The Killing of Whites — Counterexamples to the Prevailing Narrative

Byron put it best when he wrote, “History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page” — a more beautiful way of restating the old adage that “history repeats itself.” In a year that has often been compared to 1968, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that we’ve gone a step further and channelled one of that decade’s most momentous events by replicating 1963’s March on Washington. To be sure, neither the turnout nor the prestige of Friday’s gathering compared with that of the original. Nevertheless, there is no denying the significance of what happened and no denying the seismic cultural shifts which have brought us to this point. It could have been an inspirational moment and even beneficial for the soul of the nation were it not for the simple fact that the whole thing was based on an idea that is not obviously true at all — an idea that may, in fact, actually be false.

Unlike the original march of 1963, which was largely focused on jobs and civil equality, the march of 2020 placed police brutality at the top of the list, which makes sense given the national conversation that has taken place over the past few years and especially over the past few months. The claim, of course, is that African-Americans are disproportionately targeted as victims of police brutality and that such targeting is inherently racist. Easy enough, and yet as simple as this claim seems to be, it turns out to be slightly more complex than meets the eye for a number of reasons, not least of which is the dubious claim that targeting African Americans for enhanced policing is intrinsically racist. 

Perhaps we can admit that in some cases such profiling could be considered racist. I think I’m willing to grant that, depending on the particular circumstances. But we have to admit the obvious truth that many communities of color also carry with them a far higher rate of violent crime, which means that police officers are inevitably going to see these communities and the people associated with them as posing a higher risk to their own personal safety. The consequence, of course, is that these officers will tend to be more vigilant and oftentimes more ready to use force when they approach an African-American suspect, which can then sometimes lead to unfortunate results. Whatever else this may be, it is not clearly racism according to the classic definition, and it should more appropriately be viewed as merely a cognitive shortcut based on the statistical likelihood of injury that these officers face when engaging with African-Americans. And it ought to be pointed out that this in no way implies that most blacks are violent criminals. It may well be that the vast majority of blacks are good, law-abiding citizens. But as Thomas Sowell pointed out in his book Discrimination and Disparities, as long as there are enough violent criminals among African-American males, that cognitive shortcut of assuming the worst in a suspect becomes an economically worthwhile gamble, even if most of those African-American males are completely innocent.

The other complication to the claim that blacks are disproportionately targeted as victims of police brutality comes from the fact that police brutality has a wide definition which can include anything from physical bullying to cold-blooded murder. This distinction really is an important one, since there actually is evidence that officers do play a bit rougher with people of color, as Roland Fryer points out in his paper entitled “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force”. This same paper, however, finds the opposite conclusion with regards to actual shootings, which make up most of the alleged murder cases. He states: “[O]n the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls.” This conclusion, in fact, has been found by multiple studies on the matter. When all relevant factors are taken into consideration, African-Americans are no more likely to be killed by police officers than whites. They are more likely to commit crime, however, which further means that they are more likely to have frequent encounters with the police. And this means that they are also more likely to find themselves in situations that could turn violent and ultimately fatal. 

You could, I confess, point out that there may be some conflicting studies which show the opposite conclusion. Indeed, I know that there are some out there, but at the moment this really doesn’t matter. The very fact that there is such ambiguity in the literature, the very fact that the most precise statistical analyses fail to find a consistent pattern of racism suggests that the problem, if it even exists, may not be nearly as significant as we’re being led to believe. It only reinforces the notion that we ought to be careful and not rush to judgment when these incidents occur.

What’s usually forgotten or ignored is the simple fact that unarmed whites are very often killed by police officers as well, sometimes in almost identical circumstances, such as that of Tony Timpa in 2019, who was held down with a knee on the back until he stopped breathing and subsequently died. A few years prior, back in 2016, I had written a piece mentioning the names of a handful of other white victims who were both unarmed and killed at the hands of an officer (somewhat-understandably so in some cases) — names such as Dillon Taylor, Deven Guilford, Andrew Henson, Dylan Noble, and Daniel Harris, a deaf man whose sign language may have been misinterpreted as suspicious hand gesturing by the cops.  

