The Unintended Consequences Of Diversity

After years of insisting that the key to a better world is diversity, the City of Atlanta is learning that a more diverse population may lead to some unintended consequences:

There are fears in Atlanta's black community that its declining presence in the population could shrink its political influence and endanger social policies that support diversity, Mayor Shirley Franklin said Friday.

It seems that all of those wonderful "social policies that support diversity" have led to an increase in the Hispanic and Asian populations. Unfortunately, the city also saw a decline in the black population as more and more of these residents are moving to the suburbs to take advantage of better real estate values and (as Mayor Franklin calls them) "so-called better schools". Overall, the Black population in Atlanta has declined from 70% to 60% during the '70s and '80s.

So, the lesson for today is diversity is desirable only until one's political influence is threatened.

How delightfully progressive...

Experts Doubt JFK Plot's Potential For Disaster

Apparently, we were all stupid to give it any thought at all.

Once again, nothing to see here.

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.

According to the experts, the most the plotter could have hoped for was a fire and maybe a contained explosion; certainly not the total destruction of the airport and surrounding areas. The plotters simply didn't have the explosives, the financing or the expertise to pull off anything close to what they had envisioned.

Apparently, that means the story shouldn't have been reported to the extent that it was (wall-to-wall all day coverage).

Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.

"There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases," he said. "To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia," he said.

The New York Times on Sunday pointedly avoided giving much coverage to the alleged plot, devoting only a brief on its front page continued on the local section, despite the story breaking in the early afternoon on Saturday.

So, what's the solution? Bury the story on page 37 like the Times did, pooh poohing the whole thing as another exercise in fear-mongering? Were the plotters going to be successful in causing the carnage they desired? Probably not. Should we report that fact honestly? Sure, why not? But, at the same time, let's not overlook the other aspect of the story, which is that certain people are actively trying to think of new and exciting ways to kill a lot of Americans! Just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean they didn't try. More than likely, they will try again. If we're lucky, all we'll ever get are these Keystone Cop jihadists and nothing will ever come to pass. But eventually, one of them is going to come up with a plan that will work. Maybe there will come a time when these homegrown terrorists opt for small, totally doable acts of terrorism rather than shooting for some huge disaster with a high body count.

Reporting on these failed attempts may create fear and/or paranoia in some, but it may also create a heightened state of vigilence, which is certainly a good thing.

Terror Plot Foiled At JFK Airport

Scroll down for updates.

Pardon me. Alleged terror plot. This is from Fox News, by the way.

Three people arrested and one still being sought in a plot to explode a fuel line that feeds the airport and runs through residential neighborhoods. It seems that, once again, the plot was foiled while still in the planning stages. It also seems that, if executed, the plan had the potential to kill a lot of people:

The New York suspect was identified as Russell Afreitas, a former JFK employee who allegedly planned to attack the airport's fuel supply because he thought he could do more damage than attacking a passenger terminal. Afreitas is a Muslim U.S. citizen from Guyana.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Not worth mentioning, really.

Interesting. Here's CNN's report on the arrest. Note how they handle the ethnicity of the suspects:

An official described the suspects as "al Qaeda wannabes."

One suspect, a U.S. citizen who is a native of Guyana and who once worked at the airport, was described by a source as "a very angry Muslim extremist."

Wannabes. Just a bunch of silly little terror poseurs, really. And of course, the suspect is a very angry Muslim extremist.

Also note how the story handles the question of the danger posed by the plot:

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said law enforcement had had the plot "under control" for some time.

Another law enforcement official said the plot was never "fully operational."

Hey, I'm glad the authorities were on the ball with this, but let's not forget that there was in fact a plot to, you know, kill a lot of people.

But wait, it get's better. Here's the incident as reported by the venerable AP:

The plot, which never got past the planning stages, did not involve airplanes or passenger terminals, according to the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the arrests had not yet been announced.

The plot posed no threat to air safety or the public, the FBI said Saturday.

