It is so helpful when those who decry hatred and division find great humor in being hateful, mocking, and divisive.
Raw Story revels in such strategies (e.g., Jon Stewart roasts Southerners...). But other than getting some good yucks, how exactly does this forward the cause of getting beyond the divide we suffer in this country, how does it bridge racial and partisan enmity? It doesn't. Those who say we need a open and honest discussion of such differences, really don't think that at all. They use that as a vehicle to ridicule and try to delegitimize those who disagree.
I don't care about Southerners, don't care about flags. But the whining and crying about how people treat each other, followed by intolerance and treating people like idiots is simply disingenuous and galling - and it does little except increase division and distrust - and hostility. As I have noted before, Jon Stewart was once a voice of reason, an equal opportunity critic, who has now become a partisan accomplice.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Brave comments
A rapper (A$AP Rocky? Never heard of him) - showed some real courage in his statements as posted in an article on Huffpost:
"Why are we exploiting the beef between the urban community and the police force when 60 people got shot on a Friday and Saturday [on July holiday weekend in 2014] in Chicago in black-on-black crime? So one cop shoots a black person... that kind of shit is inevitable. Not to glorify it, but that's nothing new. Let's talk about the black-on-black crime. If you're not gonna talk about the main topic, then don't talk about it all."
Of course this created a great deal of angst and drew the ire of a lot of people, because it is clear that black lives only matter when they are ended by a law enforcement officer or white person.
But let's be honest - if lives matter all lives matter and the problem is bigger than slogans. Just as with the knee-jerk reactions about confederate flags and gun control - they are ways people can avoid addressing the real problems. It is so much easier to point fingers at "oppressors" like LEO or another race than it is to look at yourself and say "Damn, we're pretty fucked up". It is comfortable to see the problem in someone else's backyard, to see it as something they need to fix, than it is to figure out what we can do.
That is why there will not be any real meaningful change form any of this - people will work to curtail the rights of others they blame and the same old will go on.
"Why are we exploiting the beef between the urban community and the police force when 60 people got shot on a Friday and Saturday [on July holiday weekend in 2014] in Chicago in black-on-black crime? So one cop shoots a black person... that kind of shit is inevitable. Not to glorify it, but that's nothing new. Let's talk about the black-on-black crime. If you're not gonna talk about the main topic, then don't talk about it all."
Of course this created a great deal of angst and drew the ire of a lot of people, because it is clear that black lives only matter when they are ended by a law enforcement officer or white person.
But let's be honest - if lives matter all lives matter and the problem is bigger than slogans. Just as with the knee-jerk reactions about confederate flags and gun control - they are ways people can avoid addressing the real problems. It is so much easier to point fingers at "oppressors" like LEO or another race than it is to look at yourself and say "Damn, we're pretty fucked up". It is comfortable to see the problem in someone else's backyard, to see it as something they need to fix, than it is to figure out what we can do.
That is why there will not be any real meaningful change form any of this - people will work to curtail the rights of others they blame and the same old will go on.
Yep!
That's what happens when people get all hyped up and act before they know the facts.
Can't say for sure I believe him or not - but that is not my point. Whether it is a president who misleads on so many issues in his reflexive agenda-driven statements or it is the larger liberal community (with its banner-carrier Huffpost), there can never be quite enough jumping to conclusions and stifling speech - even if they don't know what was said or why it was said!
Can't say for sure I believe him or not - but that is not my point. Whether it is a president who misleads on so many issues in his reflexive agenda-driven statements or it is the larger liberal community (with its banner-carrier Huffpost), there can never be quite enough jumping to conclusions and stifling speech - even if they don't know what was said or why it was said!
Friday, June 19, 2015
Pondering our state of affairs
In the aftermath of the tragedy in Charleston and after spending the morning hearing about how the US is a racist nation (and by default that means white racism against black citizens), there are lots of things that need to be said.
1. This act was an individual act of racial terrorism. Given the shooter's statements (both during and prior to the shooting), the photographs including the patches on his shirt, that much is a given. But what I am trying to wrap my brain around is why his act is taken as defining a nation or a race and why this is being done by groups who, in other cases of terrorism, go out of their way to absolve larger groups of the misdeeds of a few crazy people. Specifically, we are always told that acts by Islamic extremists are not indicative of the attitudes of the larger Muslim population. In fact, as a general rule, we are told that stereotyping/profiling are discriminatory acts - especially when they include racial or religious characteristics. Still, when one crazy white male does something like this, it is followed by discussion in which pundits and public figures tell us how little we (white people) have changed and that we (white Americans) are a racist nation and when one gun owner does something like this all are tarred with a common brush. Be honest; you will never eliminate individual racism, black or white. There will always be racist individuals.
So, a Muslin convert (who is, by the way, African-American) beheads a white woman and attempts to do so to another; a pair of Muslim terrorists assault a publisher's office in Paris and kill multiple people, two Muslim brothers blow up the Boston Marathon, 9/11, and so on, and in each case we are told "The XXXXX are really good people and this is the act of an extreme minority." Why is that kind of dispensation given in those cases and not one where the shooter is white? Yes, racism still exists and, to be honest and clear, it always will in some quarters. It exists in both white and black America. So does religious hatred and intolerance. And telling us that one group is a perpetrator of it and the other a victim does little but perpetuate it. There are those whose life's work is to accentuate or even create division.
