience. It was almost a dance of delight, holding his face, hugging his body in recognition.
“The Star-Spangled Banner,” “God Bless America,” “This Land is Your Land” and “America the Beautiful” have all made a claim to be America’s song. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Our national anthem (like the Pledge of Allegiance) too often carries with it a formalized test of patriotism: “Please rise and remove your caps …” (Hey, this is America. Don’t tell me what to do.)
Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America” is easier to sing, but it can be rendered and received in a way that seems cloyingly sentimental. Woody Guthrie wrote “This Land is Your Land” in response to Berlin’s anthem, with choruses that focus on the poor and dispossessed who do not feel so blessed. To my ear, “America the Beautiful“ — at least the version rendered by Charles — exceeds all of them in its ability to raise our collective spirits.
It was not just this song that allowed Charles to use his powers for healing and reconciliation. In 1966, the Georgia State Assembly refused to seat an elected African-American, Julian Bond, because of his supposedly unpatriotic opposition to the Vietnam War. It took a unanimous Supreme Court decision to seat him.
Turn the calendar forward 13 years to March 7, 1979, to that same body. In what was considered a symbol of reconciliation and racial progress, Charles performed his version of the Hoagy Carmichael ballad “Georgia on My Mind.” At the end the assembly rose as one in tribute. The speaker honored him with having performed a miracle, bringing political antagonists in the legislature together. One month later, they voted to adopt Charles’ version as Georgia’s official state song.
The song “America the Beautiful“ has its own rich and complex history, giving Charles the artistic freedom to make it his own. That history begins in 1893 when a young English professor from Wellesley College, Katharine Lee Bates, makes a trip across the country to Colorado. From the top of Pikes Peak, she is inspired by natural beauty she has seen. To honor that vision, she composes a poem, America, published in a church magazine for the Fourth of July. After some reworking, the stanzas of the poem become the lyrics of a song. A New Jersey composer, Samuel A. Ward, wrote the music. Over the first half of the 20th century, the popularity of “America the Beautiful” grew and grew, sung in churches, classrooms and patriotic festivals.
Charles recorded the song in 1972.
In live performances he followed a consistent pattern, flavored by the improvisations we associate with gospel and soul music. He adds “I’m talkin’ about America” and “I love America, and you should too,” and “Sweet America,” fervent ornaments that offended the few but inspired the many — including my dad.
He begins his version, curiously, with the third of four verses, perhaps the least well-known.
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America!
America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine!
Written just three decades after the end of the Civil War, those lines evoke the most traditional tropes of America’s civic religion. They include the heroes who give their lives to protect the country and keep it free. They remind us that we are an exceptional country, blessed by God but imperfect in his eyes. Its gold must be refined. The second stanza prays that “God mend” America’s “every flaw.”
What happens next in the Ray Charles version is especially interesting. He speaks directly to the audience over the music, “When I was in school we used to say it something like this. …” Only then does he sing the original first verse, familiar to generations.
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America!
America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
It invites the audience to sing along, and we often do, a call-and-response pattern familiar in many churches and a powerful expression of unity, community, love of country — with all its flaws. Sisterhood and brotherhood — from the man who liked to be called not a genius, but “Brother Ray.”
It should be obvious by now that I love Ray’s version. When I sit down at my 100-year-old upright piano and try to play it the way he did, I always wind up crying. But I love “The Star-Spangled Banner” too, even with all those bombs bursting and its two challenging high notes.
There are hundreds of interesting versions, many available on YouTube, including ones in which African-Americans have offered their special take. We know what Jimi Hendrix did with his magical guitar in 1969 at Woodstock.
In 1983, Marvin Gaye shocked the world with his slow-jam version before the NBA All-Star Game, the only version of the anthem I have ever seen in which the audience was moved to rhythmically clap along.
Whitney Houston gave us the most elegant version before the 1991 Super Bowl.
Maybe my favorite anthem moment was provided in 2003 by NBA coach Maurice Cheeks, who rushed to the rescue of a 13-year-old girl who forgot the lyrics. Mike Lupica once referred to this move, by the former point guard, as Cheeks’ “greatest assist.”
