To address earlier claims about "orbital blowout fractures":
CNN reporting that the claims are false.
As well, Tumblr user Delphoxqueen did some digging on the specific images that were reported by one of the original articles reporting the injury (the "Hoft" article) and finds a good many issues with it.
(Disclaimer: I'm not citing the Tumblr post as a legitimate journalism outlet, but rather as a source of investigation that raises good points about the images being used.)
Prick cop on a power trip accounts for every cop I have ever interacted with.You all do know that Evil Racist Cop isn't the majority of cops, right? And Evil, Racist DA? And Evil, Racist Jury and Judge?
I get it that there are some. But you do get that it isn't most of them, right?
Or are we to the point that all cops are Evil Racist Cop? Because that's what is being implied.
And the only thing they all have in common (besides being police) is you. Imagine that.
Here you go.
No, it wasn't hard, but the first time I google searched it, I ended up on the fact sheet provided by clarke.edu with the same quote with the same ellipsis and gave up.
As to the Comrade's point about the time period, either it is still relevant and whites are still in control of everything or we can answer thejeff's question about when things changed, somewhere between 1973 and now.
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.
I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.
It all depends on what you mean by racism.Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.
LOL.
Or we can dismiss the definition as inadequate.I say that by some definitions only whites can be racist. Someone else says something like only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff. I cite evidence this is not the case, and you get all nit-picky. Goblins, the only thing they should pick is their chief's nose.
Further nit-picks:
You say that by some definitions [EDIT: blacks, including] Eric Holder and Barack Obama can't be racist.
The Anti-Elite says some stuff. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely clear about everything he was trying to say, but I have a hard time believing he meant "only Glen Beck followers believe that stuff", because, last I checked, Glen Beck never argued that only whites can be racist.
Nonetheless, I admit I wasn't closely reading that part of the thread. My eye was caught by your quotation from the NEA handbook. I called attention to phrases such as "at this time" and "1973" and wondered what was under the ellipsis. Here's what was under the ellipsis:
"In the United States at present, only whites can be racists, since whitesdominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American cultural norms and values.[Part in ellipsis] This is not to say that blacks or other Third World* peoples could never be racists, that they do not have the capacity to hate, or to develop antiwhite norms and standards. To say so would be de-humanizing and racist. The point is that in the United States at this time, [end ellipsis] blacks and other Third World peoples do not have access to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have,so they cannot, by definition; beracists. Racism equals racial prejudice plus power."
Of course, since 1973, at least two black men have gained "access to power." Maybe not "control of everything" as you paraphrase, but then, to further nit pick, it isn't a very accurate paraphrase.
By the definition that you originally quoted, which I still don't agree with, both Holder and Obama can be racists. For example, hypothetically, if Obama were prejudiced against Hispanic children, he could order a whole bunch of them to be deported, and Holder would carry out his orders.
Further nit picks in a moment.
Mixing up the terms prejudice and racism.
Happens every damn time.
I did read it. It says that non-whites can become racist, but not until they control the system. So are you claiming that non-whites now control the system?
I can't quote all the text, that is why I provide the source and then a link when asked so nicely.
Here is another interesting passage.
In our society it would be very difficult for any individual to be a racist all by himself. If everyone just had his own individual racial prejudices, which were never reinforced by the society, racism would not exist. But when those individual racial prejudices are reinforced by the culture, we then have institutional racism. Thus, all white individuals in our society are racists. Even if a white American is totally free from all conscious racial prejudices, he remains a racist, for he receives benefits distributed by a white racist society through ts institutions. Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white.This passage points out why Obama and Holder can't be racist, society wouldn't reinforce prejudices they could have. So while they individually have power, they don't have societal power.
The following paragraph from the NEA report is, admittedly, chockful of ridiculousness. Nonetheless, you seem to continue to be inaccurately paraphrasing "have access to power" to "control the system."
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.
Now I am going to have to figure out which question of Comrade Jeff's you are referring to. More nit picks to follow, maybe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take this moment to offer a supposition, as a random darkie who has had more than sufficient cause for contemplating the matter, as to why, specifically, the African American people's endeavor towards a change in status and elevation of standing in society has not been as successful as desired. None of this is scientific in origin, discounting some amateur sociological speculation -it is a personal thought exercise examined through a lens of both experience and historical assessment.