2. Bad people, racists of all colors, do bad things (like see here), but it takes a white crazy person killing black people or children to get the kind of attention we are seeing now. They will use the same tools that good people use to do bad things, from cars, to knives, to guns, to fertilizer. We have tried prohibitions in this country before and have seen how badly they fail and also the unintended consequences of them. Still, that seems to only approach some are willing to consider in this regard. Alcohol prohibition led, in large part, to a burgeoning organized crime industry that we still see flourishing today in the context of drug prohibition. Supply and demand rules the day as long as supply can be found and transported. If demand is there, someone will risk supplying it. Unfortunately for prohibition efforts, there are industrious people both within and without our borders who have been eager and willing to risk incarceration for profit in providing supply - and the odds are clearly in their favor. It is unclear why any rational person would believe that a blanket prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms (let's be honest, that is what many people want, not "common sense gun laws" - to them "common sense" would be that all firearms were under control of the government) would be any more likely to succeed.
First, all those illusions and delusions about "other advanced countries" are both mistaken and misguided. Take France, for instance, and what happened there (as noted above). Let's not cherry-pick our data. Even the data for island nations with strict anti-gun laws, such as Great Britain and Australia, do not bear strict scrutiny with regard to their success in violence prevention (see here). And we cannot forget that we are not an island nation, but share land borders with two nations, one of which is already a pathway through which large amounts of contraband and numbers of illegal immigrants reach this nation (and which suffers its own high level of violence). The other (Canada) is a long, desolate border across which it is suggested threats easily transgress.
3. In the face of such armed aggression, there are those who will say the answer is disarmament. There are those who insist that an armed citizen could not have stopped such acts. Clearly there is evidence to the contrary. Clearly the vast majority of such tragedies occur in places where guns are either prohibited or frowned upon. Places like schools or churches where some delusion makes people think they are safe. We cannot deny reality and it is clear that those wishing to kill others without interference choose places where they are less likely to meet resistance, especially armed resistance. Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, DC Naval Yards, Mother Emmanuel, and so on.
I know, there are those who will take this as a critique of the victims, as if it is blaming them for their death. That is not the point. The point is when do we face reality, when do we learn the lesson and start to do something about it? You may choose to go through life unarmed and vulnerable. Others will not. You may say, as the Violence Policy Center does, that good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns. Of course it is false and their reasoning is shoddy. They determined this by looking tat justified homicides v. other homicides. But thankfully many defensive uses of firearms don't end in the perpetrator's death - in fact if they did, then the VPC would be complaining about that. Data suggest that firearms are used millions of times in self-defense, most often without being fired. But that statistic does not fit the narrative, so it is not cited. If every one of those defensive uses were to end in a death, then the VPC would be all over it. So, for them with their bias, there is no way gun owners win. The good guy notion is a myth because there are so few justifiable homicides; but if there were more, they would call it a "stand-your-ground slaughterhouse".
There is no way that guns will be eliminated from our nation. A full prohibition on firearm ownership will only disarm those who will obey it. The rest will be criminals; either those who were always committed to carrying/owning firearms illegally in the service of committing crimes or those who were legal, law-abiding owners who became criminals solely by refusing to capitulate to such a mandate.
One of those groups will prey on those who do disarm themselves, much as they have always done. The other, in order to avoid persecution and prosecution, will watch in silence but defend themselves when necessary.
1. This act was an individual act of racial terrorism. Given the shooter's statements (both during and prior to the shooting), the photographs including the patches on his shirt, that much is a given. But what I am trying to wrap my brain around is why his act is taken as defining a nation or a race and why this is being done by groups who, in other cases of terrorism, go out of their way to absolve larger groups of the misdeeds of a few crazy people. Specifically, we are always told that acts by Islamic extremists are not indicative of the attitudes of the larger Muslim population. In fact, as a general rule, we are told that stereotyping/profiling are discriminatory acts - especially when they include racial or religious characteristics. Still, when one crazy white male does something like this, it is followed by discussion in which pundits and public figures tell us how little we (white people) have changed and that we (white Americans) are a racist nation and when one gun owner does something like this all are tarred with a common brush. Be honest; you will never eliminate individual racism, black or white. There will always be racist individuals.
So, a Muslin convert (who is, by the way, African-American) beheads a white woman and attempts to do so to another; a pair of Muslim terrorists assault a publisher's office in Paris and kill multiple people, two Muslim brothers blow up the Boston Marathon, 9/11, and so on, and in each case we are told "The XXXXX are really good people and this is the act of an extreme minority." Why is that kind of dispensation given in those cases and not one where the shooter is white? Yes, racism still exists and, to be honest and clear, it always will in some quarters. It exists in both white and black America. So does religious hatred and intolerance. And telling us that one group is a perpetrator of it and the other a victim does little but perpetuate it. There are those whose life's work is to accentuate or even create division.