It may well be that some of the deaths we see of unarmed black men are the result of racial bigotry. That is entirely plausible and can’t be denied out of hand. But the fact that any white person is also killed with no apparent racial motivation suggests that we cannot draw that conclusion without first assessing the situation. To date, there have been 146 unarmed whites killed by police since 2015, according to The Washington Post, 11 of which happened in 2020. You don’t know them, but here are the names of those who died since January 1st: 

Hannah R. Fizer

Tyler Hays 

Nicholas Bils

Giuseppe Particianone 

Zachary Shane Gifford 

John Mark Hendrick 

Aaron Tolen 

Brian Marksberry 

Kenneth Mullins 

Christopher Palmer

Stephen O’Brien

So it (re)begins

Seven years ago when I first started this blog, I began by lamenting that I was the same age that John Calvin had been when he published his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and here I was producing something of considerably less value. Now at 33, I’m the same age that Jesus of Nazareth was when he finished his ministry, and yet I haven’t even begun to save the world. Fortunately, most of us won’t be held to quite the same standard as the Son of God, and the only resurrection at the moment will be that of this blog, which has lain more-or-less dormant for quite some time.

I did write a couple posts last year, which I’m leaving up for now, since they’re recent enough, but everything else produced since 2013 has either been hidden or deleted. I may, at some point, republish some of these old entries, but for now I wanted a fresh start and maybe even a rebranding of sorts — not that I had much of a brand to begin with.

Recently I’ve been playing quite a bit with an app on my phone called ReFace, which superimposes my own face on pretty much any number of celebrities either in video or gif form. It’s a good deal of fun, and just in the past few days I’ve noticed that a couple people I follow on Instagram have found it as well, people, I might add, who don’t actually follow me back and thus people who would not have likely seen any of my posts showing off my head on the Terminator’s body. The thought then occurred to me: what if they were introduced to the product by someone else who was introduced by someone else who was introduced by someone else who was introduced by me? How likely this is I have no idea. But it led me to realize that it’s not entirely implausible that, while I certainly won’t save the world, whatever small influence I might have on the few people who read my work, perhaps it could have larger downstream effects on individuals I will never encounter. Then again, maybe not. Even so, in the current environment, I find that I have a lot to say and I feel that remaining silent might be doing a great disservice. Thus, I  begin again.

The Deadliest Shootings: A Brief Overview of Causes and Related Factors

It struck me that for all of the talk regarding the causes and motives of American mass shootings, I really didn’t know very much about what drove the killers to do what they did. Sure, I had a general knowledge about some of the incidents, but it was hardly comprehensive, and I suspect that most people are in the same boat. As a result, I decided to publish a list of the deadliest mass shootings over the past 50 years, noting their immediate causes and other related factors that likely contributed. How to fix the problem is another matter, which I’ll leave to the reader. However, if we look at the causes, we should be able to get a better idea of how to handle the issue.

Some housekeeping matters are in order before we begin. First, the topic of mental health comes up frequently. This is obviously a broad designation as “mental health” can encompass anything from personal exhaustion due to various stressors in life to full-blown neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. For simplicity’s sake I don’t distinguish between the two. You, the reader, can do that. Second, I make use of the word “terrorism” from time to time. While it’s tempting to call all acts of public violence “terrorism,” I reserve the use of that word to acts of violence which are intended to further an ideological agenda, which is a definition in accordance with UN and US legal understanding. Thus, detonating explosives in Central Park just for the fun of it is not terrorism. Sending bombs to universities and airlines hoping to draw attention to the destructive effects of technological advancement on human civilization is terrorism.

Nevertheless, here is the list. Make of it what you will.

