PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on August 11, 2024, 03:54:19 AM
-
I’d let her off with probation and go after the organized criminals conspiring to unjustly imprison and then kill a presidential candidate, fixing elections, using their official positions to enrich their personal bank accounts with foreign money and insider trading, trying to deprive us all of our rights, and endeavoring to destroy our constitutional system.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/illinois-school-food-director-gets-nine-years-prison/
-
This crap goes on daily in corrupt Democrat Land, where I dindu nuffin is the rule.
-
I'd let her rot in prison and then go after all those slime-balls you spoke of.
-
This is the democrat way. They let the undesirables take the fall so that the lapdog media can proclaim "see, we are tough on crime" and "no one is above the law" while they themselves engage in all sorts of crimes.
-
There is a trend I am seeing where black women are being hired, elected, or appointed to positions of power and then become corrupt and commit white collar crimes in those positions, as this woman did. She was in charge of ordering the food for the school, and so had the means and opportunity to divert food purchased with school system money to wherever (the article doesn’t say) presumably for her own enrichment.
Now whether that means black women are proportionately more likely to be bad apples than white women or anybody else is NOT clear, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying I have seen a lot of examples of this in the news and on social media, and much of it is by black commentators such as Nate the Lawyer, Black Gen Z Mindset, AK Nation and others. They, like me, aren’t pointing this out to be “racist” but rather because if it is true, it is hurting good black women, fueling prejudice against them and causing right wing backlash which is a huge problem with equity schemes, DEI policies, and all Marxist social engineering.
Here are my thoughts on why it seems (don’t know if it is true) that black women in positions of power and control over public money are disproportionately engaging in unethical behavior:
1. They are more likely to be Democrats by a giant margin and I have the belief that a higher proportion of Democrats than other parties are inclined to be cheats and have anti-social personality characteristics. (In general, not saying anything about any individual Democrat.)
2. They are more likely to be DEI hires that got the job despite being a lesser quality human being (not talking about skin color: talking about morals, ethics and competence).
3. And this is the biggest factor:
Black women have been taught for generations that money isn’t privately earned and owned, but is some sort of common pool to be tapped in whatever way they can. Welfare, food stamps, rent assistance, etc., it’s like a lake full of water nobody owns; it’s just a matter of getting a bucket and dipping you some. Go to the welfare office and fill out a form. You have a job managing a school’s food service and you just write a purchase order and divert it to yourself. It’s just dipping more money for yourself out of an endless lake the government told you you were entitled to.
In other words, perhaps there is a culture within a community where men were forced out of the role as provider, where women learned to view money this way, rather than seeing their man work at a job with value, being paid for that work, and using that pay to support her and their children; a culture so ingrained that even as they themselves get a job and a paycheck, they still can’t see money as directly connected to an individual’s work, but rather as a communal pool. And tapping a communal pool doesn’t task the conscience nearly as much as robbing an individual. (It’s no accident that this view sounds much like communism.)
The most egregious example of this is Tiffany Henyard, my gracious. Throw grandiose narcissism in and that’s what you’ve got.
-
There is a trend I am seeing where black women are being hired, elected, or appointed to positions of power and then become corrupt and commit white collar crimes in those positions, as this woman did.
You overlooked the fact that the perp was a woman. Women tend to embezzle more than men:
https://pinkcrime.academic.wlu.edu/2015/05/20/greed-need-or-inequality-what-drives-a-woman-to-embezzle/ (https://pinkcrime.academic.wlu.edu/2015/05/20/greed-need-or-inequality-what-drives-a-woman-to-embezzle/)
https://www.startribune.com/embezzlers-these-days-more-likely-to-be-women/146544445 (https://www.startribune.com/embezzlers-these-days-more-likely-to-be-women/146544445)
-
You overlooked the fact that the perp was a woman. Women tend to embezzle more than men:
https://pinkcrime.academic.wlu.edu/2015/05/20/greed-need-or-inequality-what-drives-a-woman-to-embezzle/ (https://pinkcrime.academic.wlu.edu/2015/05/20/greed-need-or-inequality-what-drives-a-woman-to-embezzle/)
https://www.startribune.com/embezzlers-these-days-more-likely-to-be-women/146544445 (https://www.startribune.com/embezzlers-these-days-more-likely-to-be-women/146544445)
Interesting articles. Of the two cases of embezzlement at places I worked, both were women (white as it happens) and both were trusted employees. In both cases they were fired but the boss chose not to press charges. Both cases were traumatic and emotional for everyone involved because of the betrayal of trust. We are talking about small businesses with employees of many years becoming almost like family. But if people will do this to their own actual family members, they’ll do it at work.