2. Bad people, racists of all colors, do bad things (like see here), but it takes a white crazy person killing black people or children to get the kind of attention we are seeing now. They will use the same tools that good people use to do bad things, from cars, to knives, to guns, to fertilizer. We have tried prohibitions in this country before and have seen how badly they fail and also the unintended consequences of them. Still, that seems to only approach some are willing to consider in this regard. Alcohol prohibition led, in large part, to a burgeoning organized crime industry that we still see flourishing today in the context of drug prohibition. Supply and demand rules the day as long as supply can be found and transported. If demand is there, someone will risk supplying it. Unfortunately for prohibition efforts, there are industrious people both within and without our borders who have been eager and willing to risk incarceration for profit in providing supply - and the odds are clearly in their favor. It is unclear why any rational person would believe that a blanket prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms (let's be honest, that is what many people want, not "common sense gun laws" - to them "common sense" would be that all firearms were under control of the government) would be any more likely to succeed.
First, all those illusions and delusions about "other advanced countries" are both mistaken and misguided. Take France, for instance, and what happened there (as noted above). Let's not cherry-pick our data. Even the data for island nations with strict anti-gun laws, such as Great Britain and Australia, do not bear strict scrutiny with regard to their success in violence prevention (see here). And we cannot forget that we are not an island nation, but share land borders with two nations, one of which is already a pathway through which large amounts of contraband and numbers of illegal immigrants reach this nation (and which suffers its own high level of violence). The other (Canada) is a long, desolate border across which it is suggested threats easily transgress.
3. In the face of such armed aggression, there are those who will say the answer is disarmament. There are those who insist that an armed citizen could not have stopped such acts. Clearly there is evidence to the contrary. Clearly the vast majority of such tragedies occur in places where guns are either prohibited or frowned upon. Places like schools or churches where some delusion makes people think they are safe. We cannot deny reality and it is clear that those wishing to kill others without interference choose places where they are less likely to meet resistance, especially armed resistance. Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, DC Naval Yards, Mother Emmanuel, and so on.
I know, there are those who will take this as a critique of the victims, as if it is blaming them for their death. That is not the point. The point is when do we face reality, when do we learn the lesson and start to do something about it? You may choose to go through life unarmed and vulnerable. Others will not. You may say, as the Violence Policy Center does, that good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns. Of course it is false and their reasoning is shoddy. They determined this by looking tat justified homicides v. other homicides. But thankfully many defensive uses of firearms don't end in the perpetrator's death - in fact if they did, then the VPC would be complaining about that. Data suggest that firearms are used millions of times in self-defense, most often without being fired. But that statistic does not fit the narrative, so it is not cited. If every one of those defensive uses were to end in a death, then the VPC would be all over it. So, for them with their bias, there is no way gun owners win. The good guy notion is a myth because there are so few justifiable homicides; but if there were more, they would call it a "stand-your-ground slaughterhouse".
There is no way that guns will be eliminated from our nation. A full prohibition on firearm ownership will only disarm those who will obey it. The rest will be criminals; either those who were always committed to carrying/owning firearms illegally in the service of committing crimes or those who were legal, law-abiding owners who became criminals solely by refusing to capitulate to such a mandate.
One of those groups will prey on those who do disarm themselves, much as they have always done. The other, in order to avoid persecution and prosecution, will watch in silence but defend themselves when necessary.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Here it comes again! Shock doctrine
Tragedy, absolute tragedy. There is no excuse for such killing. Let's be clear about that. this was the work of a sick mind, a sick young mind (and the fact that so many young men - e.g., here, Virginia Tech, and in Sandy Hook) are committing these acts needs to set off an alarm. Not about guns, but about youth, about how they are being failed.
But, not being one to let a tragedy go to waste nor cast blame very far from his pet issues, "In a statement at the White House, President Barack Obama mourned the victims and lamented the steady stream of mass shootings he has had to address while in office. "Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," he said. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other countries."
Many of us do not want to live in those other countries, we want to live in this one, with the rights guaranteed us and no group consequences for the actions of a few. We are not killers, just honest and hard-working, don't hate anyone who does not hate us, don't care what color, ethnicity or religion you are as long as you respect us, we will respect you...we want only to be left alone to be who we are. Crazy, hateful people will always be there and always intent on doing harm. Tim McVeigh needed only fertilizer. In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no way for them to do so. But that world only exists in the mind of those, like Obama, who think the way to restrain crazy hateful criminals and terrorists is to curtail the freedom of the law-abiding.
What laws would have stopped this? If there is wrongdoing here, punish it. If he had this gun illegally, punish those who gave it to them.
There are two distinct worldviews at odds in this debate:
1. The "perfect world" people. Those who think that there is a way to keep bad people from doing bad things. Those who think that, rather than addressing what makes people crazy and providing the care needed, even removing them from among us if necessary, the answer is to remove individual rights from all. Interestingly this group is often made up of those who want to legalize drugs, legalize abortion, celebrate whatever sexual behaviors one might enjoy, choosing one's own gender and race, and so on. That is, interestingly, they are champions of individual rights - except for one. They decry the drug war, saying it cannot work, yet think a war on guns will. As I have noted previously, if you cannot keep drugs off your streets, from coming across your border, how will you do so with guns.