I am not advocating replacing the national anthem. I am proposing, instead, that some group (the NFL, MLB, Congress, the Georgia state legislature, ESPN) offer the Ray Charles version of “America the Beautiful” as our hymn of national unity and racial reconciliation. My dream is to one day attend an NFL football game when, at halftime, an image appears on the screen. It is Ray Charles at the piano. As he sings and swings, and hums and prays, we see a montage of images: Americans, including professional athletes, working to help each other through storm and strife. Working across difference to find unity and build community. From sea to shining sea.
-
Today in 1953, Victor Borge’s “Comedy in Music” opened on Broadway, closing 849 performances later. (Pop.)
Today in 1960, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs released “Stay,” which would become the shortest number one single of all time:
The number one single today in 1965:
-
I present the number one single today in 1977 to demonstrate that popularity and quality are not always synonymous:
The number one single today in 1983:
Today in 2004, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne officially opened AC/DC Lane, named for the band, to the bagpipes from …
Birthdays begin with actor Richard Harris, who “sang” …
-
-
Once again, it is time following a Packers win to observe the reaction from the opposing camp.
Last night’s 35–14 Packers lightning-delayed win over Da Bears generated 10 thoughts from the Chicago Tribune’s Brad Biggs, including …
1. The undoing of Mike Glennon is going to be the turnovers. When you heard coach John Fox talk about the quarterback position and reference the kind of play the organization got from the three-headed monster it had at the position a year ago, he was talking about the interceptions that put the Bears in a tough spot. Well, at 1-3 right now and chasing in the NFC North, the Bears are in a jam as Glennon has turned the ball over eight times (five interceptions, three fumbles). It’s not about throwing the ball downfield and stretching the defense and check-down passes and all of the other topics that have been raised. It’s about protecting the football. Passing yardage isn’t a very useful statistical tool when it comes to determining the outcome of a game. Turnover margin is one of the best statistical tools and once again the Bears are getting hammered in that category. The Bears and Packers are the only teams to complete four games and we’ll see what the chart looks like at the end of the weekend but right now the Bears are, you guessed it, 32nd in the NFL in turnover margin at minus-7. The Bengals and Browns, who do battle Sunday in the Battle of Ohio, are each minus-5. Maybe one of them will have a particularly unsightly game and that will move the Bears out of 32nd. The point is the turnovers can’t happen for a team with slim margin for error. …
Glennon needed to get the ball out of his hand quicker on the first turnover, the sack by Clay Matthews. Glennon executed a play fake and was looking to take a deep shot downfield on the first snap of the game. The Bears asked tight end Dion Sims to solo block Clay Matthews. That seems like an unnecessarily risky maneuver right off the bat and it didn’t work. The fumble that resulted when a shotgun snap went off Glennon’s shin was the result of poor communication between him and center Cody Whitehair. When I talked to Whitehair, he told me the snap was on two and he was at fault for snapping it too soon. Glennon said they were both at fault. It was hard to see what went wrong on the first interception intended for Markus Wheaton but the ball wasn’t close. It appeared like Deonte Thompson ran a particularly poor route on the second interception.
This is precisely what the Bears hoped to avoid this season.
2. I would have concern that the wide receiver position is so undermanned that Trubisky has little chance to be successful if the Bears do make a change at quarterback. Unless he’s the next coming of Aaron Rodgers, who sat for the first three seasons of his career, Trubisky will have a difficult time making a go of it with the wide receivers on the roster. He’s not a magic fix for what ails the passing game. After giving this some consideration, and four games into the season is enough consideration, I think it’s fair to say this is the worst crop of receivers the Bears have had in an awful long time. For a couple weeks I’ve been weighing the 2011 group, which wasn’t good. Now that we’re at the quarter point of the season, I think it’s a fair call. That group had Johnny Knoxaverage 19.6 yards per reception even though he caught only 37 balls. The rest of the group included Roy Williams, Dan Sanzenbacher, Devin Hester, Earl Bennettand of course, Sam Hurd.
The Bears knew when training camp opened that they did not have an optimal group of wide receivers and that it would be a challenge. Cameron Meredith and Kevin White were injured and now they’re looking at a real problem such that I think it’s going to be difficult for Trubisky to perform. They’re not going to suddenly run better routes because a different quarterback is in the game. The absolute worst thing that can happen to the Bears is they send Glennon to the bench because of the turnovers and insert Trubisky and then he struggles badly because, in part, the skill position talent around him is deficient. That would be disastrous. You just have doubts about what this group can accomplish and Wheaton now had two games under his belt but 0 catches. Everyone calling for Trubisky to play needs to realize this group is a very significant part of the issues plaguing the passing game and the offense as a whole.