1. Easter Sunday Massacre (1975) – Motive: Revenge on his family.
   Mental health was likely a factor (i.e. The shooter came from a broken family, had a prior suicide attempt, and had frustration at his inability to succeed with occupation and women).
2. Wilkes-Barre Shootings (1982) – Motive: An apparent reaction to racial stress.
   Mental health was almost certainly an issue (i.e. The shooter had a prior suicide attempt, exhibited noteworthy incoherence at his trial and then paranoia later in life.)
3. Wah Mee Massacre (1983) – Motive: Robbery
   The club was known for gambling and presumably had a good bit of money on hand. The perpetrators wanted to kill all witnesses.
4. Palm Sunday Massacre (1984) – Motive: A drug-fueled jealous rage.
   One may speculate that mental health was again an issue. (i.e. drug use was involved, and drugs are often used as a means of self-treating emotional disturbances.)
5. San Ysidro McDonald’s Massacre (1984) – Motive: Apparent anger at society due to his many failures in life.
   Once more, mental health was a significant ingredient. (i.e. The shooter felt there was something wrong with him and sought counseling prior to the shooting since he was distressed by society and his economic failure.)
6. Edmond Post Office Shooting (1986) – Motive: Presumably workplace revenge.
   Mental health may have been a factor. (i.e. There was an undefined but clear history of aberrant behavior.)
7. Luby’s Shooting (1991) – Misogyny.
   Mental health once more must have been a factor. (i.e. The shooter had a history of drug use, alcohol abuse, anger issues, and a hatred of women.)
8. Columbine (1999) – Motive: Psychopathic disdain for humanity for one shooter and a depressive rage for the other.
   Mental health disturbances were so intertwined with the motive that they are also essentially the cause.
9. Virginia Tech Massacre (2007) – Motive: Apparent revenge.
   The shooter also exhibited very clear mental health disturbances (i.e. He had a history of depression, selective mutism, and noted aberrant behavior.)
10. Geneva County Massacre (2009)  – Motive: Apparent depression over occupational failure and family strife.
    Mental Health again was a factor (i.e. The shooter felt a sense of depression due especially to his sense of social failure and had experienced suicidal ideation.)
11. Binghamton Shootings (2009) – Motive: Revenge on society and police for belittling him.
    Mental Health once more should be noted (i.e. The shooter experienced apparent paranoia, possible hallucinations, depression, and social isolation.)
12. Fort Hood Shooting (2009) – Motive: Possibly terrorism mixed with mental illness.
    Mental health may have been an issue (i.e. There were reports of troubled and paranoid behavior.) It seems that the shooter did not like the role the US military was playing in fighting Muslims, and he was very uncomfortable with his part in it.
13. Sandy Hook Shooting (2012) – Motive: Unclear.
    Mental health issues were significant (i.e. The shooter suffered from learning disabilities, developmental delays, sensory-integration disorder, Asperger’s, and OCD. Some have also pointed to a possible interest in pedophilia, which could be construed as a psychiatric/developmental disorder.)
14. Aurora Theater Shooting (2012) – Motive: Unclear
    Mental health was clearly an issue (i.e. The shooter had a past suicide attempt, history of depression, exhibited strange behavior, and had sought psychiatric treatment.)
15. Washington Navy Yard Shooting (2013) – Motive: Supposed manipulation via low-frequency waves.
    Mental health disturbances were clearly the driving force. The shooter also evidently heard voices and held to paranoid beliefs.
16. San Bernardino Attack (2015) – Motive: Terrorism
    The shooters had an interest in jihad.
17. Orlando Night Club Shooting (2016) – Motive: Terrorism
    The shooter’s own statement was that he was driven by American bombing in the Middle East.
18. Las Vegas Shooting (2017) – Motive: Unclear
    Mental health trouble may have been an issue. (i.e. The shooter had a gambling addiction, and a history of alcoholism, depression, and suicidal thoughts.)
19. Sutherland Springs Church Shooting (2017) – Motive: Possibly revenge on wife’s family.
    Mental health also an issue. (i.e. The shooter had a history of violence and assault, with an admission to a mental health institution and conduct discharge from military.)
20. Stonemason Douglas High School Shooting (2018) – Motive: A possible response to bullying with elements of white nationalist terrorism.
    Mental health trouble was a factor, though perhaps not exclusively (i.e. The shooter was diagnosed with depression, autism, and ADHD, though one can’t say for certain that his racist beliefs were directly influenced by these struggles.)
21. Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018) – Motive: Terrorism
    The shooter held to very racist beliefs and spent time spouting neo-Nazi rhetoric. He seemed to believe that America was being overrun by various ethnic groups, which he didn’t like.
22. Thousand Oaks Shooting (2018) – Motive: None
    Mental health disturbances could have likely been a factor (i.e. The shooter had a prior encounter with mental health professionals who suspected he might be suffering from PTSD. He also exhibited irrational behavior.)
23. Santa Fe High School Shooting (2018) – Motive: Unclear
    Bullying may have been an issue, which could be certainly be related to mental health disturbances. The shooter did experience depression.
24. Virginia Beach Shooting (2019) – Motive: Unknown
25. El Paso Shooting (2019) – Motive: Terrorism
    The perpetrator believed that various non-white ethnic groups, particularly Hispanics, were overtaking America.