People tend to point to the Model Minority, in order to justify prejudices and belittle the plight of those whom they sew as not measuring up. I get the impression that most don't examine the nature of said relationships or the underlying influences shaping them. Let's start with a previously mentioned group; the Irish.
The trope of the time was that the Irish were drunken cretins interested only in their next drink and in making more little Irish. 'Irish need not apply' was a long held sentiment, yet somehow they came to be seen as socially acceptable and for lack of a better term, white enough. Why is that?
Let's similarly consider the Chinese, especially in relation to the role they played in completion of the Central Pacific Railroad. While there was a certain parallel with African Americans in regards to manual labor, and certainly a period where they were unwelcome, that particularly pernicious portion of the past seems content to remain buried in this day and age.
Additionally, whenever wars have arisen, those who came from the enemy nation du jour ended up, socially, on the outs with the general public. So what is so different from the black experience that the end results end up so vastly disparate?
Personally I think it comes down to choice, and not necessarily on the part of the individual. Most of the Irish who came over either did so of their own expense or via indentured servitude; while second class citizens during their contract, there was an underlying expectation of relative equality when the debt was paid off. The same applied to the Chinese, and overall the implicit quality of relationship with immigrants came down to the choice to come to America by their volition, even if it meant time as a perceived 'lesser' due to socioeconomic standing.
The key distinction would be that, while second class citizens, they were not property.
This seemingly simple distinction accounts for a substantial amount of privilege - the indentured will be out of debt eventually, but a slave will remain a slave. If you free one, to some minds, they will not improve their lot in life because, after all, they are property, not people. And, of course, being as how people do not like being reminded of how the past shapes the future, many people remained resentful of the former property, intent on finding ways to punish, to exact some manner of revenge on property that dared to think of itself as people. To that end, a decision had to be made; allow for the mingling of the lower classes, and eventually run the risk of them banding together, or drive deep division to further alienate the group that most offends. The desire for acceptance is a powerfully driving force - the eagerness to please in order to receive said acceptability is a tempting reciprocation.
"You may be a mick, but at least you aren't a mud person." "I'll take yellow over black any day of the week." And so gaining access into the majority's acceptable category, the first action taken is joining in the deriding of the unacceptable. The only way to fit in was to join in, and having just gotten into the 'club' the last thing anyone wanted was to draw attention to themselves.
Cynically speaking, however, I also believe the modern iteration of this concept, especially in relation to a more globalized economy, is manifest in the relationship between America and the places where we offshore manufacturing and services; the more exploitative the deal, the more likely people of the screwed over ethnicity are to be seen as the Model Minority. As an IT professional, the obvious Indian connection comes to mind.
The thing is, while expressed in racial terms, conditions hinge as much on what the ethnicity has become 'shorthand' for, with all of the code phrases and dog whistles. The literal and euphemistic overlap as they filter across race and class and culture, but the underlying level of 'better than THOSE people' persists through the ages...and when mixed with a bit of the Crab Pot tendency, makes the overcoming that much more difficult.
That's my take on it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“In the United States at present, only whites can be racists, since whites
dominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American cultural
norms and values . . . blacks and other Third World peoples do not have
access to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have, so they cannot,
by definition, be racists.”
--from EDUCATION & RACISM, National Education Association. 1973
That right there is incorrect. The very nature of monocultures imposing their will on those American citizens they consider members of their 'race' is an example of the power to enforce their prejudice. This isolates you from the rest of America as much as 'another monoculture' acting to confine you to a monoculture that isnt their own. The race war isnt a war between races, its a war of subjugation to destroy multicultural America by sticking you in a cage that says white, or African American, or Asian, or hispanic. The players controlling that war are the traitors destroying America from within.
As for the third world, I would cite the tribal conflicts of Africa that divided nations in genocide.
What distinction do you draw? (Other than the obvious one that someone can be prejudiced about things other than race.)
Trying to figure out which question Citizen Man meant gave me a headache, so I stopped.