So do you push Trubisky into action because Glennon has been a major problem? Is the one extra practice the Bears will have with the “mini-bye” as coach Fox alluded to going to make much of a difference? It’s not just dropped passes through four games that are on the wide receivers. It’s interceptions too.
3. If the Bears are extremely lucky, the NFL will only fine linebacker Danny Trevathan for the brutal head shot on Packers wide receiver Davante Adams. The fear has to be Trevathan will be suspended by the NFL for an egregious shot that sent Adams to the hospital. It used to be that suspensions were reserved for repeat offenders, a category that does not include Trevathan. However, the NFL passed a rule change this year that illegal hits to the head can be considered for suspension. Considering the NFL has an image issue with player safety and considering this game was nationally broadcast and considering that hit was just plain awful, I think Trevathan could be suspended by the league here. Safety Adrian Amos had stopped Adams’ forward progress when Trevathan arrived at full speed, driving his helmet into Adams’ facemask.
“I regret just the level I hit him at,” Trevathan said. “I could have been a little better. But you have to understand I was (gathering) momentum and I was just trying to make a play. Nothing intentional. It happens in this game.
“I don’t think it should be a suspension. But you never know. I’m going to send a prayer out. My main concern is that he’s OK. It was bad. I never wish that on anybody. Especially after being hurt (myself) a few times, I know how that is. And especially with the head and the neck, you never wish that on anybody. You never want to see that.”
The good news is the Packers had positive reports on Adams late Thursday night. Trevathan doesn’t have a reputation for being a dirty player but this hit crossed the line and it would not be surprising to see the league suspend him.
4. The Bears really had a shot to win this game. Consider Packers left tackle David Bakhtiari and right tackle Bryan Bulaga were both sidelined. Green Bay’s top two reserve tackles were already on injured reserve so they effectively started center Corey Linsley and four guards. Add in the fact that defensive tackle Mike Daniels, their best player on that side of the ball was out, and you have another advantage for the Bears. Then consider that running back Ty Montgomery was knocked out of the game on the opening series with what has been reported to be broken ribs and the Packers were very shorthanded. The Bears should have created more problems for their offense but Green Bay came out and ran the ball right at the Bears. I think that set the tone for the entire game. Five of the first six plays were runs by Montgomery to gain 28 yards and then Rodgers opened things up a little bit. The Bears’ pressure amounted to two sacks, one for Leonard Floyd and one for Pernell McPhee. It was good for Floyd to break through for his first one of the season but this was a complete rag-tag assembly on the offensive line and the Bears did nothing to take advantage of it.
“We got outcoached, we got outplayed in every area,” Fox said.
I asked McPhee if the Bears expected to cause more havoc for the Packers.
“Yeah, we did,” McPhee said. “But we know Aaron Rodgers. He wasn’t going to let us do that. If you watch it, two seconds, he was catching it, slinging it. He’s a great quarterback. He made adjustments. He did sprint outs, all types of stuff to slow us down.”
5. Week 4 is the first time the Bears got the offensive line set as Josh Sittonreturned after missing a week with a broken rib. Sitton lined up at left guard and Kyle Long played right guard, where he was last week against the Steelers. You will recall the plan hatched early in the offseason was to have the guards swap positions. Clearly, the Bears have shelved that for right now and for good reason. …
8. Roberto Aguayo isn’t the answer, I think the Bears learned that. But Connor Barth isn’t going to be able to miss many more kicks before the team explores some options there. Barth was wide right from 47 yards and that’s the same distance he missed wide right last week against the Steelers. Barth is 2 for 4 on the season and he coaches are comfortable with him but they’re not going to put up with many more misses. Who knows? Maybe they take a look at a few legs in the next week or so.
9. Talk about a white flag possession. That’s one what former Bears assistant coach said — that the Bears are waving the white flag — after a 15-play, 75-yard drive that took 8 minutes, 59 seconds off the clock in the fourth quarter. Jordan Howard scored on a 3-yard run, but it was an extra methodical drive that started after the Bears fell behind 35-7. I chalk that up to Fox knowing his turnover-prone offense wasn’t going to strike for four touchdown in the fourth quarter. But there was some reaction on Twitter about it and one former coach was wondering the exact same thing. That’s the pitfall of playing poorly in prime time. The other 31 teams see you. …
10c. Too many Packers uncovered too often in this one. How is Jordy Nelson uncovered in the end zone? That’s got to be cleaned up on defense. Imagine if that happened in a close game.