2. The "time to take care of ourselves" people. People like this know that evil exists, that wishing it away will not work, know that evil will always find tools to do its work (e.g., fertilizer) and that the tools that law-abiding people use can also be put to evil use. People like this wonder why target-rich environments like schools and churches are also defense-free zones (to carry in churches in SC requires permission). They wonder why no one in this church was armed, why they were not sufficiently aware to alert on this clear anomaly within their midst; white, talking to parishioners, wearing an "apartheid" patch. Why they allowed themselves to be lulled into passivity. How might this have changed with one armed person present, given it was mentioned that the shooter reloaded several times.
"But I don;t want to have to be armed in school or church" doesn't cut it.
Evil will not go away by taking away rights from good people. The foolish fairy tale that was espoused this morning on so many shows, the assumption that somehow schools and churches are inherently protected from such evil is just that; a delusion that leaves people unprotected. It is no coincidence that attacks occur in such places.
Lastly, let's be honest - many of the good people are not going to comply when the order is given to line up and turn in arms. It may make them criminals, it is almost certain they will be labeled as terrorists for failing to be controlled, but they will not comply. You wish away evil and cower before it - some will look it in the eye and fight it.
But, not being one to let a tragedy go to waste nor cast blame very far from his pet issues, "In a statement at the White House, President Barack Obama mourned the victims and lamented the steady stream of mass shootings he has had to address while in office. "Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," he said. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other countries."
Many of us do not want to live in those other countries, we want to live in this one, with the rights guaranteed us and no group consequences for the actions of a few. We are not killers, just honest and hard-working, don't hate anyone who does not hate us, don't care what color, ethnicity or religion you are as long as you respect us, we will respect you...we want only to be left alone to be who we are. Crazy, hateful people will always be there and always intent on doing harm. Tim McVeigh needed only fertilizer. In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no way for them to do so. But that world only exists in the mind of those, like Obama, who think the way to restrain crazy hateful criminals and terrorists is to curtail the freedom of the law-abiding.
What laws would have stopped this? If there is wrongdoing here, punish it. If he had this gun illegally, punish those who gave it to them.
There are two distinct worldviews at odds in this debate:
1. The "perfect world" people. Those who think that there is a way to keep bad people from doing bad things. Those who think that, rather than addressing what makes people crazy and providing the care needed, even removing them from among us if necessary, the answer is to remove individual rights from all. Interestingly this group is often made up of those who want to legalize drugs, legalize abortion, celebrate whatever sexual behaviors one might enjoy, choosing one's own gender and race, and so on. That is, interestingly, they are champions of individual rights - except for one. They decry the drug war, saying it cannot work, yet think a war on guns will. As I have noted previously, if you cannot keep drugs off your streets, from coming across your border, how will you do so with guns.
2. The "time to take care of ourselves" people. People like this know that evil exists, that wishing it away will not work, know that evil will always find tools to do its work (e.g., fertilizer) and that the tools that law-abiding people use can also be put to evil use. People like this wonder why target-rich environments like schools and churches are also defense-free zones (to carry in churches in SC requires permission). They wonder why no one in this church was armed, why they were not sufficiently aware to alert on this clear anomaly within their midst; white, talking to parishioners, wearing an "apartheid" patch. Why they allowed themselves to be lulled into passivity. How might this have changed with one armed person present, given it was mentioned that the shooter reloaded several times.
"But I don;t want to have to be armed in school or church" doesn't cut it.
Evil will not go away by taking away rights from good people. The foolish fairy tale that was espoused this morning on so many shows, the assumption that somehow schools and churches are inherently protected from such evil is just that; a delusion that leaves people unprotected. It is no coincidence that attacks occur in such places.
Lastly, let's be honest - many of the good people are not going to comply when the order is given to line up and turn in arms. It may make them criminals, it is almost certain they will be labeled as terrorists for failing to be controlled, but they will not comply. You wish away evil and cower before it - some will look it in the eye and fight it.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Can we please just stop now!?!?!
If it's not Caitlyn Jenner, its Rachel Dolezal.
Can we please just stop the insanity. He is not a woman and she is not black. You can't just make shit up and then it is so. Stop talking to and about these people and let them toil away in obscurity. It will not be long before they realize they only did it for the notoriety.
- He looks like a woman. Fine, look like a women if you want, but face reality; you are not a woman. No, he is not a hero.
- She is not black, not African-American. She can perm her hair, put on bronzer and darken her skin, she can tell us what she feels like, that she has identified with the black experience, but she is white.
Both of these are incredible caricatures that have emerged from the "it's all about me" generations, the "you can be whatever you want to be, whatever you put your mind to" generations. But you can't, not like that. Caitlyn has become a replica of what he, as a male, sees as the perfect women. Not sure, but perhaps he just wanted his own parts to play with. But he is picking the pockets of women everywhere. He was a has-been who no one cared about until he became Caitlyn and now he is a hero.
