(This came my way through Theo Spark.)
And I think it’s shameful and disgusting!
NYT – September 11. 2015
(With many thanks to Old NFO in part)
The Charleston shootings, by a white, and immediately proclaimed a hate crime prompted nationwide outrage over the (a particular) Confederate flag, forcing many to take the flags down, stop selling them, or stop displaying them. There was nationwide pressure to remove/ban the flag permanently…
The shooter’s desire to start a race war and tying that to the flag were central to their argument that the flag had to come down. Googling removal of the Confederate flag generated about 865,000 results… And not a SINGLE picture of a Confederate flag. Probably the first 50 pages of results all tied back to the Charleston shooting…
Last week a Black, gay, disgruntled employee killed two former co-workers on local TV. His apartment had a LGBT flag prominently displayed. He wanted to start a race war and blamed it on the Charleston shootings and his ‘powder keg’ feelings.
Where are the calls for removing/banning the LGBT flag? Where are the outraged media over his support of this flag and his desire to start a race war? Where are the editorials about this hate crime???
And, of course, the continued
racist, criminal, and incendiary comments by Farrakhan, The New Black Panthers (and their fellow travelers) to begin assassinating cops, especially WHITE cops! And what was it – 24 cop killings so far in 2015? (incendiary comments excised so as to not appear racist!)
Now you know me. I disagree with labeling crimes as ‘hate’ crimes, because thought and speech alone should be protected. Even thought and speech we find incendiary and disgusting (i.e. those Kansas ‘Baptist’ whack-jobs). The First Amendment still stands.
But, in today’s world, where a symbol can be made ‘bad’ by persons who have no understanding of it’s history, shouldn’t we treat similar speech and symbols with the same derision?
And how is it somehow ‘okay’ to openly recommend assassinating police officers, but if I were to suggest killing persons of another race…?
I think you see the double standard and hypocrisy.
I wish the media did.
JDZ (of Never Yet Melted), tells us the following tale…
Statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, Oxford, where he was a student for one term in 1873. Rhodes left a portion of his estate to the college.
Last April, a statue of Imperialist hero Cecil Rhodes erected in 1934 was removed from the campus of the University of Cape Town. The statue had been previously desecrated with paint and excrement. When a crane lifted the statue away, celebrating students climbed up and danced on its plinth. Rhodes had to be removed, you see, because the 19th century figure was guilty of believing in African Inequality and was a renowned champion of British Colonialism.
The insistence upon the removal of prominent historical figures guilty by the present standards of the extremist left of politically incorrect behavior and opinions is not merely restricted to Third World countries where revolutionary regimes have succeeded to power.
In Oxford, in the heart of England itself, the campus left is following the South African example and demanding the removal of a statue of Rhodes from a niche on the facade of his own college. Newsweek
The Left’s war on history, as you see below, at Yale, has been underway for decades.
What could possibly demonstrate the intellectual and moral fatuity of today’s academic establishment than this kind of abject surrender to the worst kinds of left-wing extremism in response to emotionalist blackmail?
If the study of History produces any kind of wisdom at all, the most basic component of that enlightened understanding would have to be the apprehension that it is impossible to pass judgement on the beliefs and actions of people living in the past by the standard of conventional opinions of the present.
The stained glass picture of Vice President, Secretary of State, and political philosopher John C. Calhoun, Yale Class of 1804, ornamenting the Common Room of the Yale residential college named for the great man was deliberately broken by left-wing students during the 1970s. The window was restored, but portions of the window depicting a black slave in chains kneeling at Calhoun’s feet were removed officially in 1993, after a black student complained that he was personally offended.
I’m reminded of the recent kerfuffle regarding removal of flags of the Confederacy, and desecration of other historical items.
And, of this…
This is not to equate the teachings of the Buddha with those of the Confederacy, but to show that we need to remember history in it’s entirety to obtain the full message.
The First Amendment to The Constitution (at least in the United States) may apply, also.
I don’t know what YOU believe, but, I believe this Constitutional Republic was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values.
Not Muslim; not Hindu; not Jain.
I LIKE having ‘In God We Trust’ on our money.
So, it distresses me when something like THIS happens…
For nearly two decades, the U.S. Army has provided an honor guard for an Independence Day celebration at a Baptist church that predates the founding of the nation. But this year – that tradition has come to an end.
