The WWE released their 2nd quarter numbers yesterday. I wanted to see their attendance numbers, so I looked at their Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the 2nd quarter. The WWE listed their average attendance at 5.8 thousand, or 5800 in 53 shows. Not counting WrestleMania it's 4700. Now those averages aren't exact. It they are just rounding to n If they rounded to the nearest hundred , the high estimate for the attendance at WrestleMania 35 is 68249, and the low estimate is 57751. If you treat it like the averages are exact, WrestleMania attendance would had to have been 63,000. Now the WWE announced an attendance of 82,265, and even the high estimate comes well short of that number. It is well known that the WWE lies about their attendance. Each year right after WrestleMania, I wait for the real WrestleMania attendance to be revealed. Prowrestlinghistory.com list the attendance for the event at 74,000, but even that is well above the high estimate, and 11,000 more than the middle estimate of 63000. Now the WWE's averages could be paid attendance, but their KPI doesn't mention that it's paid attendance.
Whether the attendance averages listed in the WWE KPI is paid or total attendance, it's obvious that the WWE lies about their attendance. They routinely list attendance figures stadium shows that they can't get in those stadiums, especially when you factor in how many seats are blocked by the WWE set design.
WWE Key Performance Indicators
https://corporate.wwe.com/~/media/Files/W/WWE/press-releases/2019/q2-2019-kpi.pdf
Friday, July 26, 2019
Friday, May 24, 2019
McNabb vs Aikman
To be fair to Donovan McNabb he didn't say he was better than Troy Aikman, but in making his case for why he was a Hall of Famer, he said that he had better numbers than Aikman. So I figured that I would compare McNabb's career to Aikman's. From the standpoint of traditional passer rating McNabb does have a better career rating to Aikman, but things tend to be easier for passers as the years go by. McNabb has a career passer rating of 85.6, which is better than Aikman's 81.6. Pro Football Reference has a stat called Passer Rating Index, or Rate+, that compares a quarterback's rating to the league average, where the league average is set at 100. They don't show the career rating for either McNabb, or Aikman, but that's where some good algebra comes into play. I can take a very good guess as to each player's rating by looking at their rating each season, and factoring in their pass attempts in each season. My estimates are 106.29 for McNabb, and 105.79 for Aikman. That's a slight edge for McNabb, but it's not much to choose from. While they don't have Passer Rating Index for the playoffs, Aikman's career postseason rating is 88.3, and McNabb's is 80.0. So Aikman has the edge there without even adjusting for the higher passer efficiency in McNabb's era. McNabb was obviously the better runner, but he also got sacked more often. While people may talk about how great the Cowboys' offensive line was, when you get past the Super Bowl years, there were some tough years for the Dallas' offense. One of the drawbacks about running quarterbacks is that they do get sacked more often, so this isn't all out offensive line. McNabb's sack percentage is 7.1 for his career, and for Aikman it's 5.2. In the postseason it's 6.3 for Aikman, 7.7 for McNabb. Lower is better for that stat. Sack Percentage Index works much like Passer Rating Index, adjusting for league average with 100 being average. In terms of that statistics a higher rating means that a quarterback was sacked less often compared to average. Once again using some math, I estimate Aikman's Sack Percentage Index at 110.11, and McNabb's at 95.52. Another thing to factor in was that Aikman was on more of a running team. Having Emmitt Smith around certainly helped Aikman, but it didn't help his touchdown numbers. The Cowboys usually gave the ball to Emmitt when they got close to the goal line. Football Outsiders' stats are very complex. When it comes to their DYAR (Defense Adjusted Yards Above Replacement) stat, Aikman had 7602 DYAR on 4932 pass plays, compared to McNabb's 5338, on 5776 pass plays. The Dallas Cowboys offense, in their 90s peak, was a ball control offense, and Aikman was one of the most accurate quarterbacks of all time. That helped Dallas to move the chains, and keep control of the ball.
