I’ve written before in these pages with regard to so-called ‘hate crimes’. I feel essentially, that the motivation behind a grisly torture and murder are really unimportant.
Torture is torture, and murder is murder.
The reasons in the criminal’s mind are largely unimportant. The person still suffered and is still dead.
Getting inside a criminal’s head may be a good exercise for criminologists, but is a waste of time and money for legislatures.
And is the beginning of the thought police – political correctness run rampant.
“You are not allowed to hate somebody – that’s against the law!”
Wyoming just passed a hate crime law, pointing the finger 15 years later at the killer of Matthew Shepard. It has been widely reported that he was killed because he was gay.
Turned out, he was selling sex for drugs.
This doesn’t mean he deserved to be tortured and killed. Prosecuted maybe.
What was in the mind of his killer? Was he thinking about Jesus, or his last Big Mac?
I DON’T CARE
Certainly LGBT persons need to be treated with repect.
And most folks don’t deserve to be tortured and killed. Even if they are small-time criminals.
I’m old enough to remember the Watts riots in L.A., Detroit. Rodney King? And a multitude of others. And something has always bothered me:
WHY do these folks feel the need to violently destroy THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS to make a point?
In days of yore, I participated in protests. I remember one at the State Capitol, wherein we stood in the Summer heat (all 250 or so of us) to protest The Clinton so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban’, and our own State legislature considering similar legislation. This was in the 90’s – the temperature was around 100°.
And not one of us engaged in violence, criminal looting or destruction. We had been advised not to come armed, and we didn’t. We carried signs (and American flags), signed petitions, talked amongst ourselves and drank lots of water. And listened politely to speakers like Sheriff Mack. And watched media trucks circle us deciding whether or not we were worth a spot on the 10 o’clock news.
Apparently we weren’t.
Here’s one opinion as to why they foul their own nests:
The borderline-Jacobins at Slate, who believe spanking is child abuse, and personal responsibility is out of fashion, try to explain looting away as a social phenomenon: “Why would anyone burn down the only CVS in their neighborhood?”
The reason, I think, is likely the same reason that poor black Americans in cities across the country burned “their own” neighborhoods in the late 1960s:
They did not experience those places as their own. Then, like now, police brutality was a precipitating cause of the violence, but it was the long-term experience of the indignities of the ghetto that gave shape to the riots. Then, like now, commentators compared the rioters to animals who had run wild and needed discipline. Rioting, to these bystanders, was not proper political protest but the criminal actions of poor people who merely wanted to grab what they could for free. This narrative, which I heard throughout my childhood growing up in Baltimore in the 1980s, put the blame not on the depredations of the ghetto, but on the character of its residents. It completely misapprehends the political economy of our poorest neighborhoods.
In other words: they riot because society has ignored them. Not only is that a specious argument, but it also highlights the fact that Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1968. So which party is responsible for ignoring the downtrodden social class?
Told another way, Abraham Miller at National Review wrote:
Of course, the writer above seems to think the only answer lies with which flavor of government.
What do YOU think?
h/t Brock Townsend
from Never Yet Melted (in part):
Rodrigo Kazuo and Meg Perret found their classroom environment at Berkeley hostile, even when their professor was lecturing on Karl Marx (!), because the Western canon is exclusively composed of works by dead, white, European males, not a single person of color or transgendered individual makes the cut.
Because a majority of founders of Western thought were gay, Black women…
BTW, have you noticed more ‘persons of color’, homosexual, transgendered or perhaps gender-confused folks in your favorite television shows of movies?
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
I remember my Father (who had some bigotry issues) railing against the infusion of Black folks in 60’s and 70’s TV in much the same way. He said it was much the same in the 40’s and 50’s with Jewish people. They went from being 3% of the population, to a significant minority of those in entertainment media. (He, of course, forgot that the only work many Jewish folks could get was in the entertainment field!)
And it was much the same with Black folks. 13% of the population, but represented numerically larger in the entertainment media in the 70’s.
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
My questions are these: Does the actor bring quality to the role, or further the plot? Or were they just added because of political correctness?
And now we have this infusion of gay/transgender etc. folks. Some are quite entertaining, but in my humble opinion, some are just over-the-top. And included for shock effect and/or political correctness.
Which does a disservice both to them in their sexuality or color, and to the audience by their inclusion for political reasons.