And I have no idea how Kryzbie would answer this one, but I just wanted to draw your attention, Comrade Jeff, if you hadn't already looked, to the NEA handbook which demarcates racial prejudice from racism by the formula: racism = racial prejudice + power. Hence, the argument ran back in 1973, maybe still today in some of the more crazed white middle class liberal guilt circles, that only whites can be racist.
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.
Nice attempt at picking, but really you should stick to your chief's nose little goblin. In this case, Holder and Obama would be reinforcing the prejudice of the white majority against hispanic or middle eastern types, not their own. While they may share the prejudice, it is because the white majority already holds this prejudice that it is reinforced.
EDIT: Mark of the beast post!
And I have no idea how Kryzbie would answer this one, but I just wanted to draw your attention, Comrade Jeff, if you hadn't already looked, to the NEA handbook which demarcates racial prejudice from racism by the formula: racism = racial prejudice + power. Hence, the argument ran back in 1973, maybe still today in some of the more crazed white middle class liberal guilt circles, that only whites can be racist.
White middle class liberal rant on how blacks can't be racists.
As for other races being racist, of course that's possible. The NEA was flat out wrong about that. Even back in '73. As long as your racism conformed to and reinforced the social norms every race could partake. Everyone got to keep the blacks down. Even African Americans could absorb the attitude and the prejudices.
Didn't see your post above mine.
I did some more google searching, that eventually led to The Blaze and the comrades from the Revolutionary Communist Party (Mao More Than Ever!), but before I got to that I found prominent black liberal intellectuals Derrick Bell (founder of Critical Race theory, we may remember from that other thread a whiles back) and Michael Eric Dyson (Obamabot stooge, as near as I can tell) defending the proposition that "blacks can be bigoted, but not racist."
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.Nice attempt at picking, but really you should stick to your chief's nose little goblin. In this case, Holder and Obama would be reinforcing the prejudice of the white majority against hispanic or middle eastern types, not their own. While they may share the prejudice, it is because the white majority already holds this prejudice that it is reinforced.
EDIT: Mark of the beast post!
[Picks Pres Man's nose]
So, if minorities with access to power indulged in the racial prejudices of the majority race and then used their access to power to act upon them, they wouldn't be racist because they are only enforcing the racial prejudices of the majority?
I'll admit that I didn't read all 55 pages of the report, but I don't see how your interpretation flows from the paragraphs under discussion.
EDIT: Let the record show that my post about Dyson was up before Citizen Man's edit.
And to get back to the untraceable image of American Nazis
I found it used in an article about Cairo, Il desegregation protests. Can't tell if it belongs there or not.
Oh, sweet. Btw, I asked my comrade buddy for clarification and he did NOT make that meme. He stole it from Boing Boing.
EDIT: Ding, ding, ding, I think we have a winner!
The storefront above the Nazi carrying the sign "Back to Africa" appears to say Cairo Something or Other. I found this article about a race riot there in '67 that mentions members of the American Nazi party protesting. I'd have to look, but I'm guessing the "Black Snipers" thing from the Detroit riots were in the air.
I bow to your google-fu, Scythia.
What distinction do you draw? (Other than the obvious one that someone can be prejudiced about things other than race.)Mixing up the terms prejudice and racism.
Happens every damn time.
Racism is prejudice against a person's race codified.
Any given person can be, and usually is prejudiced about something. This either comes from too many coincidences/life experience, or BS prejudices passed on from others that you accept at face value because the source was trusted.
When it's a group of people in power that share a specific prejudice passing laws against a specific race, that's racism.
I could be wrong, but this is the difference to me.
[Down the memory hole!]
Furthermore, the passage doesn't point out how Obama and Holder can't be racists. On the one hand if they were prejudiced against white people, I agree, those prejudices probably wouldn't be reinforced with "societal power". However, if Obama and Holder were prejudiced against, for example, Hispanics or Middle Eastern-y types, they could probably access quite a bit of societal power to reinforce those prejudices.Nice attempt at picking, but really you should stick to your chief's nose little goblin. In this case, Holder and Obama would be reinforcing the prejudice of the white majority against hispanic or middle eastern types, not their own. While they may share the prejudice, it is because the white majority already holds this prejudice that it is reinforced.
EDIT: Mark of the beast post!
OBJECTION! *Pressing Pursuit - Cornered.mp3*
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.