The biggest difference between Aikman, and McNabb's Hall of Fame credentials is that Aikman won 3 Super Bowls. The list of quarterbacks with 3 or more Super Bowl victories isn't long. In fact it's just Aikman, Montana, Bradshaw, and Brady. 3 of them are in the Hall of Fame, and the other, Tom Brady, is a shoe in to get in, and the consensus greatest quarterback of all time. Aikman didn't just win 3 Super Bowls. He was important to those teams. He had one of the all time great postseasons for a quarterback in the 92-93 postseason where he threw 8 touchdowns without a single interception. In all three of those seasons Troy was one of the best quarterbacks in the league in the regular season, and he was very efficient each of postseason. McNabb never had a playoff run as good as what Aikman had during those Super Bowl seasons. McNabb has no Super Bowl wins. As unfair as it may seem, that is a large part of how quarterbacks are judged. McNabb led his Eagles to five NFC championships games, but lost 4 of them. They lost the 1 Super Bowl he got to, and his performance in that game wasn't that good. In terms of stats McNabb has the edge on Aikman in when it comes to traditional stats in the regular season, but Aikman has the edge in the playoffs. In terms of advanced statistics, the edge is clearly on Aikman's side. Should McNabb be in the Hall of Fame? That's hard to say. Right now I would say no. He put up good stats, but he did it in an era where a lot of quarterbacks put up big numbers. If McNabb had won 1 Super Bowl, he would probably be in the Hall of Fame right now.
The biggest difference between Aikman, and McNabb's Hall of Fame credentials is that Aikman won 3 Super Bowls. The list of quarterbacks with 3 or more Super Bowl victories isn't long. In fact it's just Aikman, Montana, Bradshaw, and Brady. 3 of them are in the Hall of Fame, and the other, Tom Brady, is a shoe in to get in, and the consensus greatest quarterback of all time. Aikman didn't just win 3 Super Bowls. He was important to those teams. He had one of the all time great postseasons for a quarterback in the 92-93 postseason where he threw 8 touchdowns without a single interception. In all three of those seasons Troy was one of the best quarterbacks in the league in the regular season, and he was very efficient each of postseason. McNabb never had a playoff run as good as what Aikman had during those Super Bowl seasons. McNabb has no Super Bowl wins. As unfair as it may seem, that is a large part of how quarterbacks are judged. McNabb led his Eagles to five NFC championships games, but lost 4 of them. They lost the 1 Super Bowl he got to, and his performance in that game wasn't that good. In terms of stats McNabb has the edge on Aikman in when it comes to traditional stats in the regular season, but Aikman has the edge in the playoffs. In terms of advanced statistics, the edge is clearly on Aikman's side. Should McNabb be in the Hall of Fame? That's hard to say. Right now I would say no. He put up good stats, but he did it in an era where a lot of quarterbacks put up big numbers. If McNabb had won 1 Super Bowl, he would probably be in the Hall of Fame right now.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Is There A Racist Agenda To Put Attention On Black Men For Sex Crimes: Rape Statistics
In wake of the allegations against R. Kelly there were a number of black people who just didn't want to say bad things about R. Kelly. One popular thing to do was to divert attention away from R. Kelly and to some white men who been accused of sex crimes.
I'm not completely against diverting as a argument, but it depends on what point are you trying to make. If that point is that white men are getting away with these things, and the media wants to put the attention on black men, then I don't believe that is a good point. Still numbers are important. What are the statistics
Let's look at some rape arrest for the past five years of full FBI crime data (2013-2017). It's worth noting according to how the FBI counts race, in which many Hispanics are counted as white, there are about 6 times as many white people in the country as black people. So if rape arrests happened at an even rate there should be 6 times as many arrests for whites as there are for blacks
Rape Arrest 2013-17
Year Black White
2013 4,229 8,946
2014 4,888 10,977
2015 4,907 11,809
2016 5,412 12,571
2017 5,182 12,187
Totals 24,618 56,490
So there were 2.29 times as many arrests of white people for rape as there were for black people. Adjusting for population, a black person is more likely to be arrested for rape than a white person. Over these five years totals arrests for rape add up 83,880. That means that black people who make up 13% of the population accounted for 29.3% of rape arrests, and whites who make up 77% of the country accounted for 67.3% of rape arrests. So while black people are overrepresented, white people are underrepresented. Now when it comes to people that get away with rape, it's tough to assume. Some would think that white people get away with it more, but you can make an argument it's the other way around, because black people are less likely to call the police. Whatever the case, the numbers don't back up the idea that this is a white problem. So next time I see, or hear some black supremacist talking about all the white racists, I will know that the total numbers show that rape is more of a problem among black people. Based on numbers they aren't putting a black face on a white problem.