-
I don't think greed and evil knows the color of the skin.
-
I don't think greed and evil knows the color of the skin.
If a person thinks they are just temporarily borrowing something without the owner's knowledge, they may not consider it greed or evil. Consider what some of what goes through these embezzler's heads:
"Every time I pick up the paper and see a trusted and valued employee embezzle $250,000, I wonder if that person has a gambling addiction," George said.
She added that most women who embezzle often keep track of what they spend, with the intention of paying it back.
...
"It doesn't mean it's not a crime, but I think there is some uniqueness with someone who has a gambling addiction versus someone who makes a theft of opportunity," George said. "Where some would buy things for their house or take a trip, a woman with a gambling addiction has nothing to show for it."
Cascarano estimates that 90 percent of the cases he has seen involve a gambling or alcohol problem. Rarely, he said, is greed a sole factor. Large-scale Ponzi schemes like those run by Bernie Madoff or Tom Petters, who scammed investors out of millions, are rare.
...
Lawyers say that in female embezzlement cases, the perpetrator will usually try to pay the money back. Buena Vista Commonwealth’s Attorney Chris Russell has seen cases where that good intention is what got the women convicted.
“I’ve seen in a couple of cases someone took money from one person or from one employer and then made an effort to try to slowly pay back the money they took,” Russell said. “And then in doing that they take money from someone else, and that’s when they get caught.”
Robertson says he has noticed the same trend.
“They kind of delude themselves into thinking, ‘Well, if I just take it now, I’ll be able to pay it back soon when my income tax return comes in,’” Robertson said. “Eventually an audit is done or somebody actually sees them taking money and they get caught.”
And sometimes, the embezzlers make themselves out to be the victims as a way of neutralizing or rationalizing their criminal behavior.
For example, if a mother cannot afford health insurance and her children need it, she might give an unspoken ultimatum — my kids or my boss. Novack says that drives a woman to steal from her boss.
“They explain, ‘If they paid for my health insurance, I wouldn’t have to steal their money,’” Novack said. “They shift the blame to somebody else.”
Attorneys say most pink-collar crime comes down to women who get in financial binds. But a lot can go into why a woman steals and how she justifies her crime.
“It’s sort of like when they say a plane crashes, it’s not one cause but a whole series of things that come together,” Novack said. “What are her life circumstances? Does she have children to feed? Is she divorced? Is she someone who’s suffered from domestic violence?. . . All of these go hand-in-hand, and a lot of it has to do with gender.”
-
I don't think greed and evil knows the color of the skin.
Well the woke left says “systemic racism” is to blame for the high crime rate among blacks (if you can get them to admit there is a higher crime rate among blacks, which there is - but it is both perpetrator and victim). A racist white person will say blacks are more innately predisposed to crime, as if it is connected to skin color.
My position is neither. I hold that the cause of high crime in black communities is Democrat policy initiated by LBJ. Programs called The Great Society and the War on Poverty, which resulted in a much worse society and much more poverty for blacks. In the words of Thomas Sowell:
“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.
“Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.
“The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies.”
There is an undeniable association between personality/IQ and criminal behavior. Criminals tend to have lower IQs and also have higher rates of personality disorders involving difficulty delaying gratification and lower empathy for others. The reasons for these deficits is not entirely clear but environmental factors seem correlated to early childhood nutrition and absence of a father.
There may also be genetic factors but this is not to say blacks are innately inferior. All races have genes for pathological personality disorders, and blacks probably have no more than whites, but when a community is confined to impoverished areas, and then the smarter, more organized individuals move up and out, you’re left with the dregs who then are raised without the environmental mitigating factors that a healthy community would have provided. Add the lack of law enforcement of which Sowell speaks, no father in the home, and the frustrations of poverty, any inborn tendency toward crime has nothing to stop it.
If that’s not enough to push you into crime, the welfare state won’t have males marrying and supporting a family, so there goes your purpose in life. So you have free roaming young men and insufficient jobs and why would you work a boring low paying job anyway if no woman wants you for a permanent mate? What do young unattached males need? Something to do. Other males to bond with. A purpose, and what more lucrative purpose is there but the black market for drugs? And there’s your perfect setup for gangs, crime, violence and prison.
Sowell is right; liberal policies led to the destruction of the nuclear family in black communities and that more than anything is why the crime rate is higher among blacks. In my opinion.