And let's be clear; Rachel is a clever one - she is stealing black people's shit and they didn't even know it, perhaps they don't care (is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?). She's playing a full house of race cards, she knows where the profit lies. Be honest - no one gives a shit about white people today - it's all about black lives mattering and the Hispanic vote. Her escapades simply prove it; she did not do this out of social justice and concern, she did it because it made her important and no one gives a good damn for a homely white girl. Nothing is more important right now than a black woman, so this gave her the sense of worth she was lacking. Next comes the Lifetime movie of the week.
Hey kids! This is the world you will be inheriting - old dudes like me will be gone soon and, in the meantime, we will just try to enjoy the giggles and grins that go with seeing shit like this taken seriously, people like this applauded instead of institutionalized.
Can we please just stop the insanity. He is not a woman and she is not black. You can't just make shit up and then it is so. Stop talking to and about these people and let them toil away in obscurity. It will not be long before they realize they only did it for the notoriety.
- He looks like a woman. Fine, look like a women if you want, but face reality; you are not a woman. No, he is not a hero.
- She is not black, not African-American. She can perm her hair, put on bronzer and darken her skin, she can tell us what she feels like, that she has identified with the black experience, but she is white.
Both of these are incredible caricatures that have emerged from the "it's all about me" generations, the "you can be whatever you want to be, whatever you put your mind to" generations. But you can't, not like that. Caitlyn has become a replica of what he, as a male, sees as the perfect women. Not sure, but perhaps he just wanted his own parts to play with. But he is picking the pockets of women everywhere. He was a has-been who no one cared about until he became Caitlyn and now he is a hero.
And let's be clear; Rachel is a clever one - she is stealing black people's shit and they didn't even know it, perhaps they don't care (is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?). She's playing a full house of race cards, she knows where the profit lies. Be honest - no one gives a shit about white people today - it's all about black lives mattering and the Hispanic vote. Her escapades simply prove it; she did not do this out of social justice and concern, she did it because it made her important and no one gives a good damn for a homely white girl. Nothing is more important right now than a black woman, so this gave her the sense of worth she was lacking. Next comes the Lifetime movie of the week.
Hey kids! This is the world you will be inheriting - old dudes like me will be gone soon and, in the meantime, we will just try to enjoy the giggles and grins that go with seeing shit like this taken seriously, people like this applauded instead of institutionalized.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Another idiot heard from!
Once again, someone who has not been there and done that, thinks he is in a position to critique an officer's actions.
Huffpost reports on a situation where an LEO used his service weapon to defend himself. The video tells the story. Of course, as usual, there is someone who thinks they know better:
"He was drunk. [The officer] could have maced him," Kenneth Willaims told WHAS. "He could have used his stun gun. He didn't have to shoot that man. He wasn't no threat."
Yes, likely the officer could have maced him as soon as he arrived on scene, prior to coming under attack. Of course, then we would be showing a video of that and reading critiques of why he maced a man who had yet to attack him. Same goes with the idea of using a taser.
Here's a hint for not getting shot by LE; if they come on scene to take charge of you, don't try to beat them with a flagpole.
Huffpost reports on a situation where an LEO used his service weapon to defend himself. The video tells the story. Of course, as usual, there is someone who thinks they know better:
"He was drunk. [The officer] could have maced him," Kenneth Willaims told WHAS. "He could have used his stun gun. He didn't have to shoot that man. He wasn't no threat."
Yes, likely the officer could have maced him as soon as he arrived on scene, prior to coming under attack. Of course, then we would be showing a video of that and reading critiques of why he maced a man who had yet to attack him. Same goes with the idea of using a taser.
Here's a hint for not getting shot by LE; if they come on scene to take charge of you, don't try to beat them with a flagpole.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Better arm up! McKinney TX coming to your town
Ah, the blathering continues - just peruse those comments.
I wish it were harder to believe that there are so many ignorant liberals in the world, talking about things they do not understand. Strange, since they insist that liberalism is somehow an intelligent philosophy, more evolved than the common folk. Sad thing is I have been, for most of my life, a liberal (in academics, no less), so I know how they are about being smarter than everyone else. But being liberal never meant being ignorant to me. But as liberals have changed, so have I.
It is good to see - although it will not be accepted because it is counter to the popular narrative - that there is at least some counter-analysis of the events in McKinney.
Look - let's try to get some perspective here.
1. This is a diverse community - and a diverse crowd of teens. Yes, we know - everything has to be about race - if it wasn't then no one would care. After all "Black lives matter!" - apparently more than others (what a pitiful idea). Many of those from the neighborhood whose comments are noted at the "conservative" website are diverse community members. It is also clear that the pool is a private area, not open to the public, certainly not without permission. It is also clear that this incident did not start when the LEO arrived on scene. LE was called by community security.
2. Of course, there are liberal voices who will refuse to accept any other conclusion than racism. You will notice that the reactions to this differ greatly whether one lives in the neighborhood in question or somewhere else where this has not happened yet. I suspect that, when the "pool party" comes to some liberals' lilly-white neighborhood (of course, if it is them it is not racist) they may call LE and change their tune. Since when is a neighborhood not allowed to have standards for behavior and allowed to control its environment, regardless of the race of those involved?