We keep hearing the plot didn't target airplanes or passenger terminals, but we already know from the Fox report that's because Mr. Afreitas felt targeting the fuel line would cause more damage, so that's not all that reassuring. Speaking of Mr. Afreitas, the only things AP tells us about him is that he's Guyanese and a former airport employee. There is, of course, one glaring omission.

Again, we're told the plot posed no threat to the public except that, until the plot was busted, it did. If anything, the AP report lists several recent "home-grown" terrorist plots that have been foiled. With this many plots being hatched, isn't it reasonable to assume at least one will make it past the "planning stages"? And if it does, I'd say the threat posed becomes considerable.

UPDATE: A press conference was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. The suspects are named.

According to sources, the suspects have been identified as: Russell Defreitas, Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir.

Sources said a cargo worker at JFK allegedly began to plot attacking the US last July or August. The cargo worker sought help in carrying out a plan and went to an FBI informant, who gathered information about the plot.

It looks like the authorities were on top of this for about a year, which is great. I'm genuinely happy that law enforcement agencies are doing their jobs as far as keeping us safe. And as far as earlier reports stressing that plot posed no threat to public safety? Well according to U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf it was in fact "one of the most chilling plots imaginable." At the 1:00 p.m. news conference, she said "the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."

So much for that.

MORE: As always, Hot Air has lots more on this developing story. Possible Al Qaeda connection? Check. Oh look, one of the suspects was an imam. Charming.

Looks like Russell Defreitas was quite the piece of shit:

"Any time you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow ... they love John F. Kennedy like he's the man ... if you hit that, this whole country will be mourning. You can kill the man twice," Defreitas said in another conversation, it said.

"Even the twin towers can't touch it," referring to the September 11 attacks in another comment that the law enforcement authorities said was recorded last month. "This can destroy the economy of America for some time."

Yeah, nothing at all to see here.

A Soldier Responds

This is really something. A commenter responding to Andrew Arkin's insulting little diatribe at the Washington Post brings it home with this post. It's long, but defintely worth it.

Mr. Arkin-

I am an officer in the United States Army. I have deployed to Iraq twice, and been wounded once. I have had my soldiers killed and wounded, I have killed and wounded other human beings. I have carried wounded soldiers and civilians in my arms; crying in pain. I myself am permanently physically damaged by my experience.

Through all those events, I never shed a tear. Yet I sit here today crying; reading your original article and your rebuttal to the overwhelming response.

I am proud of what I do, what my soldiers do, the freedoms we defend, and everything we stand for. I proudly defend your right to publish your article, and it actually warms my soul to see free debate and discourse about any topic, because this is the only nation in the world where such completely unbridled discussion and opinion rage on in an organized fashion. That is the United States I am proud of, the one that has given me so much.

I decry and am ashamed of my fellow warriors who have lost their thin veneer of civilization and chosen to engage in the atrocities committed in Iraq. May God have mercy on their souls.
I have chosen to shelve my right to have an opinion on the war in Iraq. I support our effort to help the Iraqi people, depose Saddam, and promote a free(er) Iraq. Are we (or can we) still doing that? I don't know anymore. I have an opinion, but it is too visceral to be truly rational anymore, so I keep it to myself.

Overall, it does not matter. My country, almost unanimously, asked me to refresh the tree with my blood in Iraq/Afghanistan 6 years ago. That was this country, by referendum. As my country comes to terms with what she has done, and possibly chooses a different path, I will soldier on. I will guide and inspire my Soldiers to do the same. But, it saddens me to see so many of my brothers and sisters killed and maimed, only to find out my country either didn't mean it or had no stomach for it.

None of these are the reasons I cry. I cry for the lack of purpose, the apparent lack of caring, the lack of compassion you displayed in your original article and in this subsequent failure to apologize to me, my fellow warriors, and all those who came before me. Here's why.