Officials at Fort Gordon say they will not be able to send an honor guard to a July 5th service at Abilene Baptist Church because it violates a military policy banning any involvement in a religious service
When I attended a friend’s memorial – in a church – members of the military performed the flag fold ceremony. As had been done for thousands, probably millions, of service persons.
The above report is an anathema.
Via Brock Townsend:
Via The Last Refuge
For the past two weeks, Reason
, a magazine dedicated to “Free Minds and Free Markets,” has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena
that court sent to Reason.com.The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order
prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney’s Office to join with it in asking that the gag order – now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint – be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney’s Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.
Courtesy of Brock Townsend and the NRA/ILA…
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
C’mon gun blogger, magazine writers, book authors, let’s bury The State Department with enough complaints and bad press that they stop considering this! – Guffaw
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
Found @ Theo Spark
I couldn’t have said it better!
Today is the FOURTH ANNIVERSARY of my writing (or submitting
stolen borrowed content) for this blog.
I’ve posted something DAILY, along with a quote, a cartoon, a picture of a beauty, and a You Tube clip, EVERY DAY FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS!
Currently at 285,831 hits; 355 followers!
And, much to my continued surprise and delight, have not only attracted followers, but made friends! Some of whom have communicated with me off-line, and sent money and gifts I
probably don’t deserve. And some with whom I’ve had the privilege of sending lead downrange!
You guys are amazing!
My BLOG MOTHERS™ (including Tam and Brigid) whose own postings spurred me on to blogging, are a great joy! And terrific friends.
A special thank you to Borepatch, Murphy’s Law and Rev. Paul. Without whom, etc.
I plan on continuing to annoy, confound, confuse and disturb for at least another year.
(Or until the powers-that-be decide I need muzzling!)
This weblog remains a work-in-progress. As such, I’ve edited out some of the Usual Suspects who appear to be no longer blogging. If I’ve done so in error or you have a new link, please advise. My apologies.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUED FRIENDSHIP AND SUPPORT!
*my very first blog post was so entitled Well, Here We Are…
(and very sharp folks will recognize I should have posted this yesterday!)
Back when I worked @ TMCCC, I befriended a guy I’ll call Batman. Why Batman? Well, he liked the Batman persona, dressed as him for Halloween and even his license plate was DRKNITE.
And he was something like 30 years of age.
He was one of the few ‘company’ friends who came and visited me in the hospital, after the accident. He brought me a stuffed Marvin the Martian. I still have it. I honor his kindness.
Then, Life separated us; he went to Australia, and I did not.
Years later, I discovered he had repatriated, and we became friends on Facebook. And made noises about getting together for lunch, or a drink.
Then, he started posting on FB about the nasty Second Amendment, and how none of us should be able to possess firearms. Obviously, his couple of years as a faux-Aussie took it’s toll.
I tried to dissuade him, first by posting about Our Constitutional freedoms, then, more directly in debate. But to no avail. He kept posting vile ideas about us being forced to give up our Rights. Me giving up mine.
So, I unfriended him. It was all I could do.
Now comes another foreign-influenced man, an actor, Liam Neeson. From Ireland, I believe.
Of late, he been making popular movies regarding his wife (and/or daughter) being kidnapped. And he rescuing them – being some-kind of agent/operative, and all.
Then this news story appears:
Speaking at the ‘Taken 3′ press conference in Dubai on Monday, the Irish-born star of ‘Schindler’s List’, who once again plays Bryan Mills in the final film of the trilogy, responded to a question about the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last week, which he linked to gun violence in the US.
“There are too many fucking guns out there, especially in America,” said the 62-year-old. “I think the population is, like, 320 million? There are over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a fucking disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.’”
Reported by the Washington Post, Neeson added that there is a distinction between the violence of the movies and reality.
He said: “A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it’s fantasy. It’s in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn’t mean they’re all going to go out and go, ‘Yeah, let’s get a gun!’”
Now, I’m all about the First Amendment, too, but, just like with Batman, I can take action. We were not friends on Facebook (so I couldn’t unfriend him) but I can not support him by refusing to see-rent-buy his movies.
It was all I could do.
Fortunately, some others stand with me:
PARA USA, the company that rented the guns used by Neeson in “Taken 3″ (2014), his latest action film, has responded to the movie star’s recent anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment remarks by stating publicly that they will no longer be providing the weapons for his cinematic fantasy roles.
There is strength in numbers. people!
Listen up, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, Stephen King and your ilk. I’m not against YOUR rights – why are you against mine?
h/t Never Yet Melted, HuffPo