It has been said numerous times, but I guess there is nothing like experience to reach and teach people. But I will say it again anyway, just so I can say "told you so" when it happens.
All of those who examine the totality of this situation and can only see an LEO who over-reacted, who see a group of wonderful teen-aged cherubs who were doing nothing wrong, had better start arming up. Believe me, you are creating a teen generation that will grow into a young adult generation that does not believe the rules apply to them (that is, they can do what they want and be accommodated), that there is no authority that can hold them responsible for following the rules, and who feel no great compunction at assaulting anyone who attempts to confront them. They do not respect rules or property. I was a rowdy teen, but when LE told me what to do, whether I liked it or them or not, I did it. The idea of attacking an LE would not have occurred.
You are creating this - by absolving them of any responsibility for their own behavior; none of this was their fault. By, after it happens, insisting that it was not fair to them to ask them to follow the rules, to do as they are told. You are telling them that their actions were acceptable. This is what you have told them about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. You have told them that no one has the right to hold them accountable for heir behavior. You have told them that the neighborhood has no right to make their property private, to control access to it, that there is not private property, it is all community property. The security guards have no right to eject them, and no right to expect that LE will come do its job. LE has no right to serve the public who pay for their protection, no right to enforce law. Your think they will love you for it.
Folks, some day this is going to come to your neighborhood, a gang of teens is going to decide it is their neighborhood, your stuff is their stuff, and if you decide to intervene, you will certainly be assaulted and potentially raped and killed. Because you are a liberal you will likely be totally unprepared for this, you will likely come out to meet a diverse group of a hundred teens thinking that you can reason with them, hug them, sing kumbaya with them, commiserate with them about the unfairness in society and their maltreatment by LE. You might even give them your stuff as reparations for all of their perceived wrongs and all will go well. It will not.
You might, when all that fails, call 911, having finally realized the value of LE. Of course, by then, LE will have been cowed into a role where the best options they have will be harsh language (but not too harsh, since that might be rude). Chances are that they will not respond at all, they will likely be under-staffed, as most of them will have moved on to other work that is both less dangerous and less likely to get them prosecuted for doing what is asked of them. You see, you can't call and ask them to protect you if you will not let them protect themselves as well. We can already see examples of this in cities where they have been vilified for trying to do their jobs. (This is not unlike the way we have treated our warriors - fight a war but don't hurt people - and veterans; good luck finding a new group of them). It is funny how, when looking at the complete picture, some people are aghast at how those tasked to protect them act instead of dismayed at the behavior of our teens.
So, friends, you are likely to find yourself on your own when the pool party finds its way to your neighborhood. The cherubs you so zealously defend will be taking your stuff and if you are lucky, you may be alive to watch - or maybe not so lucky since you will likely have been raped and watched your children raped. And, believe me, given the choice of coming for my stuff or yours, they will be coming for yours, because many of them will die trying to get to mine. At my castle, they will meet surprise, speed and violence of action. You will be on your own.
Dark Paradise - one you chose to create. Best draw out your chalk outline now so you know where to fall.
I wish it were harder to believe that there are so many ignorant liberals in the world, talking about things they do not understand. Strange, since they insist that liberalism is somehow an intelligent philosophy, more evolved than the common folk. Sad thing is I have been, for most of my life, a liberal (in academics, no less), so I know how they are about being smarter than everyone else. But being liberal never meant being ignorant to me. But as liberals have changed, so have I.
It is good to see - although it will not be accepted because it is counter to the popular narrative - that there is at least some counter-analysis of the events in McKinney.
Look - let's try to get some perspective here.
1. This is a diverse community - and a diverse crowd of teens. Yes, we know - everything has to be about race - if it wasn't then no one would care. After all "Black lives matter!" - apparently more than others (what a pitiful idea). Many of those from the neighborhood whose comments are noted at the "conservative" website are diverse community members. It is also clear that the pool is a private area, not open to the public, certainly not without permission. It is also clear that this incident did not start when the LEO arrived on scene. LE was called by community security.
2. Of course, there are liberal voices who will refuse to accept any other conclusion than racism. You will notice that the reactions to this differ greatly whether one lives in the neighborhood in question or somewhere else where this has not happened yet. I suspect that, when the "pool party" comes to some liberals' lilly-white neighborhood (of course, if it is them it is not racist) they may call LE and change their tune. Since when is a neighborhood not allowed to have standards for behavior and allowed to control its environment, regardless of the race of those involved?
It has been said numerous times, but I guess there is nothing like experience to reach and teach people. But I will say it again anyway, just so I can say "told you so" when it happens.
All of those who examine the totality of this situation and can only see an LEO who over-reacted, who see a group of wonderful teen-aged cherubs who were doing nothing wrong, had better start arming up. Believe me, you are creating a teen generation that will grow into a young adult generation that does not believe the rules apply to them (that is, they can do what they want and be accommodated), that there is no authority that can hold them responsible for following the rules, and who feel no great compunction at assaulting anyone who attempts to confront them. They do not respect rules or property. I was a rowdy teen, but when LE told me what to do, whether I liked it or them or not, I did it. The idea of attacking an LE would not have occurred.