And I have no idea how Kryzbie would answer this one, but I just wanted to draw your attention, Comrade Jeff, if you hadn't already looked, to the NEA handbook which demarcates racial prejudice from racism by the formula: racism = racial prejudice + power. Hence, the argument ran back in 1973, maybe still today in some of the more crazed white middle class liberal guilt circles, that only whites can be racist.White middle class liberal rant on how blacks can't be racists.
Lack of paradigm level shifts of power make the statement technically correct.
A substantial reason for this is, like it or not, the sizable difference that institutionalized privilege (applied, utilized, or not) makes in the context of racism, on any applicable or plausible level.
Certainly, bigotry will exist, to my own personal disgust; however, it would take a far greater inversion of societal and economic power to make racism a comparable problem towards the current principle beneficiaries of the existing structure.
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.
We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.
He seems okay with ethnic cleansing in eastern Ukraine.
|
He seems okay with ethnic cleansing in eastern Ukraine.This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.
Too many pronouns. :-(
He (Comrade Anklebiter) seems ok with ethnic cleansing? Or he (the President) seems ok with ethnic cleansing?
This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.
Ah, then I misinterpreted you completely!
My apologies - for some reason the post parsed as deliberately snarky sarcasm about said subject more than a straightforward quotation of those who sincerely hold the view.
|
|
He seems okay with ethnic cleansing in eastern Ukraine.This is a demonstrably false statement that is disproven by actions taken both in regards to DACA and the attempts to close Guantanamo. That's a blatant contradiction to your proposition! While the sizable WASP contingency comprising the TEA/-publican party may harbor overtly displayed animosity towards Middle Easteners and Hispanics as evinced by the recent responses to both the humanitarian crisis at the border as well as the overall reactions to the Arab Spring, the President and Attorney General have not been in agreement with them.We were discussing hypotheticals, not that the President actually has these biases. Or at least I wasn't, I know the little comrade isn't a fan of the President, so I can't speak on his behalf.Too many pronouns. :-(
He (Comrade Anklebiter) seems ok with ethnic cleansing? Or he (the President) seems ok with ethnic cleansing?
El presidente...I cant say the same for Comrade Anklebiter...get back to me when he is elected president and has looked the other way on exterminating old gypsy women for cursing in public.
For the record, I am in favor of ethnic cleansing all you pinkskins, regardless of your individual hue.
Humans out!
Green Power!
Personally I think it comes down to choice, and not necessarily on the part of the individual. Most of the Irish who came over either did so of their own expense or via indentured servitude; while second class citizens during their contract, there was an underlying expectation of relative equality when the debt was paid off. The same applied to the Chinese, and overall the implicit quality of relationship with immigrants came down to the choice to come to America by their volition, even if it meant time as a perceived 'lesser' due to socioeconomic standing.
Not sure I could agree that it all comes down to that (I tend to think it is a cocktail of factors without coming down to any one of them), but I'd be hard pressed to say that the mostly-voluntary nature of Irish presence wasn't influential.
The Chinese have had more and longer-lasting troubles than the Irish - at least as far as I can tell - but I'm less familiar.
Book recommendation: How the Irish Became White by White Skin Privilege Theory co-founder and continuing Boston leftie gadfly, Noel Ignatiev.
Oversimplified summation: The Irish-Americans became white by beating up black people.
The book, IIRC, only deals with Philadelphia (it's been nigh on two decades since I've read it), but my amateur reading of Boston history seems to confirm it.
[Two edits]
Comrade Anklebiter, do you still have a PS2 for gaming?
If so, PM me your address.
Oversimplified summation: The Irish-Americans became white by beating up black people.
It seems to me that the Irish were already beating up black people long before anti-Irish sentiments saw any marked decline.
Irish-black conflict in cities like Philly really started to intensify in the twenties and thirties, whereas Irish social status reached the nadir between 1850 and 1860 or so, as far as I can tell.
As I said, it's been quite a while, so I don't remember many of the details. Something about Daniel O'Connell, volunteer fire departments, urban political (Democratic) machines and Irish craft unions forcing blacks out of certain industries. I'll look around, see if I still have a copy.