-
Dog owner Jonah Goldberg:
One of my favorite kinds of news stories is the report of a new scientific study that verifies the obvious. You’ve seen them. New research finds that heterosexual men are attracted to very attractive women. Evidence collected by wildlife researchers has confirmed that bears really do use the woods as toilets.
But some research that corroborates the obvious is exciting because some people refuse to accept the obvious.
Which brings me to the work of Dr. Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist at Emory University and the author of What It’s Like to Be a Dog. Berns has, from what I can tell, the best gig in neuroscience. He spends all day taking pictures of dog brains. Don’t worry: He doesn’t remove them. He uses magnetic resonance imaging to study what’s going on in Fido’s head. It’s tougher than it sounds because the dogs have to hold absolutely still for Berns to get a good read. But that’s OK. They got the goodest doggos around, as folks on dog-obsessed Twitter might say, to volunteer.
And what did Berns discover? Something that almost every dog owner in the world could have told you: Dogs aren’t faking it when they act like they love you. Because it’s not an act.
Berns and his team confirmed this through a host of tests that looked at different centers of the doggie brain and how they responded to different stimuli. In one test they alternated between giving the pooches hot dogs (the food, not Dachshunds) and offering them praise. Looking at the pleasure centers of the dogs’ brains, the researchers found that nearly all the dogs responded to “Who’s a good boy?! You are!” (or whatever they actually said) with at least as much pleasure as when they got a Hebrew National. A fifth of the dogs actually preferred praise to food.
Berns concluded that dogs derive as much pleasure from love as from food.
As a somewhat obsessed dog guy, I’m the first to concede that a central tenet of doggie philosophy is to reject the whole love-vs.-food paradigm as a false choice. Dogs are committed to the idea that there is no such thing as too much of a good thing. But as almost anyone who has come home to their dog after an extended absence will tell you, dogs don’t go bonkers for missing loved ones solely because they think there’s a meal in it for them.
And yet, there are people who argue almost precisely that. There’s what I would call the dumb version and the smart version of that particular school of thought. The dumb version, as the label suggests, is dumb. It can be found in people who say things like, “Dogs just lick you for the salt,” or, “It’s just an animal; you shouldn’t care about its feelings.”
The smart version has more merit. Evolutionary psychologists and other scientists label dogs “social parasites” or, in the words of some, “con artists.” They claim that dogs evolved from wolves to exploit our weakness for cuteness. They also note that dogs evolved an ability found almost nowhere else in the animal world: to read human body language and expressions. Indeed, Berns found evidence of this in his MRI studies.
Some, rightly, reject the term “parasitism” in favor of “mutualism,” because while dogs certainly benefitted from the warmth of cavemen’s campfires and the tossed scraps from their mastodon kills, they also made important contributions as guard dogs and hunters. Pat Shipman even speculates in The Invaders: How Humans and Their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction that dogs gave us a competitive advantage against our (presumably) hated rivals, the Neanderthals. Dogs — or proto-wolf/dogs — weren’t so much pets as allies in hunting big game, helping us evolve as a cooperative species.
I think that’s all true, or at least quite plausible. But what it leaves out is the ingredient missing in almost all discussions of evolved behavior and genetic programming — not just for dogs but for people, too. Dogs obviously evolved to depend on humans, but humans also evolved to depend on dogs. From our genes’ perspective, we love our children to ensure that our DNA lives to see another day. But that’s not how we consciously think about it, nor does that explanation diminish the experience of love or make it any less real.
Dog genes may be designed to con us, but the dogs themselves aren’t in on the caper. They just love us, because that’s what dogs do.
-
The number eight song today in 1958:
Today in 1967, the Beatles mixed “I Am the Walrus,” which combined three songs John Lennon had been writing. The song includes the sounds of a radio going up and down the dial, ending at a BBC presentation of William Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” Lennon had read that a teacher at his primary school was having his students analyze Beatles lyrics, Lennon reportedly added one nonsensical verse, although arguably none of the verses make much sense:
The number 71 …
… number 51 …
… number 27 …
… number 20 …
… number eight …
… number six …
… number three …
… and number one singles today in 1973:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 