Talking Past Each Other: Why the Abortion Debate Seems to Go Nowhere

Katie Herzog has recently written a refreshingly honest article for The Stranger entitled “If Liberals Want to Change Minds on Abortion, We Must Understand Why People Oppose It.” In it she expounds on the mindset and motivations of pro-life advocates in the wake of Alabama’s and Georgia’s recently-passed restrictive abortion bills (Missouri has since followed suit). The article is all the more interesting when one considers that Herzog herself is a pro-choice, left-wing lesbian — hardly the type to express sympathy with Bible-Thumping Republicans of the deep South. Nevertheless, she observes with some interest: “for many pro-lifers, the idea that abortion is murder is genuinely and deeply held.” Who would have guessed it? For most of us this isn’t news at all. We’ve heard it a hundred times and may have even said it as much. And yet it still seems to be a revelation to so many who feel firmly that conservatives actually have more sinister intentions at heart.

The logic of the pro-life position is quite simple and easy to grasp. Stated succinctly, it posits that: 

1. After fertilization, the resulting product is a living thing. It is an organic entity that uses energy.
2. This living thing is undoubtedly human as opposed to, say, canine or crustacean.
3. This living thing has a distinct genetic profile which makes it a unique, particular human substance. (That is, it differs from a kidney or a tumor.)
4. All humans have an inherent right to live.
5. Therefore, the living thing that results from fertilization has a right to live.

With some variation, these five statements form the crux of all pro-life dogma. Nothing more is needed. Even so, one still hears the oft-repeated contention that this argument is, in fact, completely bogus and that Republicans ultimately have more secretly wicked designs.

If you’ve only looked at your Facebook newsfeed lately, then you likely know what I mean. For many, the real issue is not one of life, murder, and the dignity of the unborn, but rather some supposed patriarchal control over women. To a surprising degree, left-wing defenders and enthusiastic feminists have spent little time engaging with the logical reasoning outlined earlier (although some do) and instead have leapt right to a theory which says that conservative men don’t love babies, they hate women. Herzog is right to counter this misrepresentation.

I find it tempting to suggest that such an approach is no more than a dishonest ruse —  a scare tactic used by the left as a distraction from the inevitable conclusion of accepting the fetus as a living, human thing. But suppose for a moment that we extend the same charity to the Herzog’s camp as she has to us. Suppose we try to understand what they’re thinking. Consider that maybe, just maybe they really do believe that conservatives hate women and want to suppress their hard-earned rights. By thinking this way, one begins to see that all of the seemingly senseless behaviors from topless Instagram posts to sex strikes to pussy-hat protests finally make sense. It’s a show of rebellion against the enemy.

Few things are as important in the current debate as recognizing this fact, for it is this particular belief which has largely contributed to the impasse we now experience. The point cannot be overstated. Despite all of the passionate pleas on behalf of unborn children, it still remains that a barrier exists between the two camps which has not yet been removed. And all efforts to persuade our liberal friends will fall on dead ears unless this fundamental issue is taken seriously. After all, most pro-choice advocates won’t budge until they’ve been convinced that pro-life men are not out to repeal the 19th amendment.