Comrade Fergie, I do still have a PS2, but I don't have it connected online, alas. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think it comes down to choice, and not necessarily on the part of the individual. Most of the Irish who came over either did so of their own expense or via indentured servitude; while second class citizens during their contract, there was an underlying expectation of relative equality when the debt was paid off. The same applied to the Chinese, and overall the implicit quality of relationship with immigrants came down to the choice to come to America by their volition, even if it meant time as a perceived 'lesser' due to socioeconomic standing.Not sure I could agree that it all comes down to that (I tend to think it is a cocktail of factors without coming down to any one of them), but I'd be hard pressed to say that the mostly-voluntary nature of Irish presence wasn't influential.
The Chinese have had more and longer-lasting troubles than the Irish - at least as far as I can tell - but I'm less familiar.
In order to avoid excesses of simplification and complication, allow me a slight clarification - my hypothesis relates, specifically, to relationships between minorities in general and the African American community in specific, with regards to internalized banding together for purposes of the pursuit of prosperity. I don't take into account the possible problems of the countries of origin as far as causing immigration, save in its impact on convincing people who are able to relocate that doing so would be a really good idea. :)
That said, such could impact attitudes as well, as having even a theoretical option of return and flipping the metaphorical bird at an unwelcoming society might serve to make a difference in the desire for integration versus a deterrent to stick around.
Plus there is that whole Mainland versus Hong Kong thing, and all the ideology conflicts that go with it.
That said, such could impact attitudes as well, as having even a theoretical option of return and flipping the metaphorical bird at an unwelcoming society might serve to make a difference in the desire for integration versus a deterrent to stick around.
You might look at the history of Liberia.
That said, such could impact attitudes as well, as having even a theoretical option of return and flipping the metaphorical bird at an unwelcoming society might serve to make a difference in the desire for integration versus a deterrent to stick around.You might look at the history of Liberia.
I am quite familiar with Liberia's history - it's a frequent chestnut brought up by certain individuals to 'prove' darkness can't self-govern. I tend to point out that while a moderately well-intentioned idea, it's not quite the same effect as the colonization of North America as far as expected success for taking land from local peoples or expecting similarly brown folk to necessarily share worldview.
Plus, well, military coups suck.
Hey you, we got your war - the musical interlude
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as Fergietown? Don't know. Other than the mayor and governor upping the anti with the protesters (and rioters - lets face it, there were anarchists types in the crowd who had no other purpose in mind than fomenting destruction) by their dictator-state paramilitary declarations, I don't know what went wrong.
Just a quick note: "Out of town anarchists taking over local protest groups and plotting violent destruction" - is a made up fantasy. It is propaganda the cops use before every protest, but it's just a lie designed to justify police excess. I have known many anarchists, and they are generally planning a vegan sausagefest, not mayhem. Most are highly politically aware, and understand that engaging the police in violence is exactly what the police want, not what the protestors want. People don't go to protests if their goal is just to destroy stuff or steal without political motivation- too many cops around, and almost no other protesters will tolerate it. Furthermore, people never bring weapons to protests. Before every major protest, the police raid some "anarchist hideout" and claim to find all manner of "weapons", but it is BS. They find kitchen knives and hammers and all the other stuff that is in every kitchen and garage in the world.
There are a small number of people who attend protests with the plan to spray paint, smash windows, or engage in similar property damage, but I have never heard of anyone attending a protest with plans to assault the police - never.
The bottom line is that protest is about getting heard and drawing attention to a cause. Property damage is one of the best means of drawing mainstream attention. Like it or not, it works. Jesus did it, the 'founding fathers' did it, Gandhi did it, and virtually every protest event that has ever succeeded has done it, or maintained the real threat of it.
Oh yeah, there is one group who practices for violence and comes equipped with all manner of weapons - the cops. If you want to find out-of-towners looking to turn things violent, look no further then the police!
Besides, they're out-of-town Maosits, not anarchists.
Spread the Protests!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have known many anarchistsAnd your experiences are your experiences, but you cannot take anecdotal evidence and apply it to every similar situation...
It just doesn't work that way.
Nor can you simply take the police at their word. (particularly after you watch them lie) If you see them using the same lie over and over your anecdotal evidence becomes a better source of information that official reports.