1. I am not a mercenary. You could make me work two jobs and this would still be one of them, because I am that passionate about defending you and your rights. Many in the National Guard and Reserves do just that. My country needs professional warriors to do her bidding, and he is me, and thousands like me.

2. I have the right to express my opinion within the bounds of the UCMJ, as do my Soldiers. How dare you imply that I do not, or that I should reprimand them? We already accept an abbreviated set of rights willingly. Do not attempt limit my liberties that I have already willingly limited while I defend without complaint the unabridged version you are so rightly entitled to.

3. As an officer, my needs are met. However, in the three months leading up to my first deployment and the entire 13 month adventure, my pay amounted to 173 cents an hour. My friends and I logged our hours as a joke, but $1.73 is the reality. That equates to 19-20 hour days, 7 days a week, for 16 months. That's with the relatively lavish bonuses and benefits we receive while deployed. And I am an officer. Think of our junior enlisted, and find someone else in our great country that is willing to work so hard, day and night, no weekends, under fire, threat of death over their head, for so little? Find me one and I will retract this comment graciously. Of course, even when not deployed, it takes my wife and me quite some time to get through the line at the grocery store. That's because we get in line behind one of my fellow warriors, who with shame in their eyes and faces flush with embarrassment fill out their WIC paperwork because they don't make enough to support their wife and two kids (an average sized family).

4. This response is taking an inordinate amount of time to type, because I have only one functioning hand after being wounded in Iraq. I am trying as quickly as possible to use the medical system your (and my) taxes paid for to recover, so I can go back to Iraq and continue to fight for what you don't believe in, because I believe in you and my Soldiers. Still, I count myself lucky, as I received my Purple Heart next to a 19-year old warrior with both his legs amputated above the knee. No matter how wrong the majority feels the decision was at this juncture, that Soldier gave (I use the word gave deliberately) his legs at his nation's calling. Not for money. Not because he was too stupid to get into college. Not for the great benefits. Just because you asked him to. Please don't imply that this fallen hero is not entitled to the basic medical care he receives.

5. Given the opportunity, I would fight the Germans in 1944. Oh, to have that definition of purpose, that sense of righteousness! But, that is not to be. This is the war that this country has chosen for me, my peers, and my Soldiers. With its vagueness, dirtiness, ambiguity, undefined enemy, amorphous center of gravity, and undefined purpose. The actions of our administration, the decisions higher-echelons of our military, the blunders of the CPA, (I could go on) etc. aside; it comes back to one thing. America chose this fight for me, and I will fight it with all my skill and might until she tells me to stop. The woes and throes of the majority, hawks, doves, liberals, neocons, etc. mean nothing to me or those Soldiers you quoted. What matters to us is that you told us to be there, 3000+ of our brothers and sisters have died there, and we are still there. Change that - in reality, not in the abstract - and we will gladly leave and prepare ourselves for the next challenge and opportunity to defend your freedoms.

I am a Warrior, a Soldier, a Scholar, and a Patriot. This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and educate me. I am well-versed in our government, our demographics, our history, and our Constitution. Perhaps I am an idealist. To the end of my life or capability I will defend your rights and this country. I am proud that I live in a country where a free-thinker such as you can write an article so critical of current policy. But I am deeply hurt by the insinuations and accusations listed above. I request an apology, on the behalf of all the Armed Forces, for your insensitive and boorish comments. I only wish I could communicate with your entire readership the bitter taste of betrayal that is in my mouth as easily as you communicate your speech and thoughts.

With Respect,

A United States Army Officer
"Army Strong"

Wow. Just...wow.

MLK Day Party Goes Awry

Seems some students at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, TX planned a little party to celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday.

Good for them!

Oh look, it's a costume party!

Interesting. Looks like fun!

Oooops! Guess not!

Kramer Apologizes

Following his tirade against some black hecklers at The Laugh Factory the other night, Michael Richards has apologized for his behavior.

On the Letterman Show.