-
I think Africans are somewhat predisposed to violence and murder to solve disputes or being disrespected due to their tribal heritage. Look at the massive violence and genocide in African countries.
No, I don't think ALL Blacks are like this, but the poor inner city ones devolve back into their tribal nature. They used to call it "Gang Violence". What's a gang but another word for tribe. Now it's "gun violence". Idiot Media. >:(
-
I think Africans are somewhat predisposed to violence and murder to solve disputes or being disrespected due to their tribal heritage. Look at the massive violence and genocide in African countries.
No, I don't think ALL Blacks are like this, but the poor inner city ones devolve back into their tribal nature. They used to call it "Gang Violence". What's a gang but another word for tribe. Now it's "gun violence". Idiot Media. >:(
All humans are tribal but environmental conditions bring it out more sometimes than other times. The geographical peculiarities of Africa seem to encourage it. As opposed to the geography of North America or China, both of which allow a much more stable large nation to form under some sort of system of law that overrides local squabbles and allows technological progress which in turn supports a stable society. Sub-Saharan African geography restricts such easy formation of large entities because for example, lack of ease of travel and communication between locales.
So tribes remain more isolated and self sufficient and are loathe to relinquish their independence, more defensive about their resources, and disinclined to bow to some authority in a remote city. These tendencies continue down through generations even as technology improves and there is more interconnectivity. Could they have evolved these features for survival to the extent behavior is controlled by genes? Yes, but if so, then surely they also evolved in whites in say, Western Europe, which also has geographical separations, so much so that several different languages arose which persist to this day, and there is quite a history of wars between the various “tribes”.
Although Europe isn’t nearly as bad as Africa as it did come under the control of first Rome, then the Church, and now the EU, but hasn’t ever really been “One Nation, etc.” ever, and probably never will.
Nevertheless you may have a point. There is probably a spectrum of behaviors where it’s possible different races tend more toward one end or the other, just like different breeds of dogs can have different temperaments, and we know it’s genetic in them; why wouldn’t it also be in humans? However, on whole, the human races are all far, far, more similar to each other than we are different, and there is abundant evidence of this, and abundant evidence of what allows humans to get along and not succumb to primitive tribal violence, and that is this: A democratic (small d) form of government that doesn’t interfere with a free market economy, and basic human rights. In such conditions most people of all races flourish. Different nations can coexist peacefully as long as they are democracies and as long as they allow their people to pursue prosperity. Trade will ensue, instead of war.
The other way to achieve no tribal squabbling is with a brutal totalitarian government and no freedoms at all. I rather prefer the first way. Unfortunately I think Kamala & Company are planning the second way for us.
-
Evolution takes many thousands of years. Not a few hundred. The situation in Africa that rush described has been in existence since humans inhabited the place. Those with the genetic makeup to thrive there did so. Others didn't. It was only a few centuries ago that large quantities of Africans were "introduced" to western culture. That is not enough to breed out millennia of evolution.
-
So tribes remain more isolated and self sufficient and are loathe to relinquish their independence, more defensive about their resources, and disinclined to bow to some authority in a remote city.
Kind of like the States before Federalism.
-
I've always wondered why the former slaves didn't all go back to the land of their origin after being freed.
Stockholm Theorem?
-
Evolution takes many thousands of years. Not a few hundred. The situation in Africa that rush described has been in existence since humans inhabited the place. Those with the genetic makeup to thrive there did so. Others didn't. It was only a few centuries ago that large quantities of Africans were "introduced" to western culture. That is not enough to breed out millennia of evolution.
Right. We know that living things co-evolve with their environment. There is no reason this doesn't apply equally to humans just like any other animal. For example, most humans are lactose intolerant, but those whose ancestors domesticated cattle evolved lactase persistence probably because it enhanced survival to be able to consume cow's milk into adulthood. (This is the basis of the insane "milk is racist" nonsense.)
I think there is probably a difference in what is a healthy diet based on your ancestors. If your ancestors evolved in a rain forest, you might thrive on a diet consisting of more fruit and plant matter than if your ancestors evolved in northern latitudes and hunted mammoth. Even so, all humans are omnivores, we are more alike than different. We are after all, one species.
We know Africans evolved a gene that protects them against malaria. You only need one copy of the gene for the protection. However if you inherit two copies, you get sickle cell anemia. The benefit outweighs the problem in terms of survival of the group as a whole.
But because humans are unique in having extreme intelligence, we are much more agile than animals in modifying behavioral tendencies that may have evolved genetically to suit certain environments. We have the ability to modify the environment itself!