Tariq Nasheed has started this ThemFirst thing. The main purpose of it seems to be when a black celebrity, especially one he likes, is facing serious charges, just divert by talking about some white people who may or may not have done similar. Nasheed is a major racist, and just wants to throw white people under the bus, but what he's doing isn't uncommon among blacks people. T.I. mentioned Elvis Presley, and Hugh Hefner, even though I don't know of sexual crimes that they were charged for. Harvey Weinstein has been a popular name. The main feeling they have is that black celebrities are being targeted, which is just not true. There have been plenty shows, and documentaries talking about foul shit done by white people, whether it's sexual or not. Tariq must not be paying much attention to those. Before there was Surviving R. Kelly, there was Scientology and The Aftermath. While it hasn't been about sexual offenses, the show just finished it's third season going after the Church of Scientology, and destroying it's image. The Church of Scientology has used plenty arguments to defend themselves, and tricks to get people to pay attention to it. One thing they didn't do was throw black people under the bus by talking about black religious organizations, or leaders, that have done bad things. Imagine if a famous person defending Scientology said that this was a part of an agenda to put the attention on white people, and then named several black people who they wanted to get similar attention. That strategy wouldn't work. Another thing about this. When I was looking up Elvis, I found out about Chuck Berry getting locked up for crossing state lines with a 14 year for sexual purposes. Even if this whole, put the attention on whitey, thing took off (it probably isn't going that far), it's simply going to lead to more attention being put on black people. That could bring up some things from way back, and have us looking things people did a long time ago with 2019 lenses. While some people may be thinking of all the white men that they think did similar wrongs, another person might be thinking of men that did similar wrongs, and not specifically for men of one race.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
I'm not completely against diverting as a argument, but it depends on what point are you trying to make. If that point is that white men are getting away with these things, and the media wants to put the attention on black men, then I don't believe that is a good point. Still numbers are important. What are the statistics
Let's look at some rape arrest for the past five years of full FBI crime data (2013-2017). It's worth noting according to how the FBI counts race, in which many Hispanics are counted as white, there are about 6 times as many white people in the country as black people. So if rape arrests happened at an even rate there should be 6 times as many arrests for whites as there are for blacks
Rape Arrest 2013-17
Year Black White
2013 4,229 8,946
2014 4,888 10,977
2015 4,907 11,809
2016 5,412 12,571
2017 5,182 12,187
Totals 24,618 56,490
So there were 2.29 times as many arrests of white people for rape as there were for black people. Adjusting for population, a black person is more likely to be arrested for rape than a white person. Over these five years totals arrests for rape add up 83,880. That means that black people who make up 13% of the population accounted for 29.3% of rape arrests, and whites who make up 77% of the country accounted for 67.3% of rape arrests. So while black people are overrepresented, white people are underrepresented. Now when it comes to people that get away with rape, it's tough to assume. Some would think that white people get away with it more, but you can make an argument it's the other way around, because black people are less likely to call the police. Whatever the case, the numbers don't back up the idea that this is a white problem. So next time I see, or hear some black supremacist talking about all the white racists, I will know that the total numbers show that rape is more of a problem among black people. Based on numbers they aren't putting a black face on a white problem.