Stepin’ Fetchit meet Myra Breckenridge.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some folks I find clever, and entertaining, regardless of ethnicity or bent. Others are just plain annoying. I won’t give you specifics – you probably have your own.
A couple generations ago, Black people were largely invisible, or stereotyped, and gays (etc.) were just flamboyant characters. No mention was made of their sexuality.
But now it seems we’re out of the box, for certain.
There’s a popular cable series about polygamy.
What’s next, pedophilia and bestiality?
Where do we go from here?
We should be inclusive of different cultures and sexuality. As long as it reflects percentages and social mores.
Of course, I’m a libertarian. (Until mandated) I can always change the channel.
Via my friend Borepatch:
I find it very hard to argue with this:
Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say ‘The Left’ I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.
What can be concluded?
Our society is far more corrupt than people realize – why wouldn’t it be? What’s to stop it? But just how corrupt it is impossible to know, even approximately, since any ‘evidence’ consists of lies built upon lies.
Our society is far less smart than people realize, because good arguments are punished and demonized so bad arguments (or no arguments at all, but merely faked moral outrage/ scapegoat hatred) wins vital arguments by default.
In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars.
Asa I oft respond to another wise Internet blogger ( e.g. Rev. Paul)…
I’m a big believer in giving credit where credit is due. And blame. AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Much of the media likes to pin the badge of how evil the Koch Brothers are, because they support conservative causes. Funny how they rarely look at George Soros and his tentacles with anything more than a passing glance.
90 Miles From Tyranny recently posted a list of those organizations funded by Mr. Soros and his minions. A smattering off the list:
- American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.
- American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools.
- Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
- Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”
- Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights,” as well as todenounce Horowitz’s 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University Professors; theAmerican Civil Liberties Union; People For the American Way; the United States Student Association; theCenter for Campus Free Speech; the American Library Association; Free Press; and the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.
- Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.
- Institute for America’s Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding for education, and the creation of an infrastructure “to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.”
- LatinoJustice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and expanded rights for illegal aliens.
- Media Matters for America: This organization is a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center” seeking to “systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.” The group works closely with the Soros-backed Center for American Progress, and is heavily funded by Democracy Alliance, of which Soros is a major financier.
- Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society’s inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.
- Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly candidates.
As with so many progressive-based organizations, they may have been started as independent of politics, with good intentions, but later co-opted by the progressive movement. Others were poisoned from the beginning.
You should really visit 90 Miles From Tyranny and see the whole, long list.
Then go back to poo-poohing the Koch brothers.
I enjoy a good political discussion. Or even a debate. Unfortunately, in today’s climate, they often regress into name-calling, accusations and loud pronouncement as akin to grade school’s “Oh YEAH? Yeah!”
Why does this happen? Back as early as the 80’s, political enemies would do the “Oh Yeah” thing across the aisle, then adjourn to the neighborhood bar to share a beverage or two, and tell each other how great and principled each one was.
It’s become a sharper exchange, now. One where one might be reviewing the dark bar parking lot for the presence of ‘friends’ as well as enemies!
The reason? People no longer seem to subscribe to agreeing to disagree, because whatever the political cause, it’s become their RELIGION.
Want to annoy a Roman Catholic? Tell him he’s a papist, and that the Pope IS indeed fallible. A Republican? That he’s a shill for corporate lobbyists, and therefore has no soul. A Democrat? That most any policy foisted upon this nation by the current President is extra-Constitutional and illegal, and he deserves to be impeached, convicted and imprisoned.
Their response will undoubtedly be you don’t like him because he’s Black, and you are therefore racist. And that makes any argument you present invalid.
And that will p*** you off!
No more are there rational, reasoned exchanges back and forth regarding policies. Now it’s all name-calling and telling people what they believe is B.S.
It indeed may be, but that is not a way to discuss and argue.
“Just the facts, Ma’am.” – Sergeant Joe Friday (Jack Webb)
THAT should be everyone’s mantra.
Five weeks ago, Campus Reform went to Harvard and asked the students if ISIS or the U.S. poses a bigger threat to world peace. The answers that were given were entertaining enough to create a viral video that has since received about half a million hits.
In addition, the video received air time on Fox News.