You are creating this - by absolving them of any responsibility for their own behavior; none of this was their fault. By, after it happens, insisting that it was not fair to them to ask them to follow the rules, to do as they are told. You are telling them that their actions were acceptable. This is what you have told them about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. You have told them that no one has the right to hold them accountable for heir behavior. You have told them that the neighborhood has no right to make their property private, to control access to it, that there is not private property, it is all community property. The security guards have no right to eject them, and no right to expect that LE will come do its job. LE has no right to serve the public who pay for their protection, no right to enforce law. Your think they will love you for it.
Folks, some day this is going to come to your neighborhood, a gang of teens is going to decide it is their neighborhood, your stuff is their stuff, and if you decide to intervene, you will certainly be assaulted and potentially raped and killed. Because you are a liberal you will likely be totally unprepared for this, you will likely come out to meet a diverse group of a hundred teens thinking that you can reason with them, hug them, sing kumbaya with them, commiserate with them about the unfairness in society and their maltreatment by LE. You might even give them your stuff as reparations for all of their perceived wrongs and all will go well. It will not.
You might, when all that fails, call 911, having finally realized the value of LE. Of course, by then, LE will have been cowed into a role where the best options they have will be harsh language (but not too harsh, since that might be rude). Chances are that they will not respond at all, they will likely be under-staffed, as most of them will have moved on to other work that is both less dangerous and less likely to get them prosecuted for doing what is asked of them. You see, you can't call and ask them to protect you if you will not let them protect themselves as well. We can already see examples of this in cities where they have been vilified for trying to do their jobs. (This is not unlike the way we have treated our warriors - fight a war but don't hurt people - and veterans; good luck finding a new group of them). It is funny how, when looking at the complete picture, some people are aghast at how those tasked to protect them act instead of dismayed at the behavior of our teens.
So, friends, you are likely to find yourself on your own when the pool party finds its way to your neighborhood. The cherubs you so zealously defend will be taking your stuff and if you are lucky, you may be alive to watch - or maybe not so lucky since you will likely have been raped and watched your children raped. And, believe me, given the choice of coming for my stuff or yours, they will be coming for yours, because many of them will die trying to get to mine. At my castle, they will meet surprise, speed and violence of action. You will be on your own.
Dark Paradise - one you chose to create. Best draw out your chalk outline now so you know where to fall.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
That's no answer! EXPANDED
The ever-effusive and usually wrong Joe Scarborough pontificated about what officers are supposed to do when their directions are ignored:
"Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who was a guest on Tuesday's show, said he wondered what an officer is technically supposed to do in a situation where someone is not obeying orders to sit or lie down.
'If they're teenagers and they're wearing bathing suits, I can tell you what you don't do,' Scarborough responded. 'You don't pull out a gun!'"
That's not an answer - "What do you do?" You never answered the question dumbass. As usual, be it Joe or Jon Stewart and any number of other commentators, they have no answer for what an officer should do. They sit in their offices with their public megaphones expounding on how it should be handled. Pick up a weapon, stand a post, go out there and walk into the middle of a crowd of rowdy teens and see how you do - or STFU.
1. We task LE with enforcing laws and rules. We expect them to respond when we call them and to take appropriate action to remedy such situations. This was private property, the person responsible for it called LE because when residents tried to handle it they were threatened. We do not expect LE to arrive, see a large group of teens acting out and say "Sorry we can't do anything about this, they are black and only teenagers". Perhaps people like Joe and Jon could, in some detail, explain how they expect the LE on such a scene to respond when tasked to take control of people who refuse to follow lawful directions. I doubt they will - it is not their shtick. Perhaps we could bus a group of teens into their private neighborhoods to piss in their pool and see if they sing kumbaya.
2. In case Joe, Jon or anyone else has not paid attention, teens have been involved in many killings and group assaults in recent years. Teens are not little cherubs. Although it would be racist of me to suggest that there may be some groups that are more likely than others to engage in such group assaults, it is clear based on the behavior seen in the videos, that one such group may have been involved here. You are one LE, you were called to quell a disturbance, you are trying to control one person who refuses to follow legal direction, there are 10 or so dancing in around you in threatening postures. I guess if you are Joe or Jon, you run away and let them do what they want. Dark Paradise.
3. "But they're only teens" - see #2. A gang of teens, all of whom are the same size as the officer and who refuse to take legal direction, who have a gang mentality and a sense of entitlement and anonymity. Fortunately, but to little effect, later on The Rundown, Jose Belart had a criminologist on who introduced him to the concept of "Disparity of Force" - although she did not call it that. Just because they are teens does not make them harmless - a gang of teens may easily overpower an officer, take his weapon and use it on him. The popular myth of "unarmed teens" is a fiction created by people who live in artificial bubbles and have an agenda. Disparity of force is one legal justification for using deadly force in self-defense. 2, 3, or 10 unarmed people can be as lethal as any weapon.