Tariq Nasheed has started this ThemFirst thing. The main purpose of it seems to be when a black celebrity, especially one he likes, is facing serious charges, just divert by talking about some white people who may or may not have done similar. Nasheed is a major racist, and just wants to throw white people under the bus, but what he's doing isn't uncommon among blacks people. T.I. mentioned Elvis Presley, and Hugh Hefner, even though I don't know of sexual crimes that they were charged for. Harvey Weinstein has been a popular name. The main feeling they have is that black celebrities are being targeted, which is just not true. There have been plenty shows, and documentaries talking about foul shit done by white people, whether it's sexual or not. Tariq must not be paying much attention to those. Before there was Surviving R. Kelly, there was Scientology and The Aftermath. While it hasn't been about sexual offenses, the show just finished it's third season going after the Church of Scientology, and destroying it's image. The Church of Scientology has used plenty arguments to defend themselves, and tricks to get people to pay attention to it. One thing they didn't do was throw black people under the bus by talking about black religious organizations, or leaders, that have done bad things. Imagine if a famous person defending Scientology said that this was a part of an agenda to put the attention on white people, and then named several black people who they wanted to get similar attention. That strategy wouldn't work. Another thing about this. When I was looking up Elvis, I found out about Chuck Berry getting locked up for crossing state lines with a 14 year for sexual purposes. Even if this whole, put the attention on whitey, thing took off (it probably isn't going that far), it's simply going to lead to more attention being put on black people. That could bring up some things from way back, and have us looking things people did a long time ago with 2019 lenses. While some people may be thinking of all the white men that they think did similar wrongs, another person might be thinking of men that did similar wrongs, and not specifically for men of one race.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
Saturday, March 9, 2019
For Michael Jackson's Legacy Things Are Going To Get Worse
The Leaving Neverland documentary has caused a lot commotion to say the least. The documentary has mostly received negative reviews, from a general public that still loves Michael Jackson. Wade Robson, and James Safechuck have received much backlash. A popular opinion from Jackson fans is that they lied for the money, but seems to be a strange way to try to get some cash. Even if they would've won and gotten millions from Jackson's estate (which they didn't), their reputations are in shambles. Who knows what backlash they receive from Jackson's fans, but you have to think it's really bad. With all the video they have of themselves hanging out with Michael Jackson there had to have been an easier way to cash in. Robson, and Safechuck are not icons. That is what Michael Jackson is, and it will be his image that will take the biggest hit over time. I believe Michael Jackson molested some boys, but even for some who don't believe, or who aren't sure, it might be easier to just avoid the controversy.
We are already starting to see it. His music has been removed from some streaming services. An episode of the Simpsons from 1991 that features Jackson's voice, has been pulled. For Michael Jackson's fans, things are going to get worse before they start to get better. I don't expect these accusations to just go by the wayside, and be forgotten about a few months later. Now Michael Jackson is dead, so, you can't get justice on a dead man, but I want to compare Jackson's situation to others like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and R. Kelly. While the Cosby thing got big before the Metoo era, it follows a similar course. When it rains it pours. While there have been some instances of people being accused of one case of sexually inappropriate behavior, when we've had someone facing a number of accusation of sex crimes, it doesn't stop at a few here or there. In the case of Cosby, comedian Hannibal Burress called Cosby a rapist in October of 2014. Cosby already had allegations against him before that, but it was Barbara's Bowman's article from November 2014, that really inspired more women to come forward. Before the end of November a number of other women had come forward with their own allegations against Cosby. In fact a number of them came out within a week of Bowman's article. The Weinstein thing started out with stories of sexual misconduct, and then went on to include charges of rape, as well as other charges of sexual misconduct. Not long after Surviving R. Kelly, the singer was accused of sexually abusing four girls. Then lawyer Michael Avenatti said he had a sex tape of R. Kelly with a 14 year old. Leaving Neverland is the type of powerful documentary that could inspire more people to come forward with claims against Jackson. The attention around this document is going to lead to more details being exposed.
We'll have to see what happens. What will happened the immediate future. Will the negative news on Jackson calm down soon, or will this be the tip of the iceberg.