Jerry Seinfeld was a guest on the show, and he asked Richards to appear to discuss the issue (Richards appeared on a screen, not in person). I didn't see the show or watch the apology, but from what I'm reading Richards went off on more than one tangent. His sincerity is entirely dependent on whether you're inclined to give his a break or not.

Kramer.

TMZ.com has video of Michael Richards - Kramer from Seinfeld fame - losing his mind at some hecklers who interrupted his comedy routine at The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles.

The hecklers were black. Richards make a reference to lynching, after which he called the heckler a "nigger". Seven times. Loudly.

In the video, you can hear someone challenging Richards on his behavior, saying it was "uncalled for". It also shows the majority of the crowd begin to get up and leave, including the hecklers. Richards begins taunting them as they leave.

The entire incident is very surreal, made even more so by the fact that it's Kramer! I didn't see that one coming. Now, of course, the usual suspects will weigh in. Conventional wisdom says that Richards' career is "over".

I'm sure some would argue his career was over when Seinfeld went off the air, but that's another issue.

More on the UCLA Tasering Incident

Michelle Malkin, Ace, and Allah have weighed in on the tasering story.

Michelle is taking her usual measured, "let's wait and hear the whole story" stance, while Ace and Allah question the cops' decision to taser the student.

Naturally, the tasee has lawyered up - and as Michelle points out, a whole crowd of civil rights groups are siding with him, most noticeably CAIR. Interestingly, Tasee's lawyer has his own baggage, as Patterico points out:

The best part: the “high-profile civil rights lawyer” is Stephen Yagman, currently under indictment for money laundering and tax evasion.

Both Ace and Allah quote witnesses who state that, althought the use of tasers may have been excessive, Tasee was definitely either making trouble or was someone who would not be opposed to making trouble:

Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

I'm a little disappointed in Ace's moderation. Personally, from what I heard in the video and what I've read online, Tasee is just the kind of little bitch who would try to make a point about his precious "civil liberties" and have it go down this way. Bottom line, if he had just left the library when he was first asked to, therefore aoviding the need to call the campus police, his protesting ass would have remained taser-free. I would have, because for me, rules are rules and legitimate authority is just that. Does that mean Tasee got what he deserved? I suppose that depends on how you define "excessive force". In my opinion, one of the cops shooting Tasee in the leg is excessive; tasering him on drive mode to put an end to his little protest and diffuse a potential escalation by other concerned, socially aware citizens is not.

We live in a very different world than that of just a few years ago. A world where "ordinary" American citizens are capable of...who knows what? Where bizarre and questionable incidents take place on college campuses all of the time. Where the unthinkable can come from out of nowhere and change everything in an instant.

In this kind of world, perhaps the type of excessive force used by these campus police may be the difference between an "incident" and a "tragedy".

The Taser Incident

The net is buzzing about an Iranian-American UCLA student getting tasered by campus police at the library:

Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a UCLA student, was repeatedly stunned with a Taser and then taken into custody when he did not exit the CLICC Lab in Powell Library in a timely manner. Community Service Officers had asked Tabatabainejad to leave after he failed to produce his BruinCard during a random check at around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday.

Naturally, a concerned citizen with a cellphone camera caught the incident on video. YouTube, anyone?



"Here's your Patriot Act! Here's your fucking abuse of power!"

Now, I don't want to get all knee-jerk here, but if I get tasered by some cop, I'm not going to be making political statements. I'm going to be pretty much doing whatever I have to to avoid another shock. But that's just me.

I know this is going to get a lot of play over the next few days, with the inevitable blaming of President Bush for the whole thing. From what I saw, the student was being unresponsive to the officers' commands and argumentative. Plus, the whole "Patriot Act" comment really makes me wonder if this wasn't a bit of planned street theatre.

I know, I know, but I find it hard to put anything past the "socially aware".

By the way, here's a video of someone getting tasered who doesn't have a comment to make about the Patriot Act or abuses of power. Please note the lack of hysterical screaming.