4. So, I say let's have Joe Scarborough and Jon Stewart out on the street (kind of like an Adam 12 for dumbasses), roll up on a gang of unruly and rebellious teens who are trespassing (you know, the kind that have been told by Joe and Jon that LE really should not and cannot force them to obey the law), and see how they react. I am sure they will just have a good rational discussion and that will solve the issue (NOT)I suspect they will wet their pants and end up bitches, hoping that some armed civilian sees them getting stomped and comes to their rescue.
We will soon find, given the unrealistic expectations and continued harassment that LE are being subjected to, that they will no longer be there when called. Why would anyone want to roll on such a call when they know that they cannot do what it takes to handle the situation, that nothing they do will be right unless they just let people do as they please. We expect civilians to simply avoid and not intervene when they see such behavior - we expect LE to intervene on the behalf of the citizenry, to enforce the law and to protect private property. Yet when they do and react to potential threats, we engage in post-hoc analysis of their actions given the limitations we set upon them. Soon, they will stop responding, soon they will be looking for other jobs.
We wonder why there is lawlessness among teens these days; why a Trayvon might attack a Zimmerman, why a Michael Brown might try to attack a Darren Wilson, why teen criminals are so brazen. Joe and Jon and others tell them that it is their right to act as they please and that no one can expect or demand that they follow lawful orders.
Yes, Dark Paradise.
"Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who was a guest on Tuesday's show, said he wondered what an officer is technically supposed to do in a situation where someone is not obeying orders to sit or lie down.
'If they're teenagers and they're wearing bathing suits, I can tell you what you don't do,' Scarborough responded. 'You don't pull out a gun!'"
That's not an answer - "What do you do?" You never answered the question dumbass. As usual, be it Joe or Jon Stewart and any number of other commentators, they have no answer for what an officer should do. They sit in their offices with their public megaphones expounding on how it should be handled. Pick up a weapon, stand a post, go out there and walk into the middle of a crowd of rowdy teens and see how you do - or STFU.
1. We task LE with enforcing laws and rules. We expect them to respond when we call them and to take appropriate action to remedy such situations. This was private property, the person responsible for it called LE because when residents tried to handle it they were threatened. We do not expect LE to arrive, see a large group of teens acting out and say "Sorry we can't do anything about this, they are black and only teenagers". Perhaps people like Joe and Jon could, in some detail, explain how they expect the LE on such a scene to respond when tasked to take control of people who refuse to follow lawful directions. I doubt they will - it is not their shtick. Perhaps we could bus a group of teens into their private neighborhoods to piss in their pool and see if they sing kumbaya.
2. In case Joe, Jon or anyone else has not paid attention, teens have been involved in many killings and group assaults in recent years. Teens are not little cherubs. Although it would be racist of me to suggest that there may be some groups that are more likely than others to engage in such group assaults, it is clear based on the behavior seen in the videos, that one such group may have been involved here. You are one LE, you were called to quell a disturbance, you are trying to control one person who refuses to follow legal direction, there are 10 or so dancing in around you in threatening postures. I guess if you are Joe or Jon, you run away and let them do what they want. Dark Paradise.
3. "But they're only teens" - see #2. A gang of teens, all of whom are the same size as the officer and who refuse to take legal direction, who have a gang mentality and a sense of entitlement and anonymity. Fortunately, but to little effect, later on The Rundown, Jose Belart had a criminologist on who introduced him to the concept of "Disparity of Force" - although she did not call it that. Just because they are teens does not make them harmless - a gang of teens may easily overpower an officer, take his weapon and use it on him. The popular myth of "unarmed teens" is a fiction created by people who live in artificial bubbles and have an agenda. Disparity of force is one legal justification for using deadly force in self-defense. 2, 3, or 10 unarmed people can be as lethal as any weapon.
4. So, I say let's have Joe Scarborough and Jon Stewart out on the street (kind of like an Adam 12 for dumbasses), roll up on a gang of unruly and rebellious teens who are trespassing (you know, the kind that have been told by Joe and Jon that LE really should not and cannot force them to obey the law), and see how they react. I am sure they will just have a good rational discussion and that will solve the issue (NOT)I suspect they will wet their pants and end up bitches, hoping that some armed civilian sees them getting stomped and comes to their rescue.
We will soon find, given the unrealistic expectations and continued harassment that LE are being subjected to, that they will no longer be there when called. Why would anyone want to roll on such a call when they know that they cannot do what it takes to handle the situation, that nothing they do will be right unless they just let people do as they please. We expect civilians to simply avoid and not intervene when they see such behavior - we expect LE to intervene on the behalf of the citizenry, to enforce the law and to protect private property. Yet when they do and react to potential threats, we engage in post-hoc analysis of their actions given the limitations we set upon them. Soon, they will stop responding, soon they will be looking for other jobs.
We wonder why there is lawlessness among teens these days; why a Trayvon might attack a Zimmerman, why a Michael Brown might try to attack a Darren Wilson, why teen criminals are so brazen. Joe and Jon and others tell them that it is their right to act as they please and that no one can expect or demand that they follow lawful orders.
Yes, Dark Paradise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)