We are already starting to see it. His music has been removed from some streaming services. An episode of the Simpsons from 1991 that features Jackson's voice, has been pulled. For Michael Jackson's fans, things are going to get worse before they start to get better. I don't expect these accusations to just go by the wayside, and be forgotten about a few months later. Now Michael Jackson is dead, so, you can't get justice on a dead man, but I want to compare Jackson's situation to others like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and R. Kelly. While the Cosby thing got big before the Metoo era, it follows a similar course. When it rains it pours. While there have been some instances of people being accused of one case of sexually inappropriate behavior, when we've had someone facing a number of accusation of sex crimes, it doesn't stop at a few here or there. In the case of Cosby, comedian Hannibal Burress called Cosby a rapist in October of 2014. Cosby already had allegations against him before that, but it was Barbara's Bowman's article from November 2014, that really inspired more women to come forward. Before the end of November a number of other women had come forward with their own allegations against Cosby. In fact a number of them came out within a week of Bowman's article. The Weinstein thing started out with stories of sexual misconduct, and then went on to include charges of rape, as well as other charges of sexual misconduct. Not long after Surviving R. Kelly, the singer was accused of sexually abusing four girls. Then lawyer Michael Avenatti said he had a sex tape of R. Kelly with a 14 year old. Leaving Neverland is the type of powerful documentary that could inspire more people to come forward with claims against Jackson. The attention around this document is going to lead to more details being exposed.
We'll have to see what happens. What will happened the immediate future. Will the negative news on Jackson calm down soon, or will this be the tip of the iceberg.
Monday, January 21, 2019
MAGA Hat Teens. The Regressives Get It Wrong Again
By now we all know the story. The original video seemed to show kids from Covington Catholic High School mocking a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, or at least that's what most believed. To add to it Phillips was said to be a Vietnam Vet (The Washington Post said he was but got it wrong). I myself was skeptical even before seeing more video from the event. I mean the kids appeared to be having fun, and while the one kid who was standing in front of Phillips had a smirk on his face, he wasn't acting violent, and wasn't mocking him. Still when it comes to white males it is easy for regressives to be tricked, even if it's just teenagers. They were demonized throughout social media, and school said that they would investigate.
Turns out what happened was more of hoax, based on lies, and deception. Like a clever magic trick, it wasn't about what was shown as much as it was about what wasn't shown. Yesterday I saw a link to this article
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/interview-parents-and-students-from-covington-catholic-demand-apology-from-diocese/?fbclid=IwAR0ciqZUDeEM_4k2F7CY8D_FElu3cPMb5_XYl8WZSyAX4zFryS920FIR0KU
Boy did it give a different perspective. Phillips walked towards the boys. There was one guy telling the boys to go back to Europe. I already felt that people had overreacted, but this took things to another level, but wasn't anything compared to the video that I watched last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVtYPRAjYY8
Black Hebrew Israelites were involved. I found out later that the video was first recorded on facebook live. They were saying a bunch of racist shit about white people. In fact even before they turned their attention to the boys, they said plenty bad things to Native Americans. Why would these Israelites be interested in this Indigenous Peoples March? They think that Native Americans are also Israelites, and they were out there to teach their religion to these Indigenous people, and did so in their usual disrespectful manner. When they turned their attention to the Covington students things got nasty quick. They called them crackers, talked about how America would be destroyed, said they were incest babies. The video speaks for itself. The boy responded by doing their school chant. It was interesting because they didn't return the Israelites hate with hate of their own. They were whooping it up, and acting like they were having a good ole time, and this annoyed the shit out of the Israelites. Then came Phillips, in the supposed peacekeeper role, which I will get to later.
Looking at this video really puts things into perspective. It has gone the point where mainstream liberal news outlets are going out of their way to tell the real story, after first falling for the portrayal of the boys as being racist. Of course some other people further on the left wouldn't have it. It was almost like a witch hunt on the boys. One of the biggest reaches was a picture of Covington students yelling at a black basketball player, in an image where a couple of them are painted black, which some thought of as blackface. Problem number one is that the game was one of the "blackout" games that the school has. Students dressed in black, and some painted themselves black, but it clearly wasn't racist, and was just those students keeping up with the blackout theme. Another thing is that the photo was from 2012, when the boys involved in the incident a couple days ago wouldn't have been in high school. You wouldn't be a good far leftist if you just admitted that you got it wrong.
