Mass Killings Have Become Rorschach Tests - The California shooting is a peculiar one for the white-privilege crowd to have latched onto.

From Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review:

Onto the despicable act of a disturbed young man, entire worldviews are today being projected and confirmed. Over at Salon, a teacher of “Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies” named Brittney Cooper asked a question that she thought most germane:

How many times must troubled young white men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone before we admit that white male privilege kills?

The shooter, Cooper claimed at various points in what is an impressively self-serving little essay, was a “young white guy” who fed off of “heterosexual white male entitlement”; “a young, clean-cut white man” who was distraught at his inability to “access all the markers of white male heterosexual middle-class privilege”; a representative of “troubled young white men” whose philosophy was rooted in “white supremacy” and who serves an exemplar of both “pathological white masculinity” and “middle-class, heterosexual, white male rage”; and someone who was not only marinated in “racism, white supremacy and patriarchy” but coddled by “systems of whiteness and patriarchy [that] continue to produce white men who think like this.” “As long as America refuses to deal with its white male privilege problem,” Cooper concluded rather predictably, “we will continue to have” mass shootings.

It is unsurprising that Cooper would draw this conclusion. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like the Klan. Still, there is a tiny problem with her theory, and that is that it’s nonsense. Certainly, the claim that “usually, the young men who . . . shoot large numbers of people . . . are white, male, heterosexual and middle-class” is a popular one. Just this weekend, serial fabulist Michael Moore told his fans that “nearly all of our mass shootings are by angry or disturbed white males.” Still, popular does not equal true. Shooters are invariably male, yes. But, racially, they are all over the map. As Salon’s own Andrew O’Hehir noted in 2012, “the stereotype that these kinds of shooters are invariably white men is less true than it used to be”:

In the last decade or so, almost every possible demographic has been represented: There have been two infamous campus shootings by Asian graduate students, one by a Native American teenager living on a Minnesota reservation, and a couple by African-Americans and Latinos. Overall, 43 of the 61 shooters in mass killings since 1982 have been white, which is only a little higher than the proportion of whites in the general population.

Actually, it’s a little lower.  And the FBI confirmed in 2010 that, despite the widespread belief to the contrary, “the racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population.” That is: White people commit mass shootings pretty much in line with their demographic representation. Is Cooper suggesting something has changed?

"Cooper misses something very important, the shooter was not white, but a person of mixed race. I am predicting soon that the shooter will be referred to as a "White Asian" similar to the way George Zimmerman was referred to as a "White Hispanic."

Obama, the "Present" President

The Week in Pictures -- Oy Vey Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Voter ID Laws -- Another straw man argument

Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of MLK's "I have a Dream Speech."  So for the anniversary, a rally was organized on the National Mall, with many speakers.  And one of the speakers was decrying SCOTUS  applying logic to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  In their decision, the Court say the DOJ can't use the data from 1965 in determining whether a jurisdiction needed per-clearance to change any voting conditions, such as moving a precinct location, re-redistricting, etc.  SCOTUS also has allowed many State law which require a Government Issued ID to vote.

Voter ID law are considered discriminatory by many in the race grievance industry.

So I was thinking, how many places in your everyday life do you need an ID.
1.) Any transaction at YOUR Bank
2.) Writing a check
3.) Buying a cell phone.
4.) flying on a commercial flight.
5.) Most credit card transactions
6.) Entering the DOJ HQ in Washington DC.
7.) Buying a gun.
5.) Cashing a welfare check.

But not to vote?

I wonder Liberal why are against requiring ID to vote?

Tweet of the Day -- Katie Pavlich

On the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, former President Bill Clinton waggled his finger once again and zinged gun-rights activists, saying that voting should not be harder to do than buying an “assault weapon.” Since those purchases require a picture ID and usually a five-day waiting period, most gun-rights and voter-ID supporters would probably agree.

Katie Pavlich has a tweet in response to the former Prez.

FLASHBACK: If liberals are going to argue we shouldn't show id to vote then we shouldn't show id to buy a gun either http://t.co/OMHLZTEtyO
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) August 28, 2013

3 black teenagers murder white baseball player out of boredom - News at, well never

From Yahoo Sports:

With a motive that's both chilling and simple - to break up the boredom of an Oklahoma summer - three teenagers randomly targeted an Australian collegiate baseball player who was attending school in the U.S. and killed him for fun, prosecutors said Tuesday as they charged two of the boys with murder.

The article does not show a photo of the alleged murderers.  In fact, articles from several online services didn't show photos of the accused nor mention their race.

Here is a pictures of the accused.

Notice anything?

So will the media make a big deal about this story?  I doubt it, since it doesn't follow their approved story meme.