Somewhat skeptical of the video, a few students at Harvard decided to go around and ask their fellow classmates some questions of their own. The questions focused on ISIS and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When one student was asked if ISIS or the U.S. posed a bigger threat to world peace. He said:
“I guess I’ll have to say America. I think ISIS as a group… I believe as Ben Affleck said, could fit into a baseball stadium, so they don’t have the potential to put countries into war as America would.”
Also, the response to being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which anyone applying for U.S. citizenship must to be able to recite, was even more concerning…
Disgusting. And shameful.
To disagree with a political philosophy is an American Right, a tradition. But, to do so in complete ignorance is SHAMEFUL. Of course, look what we see every day on the ‘news’, the Internet.
Of course, sometimes there it’s an agenda.
I was surprised to hear people must apply for citizenship, anymore. I thought it was just granted – like a fief.
h/t Facebook, IJReview
There’s an old joke about a woman who gets to the Pearly Gates, and wants to know if her husband is there. She tells St. Peter that his name is Frank, and he said he would turn over in his grave if she ever had relations with another man after his passing. St. Peter had trouble identifying which Frank, then suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, you mean Pinwheel Frank!”
I saw this thing from Guns & Ammo about a new 1911. I became excited. I like 1911s. And this was a Browning!
Then I saw the caliber…!
1911 – .380 ACP
I do agree that any gun is better than none, but I was disappointed.
What’s next, a Velo-dog single-action semiautomatic?
(uh, Col. Jeff Cooper, for the uninitiated, was a big proponent of the .45 ACP caliber. He passed in 2006. I suspect he’s taken Frank’s place.)
h/t Maddened Fowl
(as purloined from Random Nuclear Strikes…)
While writing about the NYT tale of how “Assault Weapon” is a term made to scare white folks, Surber refuses to hold the tough questions back.
Instead of going after the gangs, Urban Democrats go after the law-abiding citizenry, unconstitutionally banning handguns and the like until the Supreme Court’s Heller decision reversed that.
In politics, unintended consequences are rare. By going after the weapons white suburbanites and rural people enjoy, Democrats obfuscate the real issue: Black young men killing black young men for profit in cities controlled by Democrats.
Don Surber – Do Democrats Care About Dead Black Men?
The answer is: Only if will help them get votes.
(Guffaw says) To be fair, every time this game has been played in a major metropolitan area in The United States (over the past 70 years) it hasn’t always been Democrats. But it’s always been Progressives of some ilk. And how have such policies worked in places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles?
I’m not even expanding to discussing economies in such places as Detroit.
That’s for another blog.
Or rather MY libertarian conundrum!
I’m generally a libertarian (small L), politically and philosophically. Want to MAKE me do something as a function of government? I don’t think so. (conscript me, tax me w/o representation, ad infinitum). Want to believe something different than me? Sure – have at it! Believe in Krishna or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing. I don’t care.
Just don’t knock on my door demanding I believe as you, with or without the force of government behind you!
I respect your right to think and act and believe differently, as long as you leave me to do the same. Period.
Now comes the conundrum –
I tend to be isolationist. If one tribe or political party in far off Boogaboogastan wants to kill another tribe or political party, it’s no skin off my nose. As long as it doesn’t affect me. Or the National interest. (whatever THAT is!)
BUT, what if I had this opinion (and had been alive) during WWII? What if The United States did? Would we all be speaking German or Japanese now? (Those of us who are alive?)
In short, what is in keeping with libertarian principles, but allows us to have our National Security and Sovereignty and be able to look ourselves in the mirror?
Do our National Principles apply only to us? And if not, to whom, and when?
ProudHillbilly posted on 09/11 about the numerous folks killed and injured because of their religion World-wide.
A partial sampling:
||Thirty-seven Iraqis are reduced to pulp by a Shahid suicide bomber.
||Two Shahid suicide bombers take out a half-dozen human beings.
||A Shahid suicide bomber disassembles six other people.
||Boko Haram militants spray machine-gun fire into villages while yelling praises to Allah. At least fourteen are killed.
||Muslim terrorists murder a teacher with a bomb.
Should we have gone into Iraq initially? I won’t debate that, because the fact is we did. And we then left.
hundreds thousands are paying for our having done so.
A libertarian tenet is WE ARE NOT THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN. We cannot afford to be, and we are not going to make everyone believe as we do.
It would be great if we could just leave others alone to their own Destiny. Or Hell. Pick one.
Then look in the mirror the next morning.