Then there is Phillips. If he was being peacekeeper then why would he walk up to a group of students that weren't the cause of the problems, and even if he had it confused, he had to have heard some of the things that the Israelites were saying, yet when interviewed by CNN he gave an inaccurate account of what happened. He talked about the boys surrounding him, when he walked right towards them. He said that Nick Sandmann blocked his path, when the fact is he walked to the middle of the group of boys. If wanted to get to the Washington Monument he could've walked to the side of the group. He also didn't mention the Israelites in the CNN interview that I saw. When Phillips and his group approached you can hear one of the Israelites say "Here come Gad" more than once. I don't' know what Israelite sect these guys were from, but the different sects, whose 12 tribe breakdowns I have seen, list GAD as being North American Indians. He even refers to Phillips as "our elder". It seems that Phillips may have had some affinity toward the Israelites, because he let them, the main bad guys in the scenario, off the hook. I would like to know more about Phillips, and I think there are some questions he needs to answer. What are his feelings on the Black Hebrew Israelites, and why didn't he confront them? Then again Phillips has stood by his false statements, so being honest about it is just going to further expose him as a liar.
Turns out what happened was more of hoax, based on lies, and deception. Like a clever magic trick, it wasn't about what was shown as much as it was about what wasn't shown. Yesterday I saw a link to this article
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/interview-parents-and-students-from-covington-catholic-demand-apology-from-diocese/?fbclid=IwAR0ciqZUDeEM_4k2F7CY8D_FElu3cPMb5_XYl8WZSyAX4zFryS920FIR0KU
Boy did it give a different perspective. Phillips walked towards the boys. There was one guy telling the boys to go back to Europe. I already felt that people had overreacted, but this took things to another level, but wasn't anything compared to the video that I watched last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVtYPRAjYY8
Black Hebrew Israelites were involved. I found out later that the video was first recorded on facebook live. They were saying a bunch of racist shit about white people. In fact even before they turned their attention to the boys, they said plenty bad things to Native Americans. Why would these Israelites be interested in this Indigenous Peoples March? They think that Native Americans are also Israelites, and they were out there to teach their religion to these Indigenous people, and did so in their usual disrespectful manner. When they turned their attention to the Covington students things got nasty quick. They called them crackers, talked about how America would be destroyed, said they were incest babies. The video speaks for itself. The boy responded by doing their school chant. It was interesting because they didn't return the Israelites hate with hate of their own. They were whooping it up, and acting like they were having a good ole time, and this annoyed the shit out of the Israelites. Then came Phillips, in the supposed peacekeeper role, which I will get to later.
Looking at this video really puts things into perspective. It has gone the point where mainstream liberal news outlets are going out of their way to tell the real story, after first falling for the portrayal of the boys as being racist. Of course some other people further on the left wouldn't have it. It was almost like a witch hunt on the boys. One of the biggest reaches was a picture of Covington students yelling at a black basketball player, in an image where a couple of them are painted black, which some thought of as blackface. Problem number one is that the game was one of the "blackout" games that the school has. Students dressed in black, and some painted themselves black, but it clearly wasn't racist, and was just those students keeping up with the blackout theme. Another thing is that the photo was from 2012, when the boys involved in the incident a couple days ago wouldn't have been in high school. You wouldn't be a good far leftist if you just admitted that you got it wrong.
Then there is Phillips. If he was being peacekeeper then why would he walk up to a group of students that weren't the cause of the problems, and even if he had it confused, he had to have heard some of the things that the Israelites were saying, yet when interviewed by CNN he gave an inaccurate account of what happened. He talked about the boys surrounding him, when he walked right towards them. He said that Nick Sandmann blocked his path, when the fact is he walked to the middle of the group of boys. If wanted to get to the Washington Monument he could've walked to the side of the group. He also didn't mention the Israelites in the CNN interview that I saw. When Phillips and his group approached you can hear one of the Israelites say "Here come Gad" more than once. I don't' know what Israelite sect these guys were from, but the different sects, whose 12 tribe breakdowns I have seen, list GAD as being North American Indians. He even refers to Phillips as "our elder". It seems that Phillips may have had some affinity toward the Israelites, because he let them, the main bad guys in the scenario, off the hook. I would like to know more about Phillips, and I think there are some questions he needs to answer. What are his feelings on the Black Hebrew Israelites, and why didn't he confront them? Then again Phillips has stood by his false statements, so being honest about it is just going to further expose him as a liar.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Cyntoia Brown 51 More Years
When it comes to the story of Cyntoia Brown the myth seems to be more powerful than the reality. I first found out about her due to some meme that was circulating.