To make matters even worse, the disagreement between the two parties goes even deeper. This belief in man the oppressor has a firm footing in a particular kind of feminist philosophy that understands gender roles as almost exclusively socially constructed — roles simply imposed on people, not by any biological necessity, but by society at large. I know that might seem confusing, but it often goes something like this: Since men are stronger than women they have been able to control the women according to their own desires. Thus, everything that we have come to equate with femininity has been due to males forcing their will on the females. In other words, the history of gender has been one long story of masculine oppression. And since this is the case, then we must find a way for change.

Perhaps some changes to society ought to be made. As with most things in life, though, it’s rarely that simple. For sure, there have been many ills perpetrated by my gender that I cannot defend, and overall we have done well as a species in our slow yet persistent liberation of women (not to mention minorities of all stripes). Nevertheless, we now know from the psychologists that certain masculine and feminine behaviors are deeply ingrained within our species. Far from being merely learned behaviors, these tendencies and desires are, in fact, biological realities that cannot easily be undone. This fact escapes many on the left, who, in their own war on science, believe that all gender-based inequalities must be the product of a socially-constructed patriarchy. To them, if we are to do away with these gross injustices, we need to seize control away from those in charge (presumably men) and make the necessary changes through political and social activism.

These concerns inform the modern liberal, but the conservative mindset is different. The conservative has no desire to impose any sort of inequality on another but simply recognizes inequality as a natural part of life. Many of these natural inequalities were never brought on by any particular human or group of humans, but are simply the consequence of genetic and environmental variability. I daresay that if Joel Embiid’s knees give out next season, the 76ers are hardly likely find me an adequate replacement. Even if I had the same level of innate athletic talent, my 5’8” frame barely meets the standards for an NBA player of any position, let alone center. But this perhaps makes for better basketball. Some things are changeable, of course, and we should strive to fix problems when they arise. But we must also recognize that our control over reality is very limited.

Consider gender disparities for a moment in more detail. Men, often being the bigger and stronger sex, are usually the ones subject to the more perilous careers and the consequences which come from such lines of work. Likewise, the natural tendency towards male aggression has also caused my gender to suffer the results of violent crime at much higher rates than their better halves. In a way, this might be considered unfair. However, females too have been saddled with their own forms of inequality, especially as it is they who have been given the responsibility of bearing young. It is a necessary task, though not one without its share of pitfalls. In many cases, it is this maternal instinct which has led to the much-maligned pay gap — a fiction which economists have frequently explained away as the result of choices women make between job and home life.

Any one of these imbalances can be corrected should we decide that we no longer wish to bear the burden. The correction, however, will inevitably come at a cost and provide us with a new burden of one kind or another. To accept this is to accept a basic fact of life. It’s true, there is a certain unfairness in the case of women who are restricted from getting abortions in that they are pressed into a hardship from which men are exempt. For the conservative, however, the cost of remedying this situation is the destruction of innocent life — a cost far too great. Furthermore, since the purported patriarchal threat to female liberation is really no threat at all (since it doesn’t exist), there is no urgency to address any concerns that result from this belief. What I mean to say is this: conservatives have no wish to control women or their reproductive rights. They merely recognize that certain inequalities cannot easily be fixed without causing greater injustices and they act accordingly. If one could provide enough evidence to suggest that zygotes and fetuses aren’t living humans worthy of the same rights as the rest of us, then many pro-lifers likely would convert. But until then, the price to fix the problem is too expensive.

For any progress in these discussions, we need to understand our opponent’s starting point. As Herzog has noted, liberals need to understand that they are talking past pro-life advocates when they invoke the war on women. Conservatives, however, need to make a greater effort. They need to understand that their cries on behalf of the unborn are essentially rendered moot by an even greater concern that liberals have regarding the political and social status of women. Without addressing this issue there will be no advancement. But in addressing this issue, the conservative must be prepared to recognize that the liberal is operating on an even different underlying philosophy which proposes a totally different approach to gender and equality. The challenge is difficult, but not necessarily insurmountable. Any recognition of these observations is better than none at all and may, at least, serve to open up a pathway to perhaps more profitable dialogue.