There was a strong movement to free Brown, but there were several facts that they seem to have missed out on. The story that Brown's supporters give doesn't pass the smell test. It just seems off. It seems like one of those stories where there has to be more to it, and in her case there is plenty more to it.
Let's get to the big thing, the shooting. She killed John Allen. Allen was a 43 year old john, and Brown was 16, (she lied to him about her age). She claims that she shot him in self defense, but evidence suggest that she shot him in the back of the head while he was sleeping. She also stole his car, 172 dollars, and several guns. The prosecution claimed that the motive for the shooting was robbery. Outside of what she stole after the killing, there is also the fact that she shot him with a gun that she brought into his home. When she was interviewed after the murder she lied to police about her name and age. She gave a birthdate that would've made her 19.
Another point is dispute is why was she a prostitute. Was she forced into it as she claims, or did she chose to be one. She had a 24 year old boyfriend nicknamed Kut-Throat (real name Garion McGlothen), that some believe forced her into prostitution. From what I read though, the two of them were close. Brown also had a history of drug use, and a prior criminal history.
The Cyntoia Brown story fits the SJW narrative in so many ways. She was a 16 year old biracial girl, her victim was white, and the story got big not long after Brock Turner got just three years for sexual assault. It seemed like one of those perfect comparison stories to show just how racist the system is. So many of them just ran along with it. There is a pattern of them running with stories, and getting shit wrong. The narrative is what they love. The problem is when you get past that and to the facts, it's doesn't paint Brown as some innocent victim who fought back.
https://cases.justia.com/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/BrownCyntoiaDeniseOPN.pdf?ts=1396144260
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
FBI Murder Stats For 2017
Another year, another FBI crime report. The FBI recently released their crime data for 2017. I wantrd look up the murder statistics, and see how much they are similar to those of previous years. I previously did blogs on the 2015, and 2016 data.
When it comes to murders in which the race of the offender was known 6,444 of those offenders were black, and 5,125 were white. So once again there were more black murderers than white despite the fact that there are 5-6 times as many white people in the country as their are black people. When adding in the 314 in the Others category, blacks made up 54.2 percent of murderers, which is right in line with data from previous years. So we can assume that 13% of the population was responsible for 54% of the murders. Also if you go by ethnicity Hispanics made up 19.2% of offenders, which would mean there were overrepresented, but not nearly as bad as black people.
Looking at single victim/single offender data, if we don't count those instances in which the race of the offender was unknown, 81.8% of whites murdered were murdered by other whites, and 90.3% of blacks murdered were murdered by other blacks. This data matches up with what I found from the two previous years. Another interesting tidbit from this data is that there were 576 cases of a white victim with a black offender, and only 264 the other way around. Despite being outnumbered heavily by whites, blacks still managed to kill whites more, if we go by the single victim/single offender numbers. The ratio is 2.18/1, and like the other data, it is right in line with what I saw in the previous years. That doesn't quite fit the BLM narrative, but this is consistent. That's a big problem. The numbers aren't just some fluke, it displays a consistent pattern of much higher murder rates among black people. Despite the narrative put out there by the mainstream that constantly show black people as being the victims of whites, the data does not back that up. It hasn't backed that up for any year for which I've seen the stats from. There are similar problems with other violent crime as well.
Murder rate increased slightly in 2017 from 5.3 per 100,000 to 5.4. It's the third consecutive year of an increase in the murder rate, but this was the smallest increase in that span.
Links
Offenders Data
Single Victim/Single Offender
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)