Sunday, May 03, 2015

Hebdo Comes To America

From WND:
GARLAND, Texas – An officer who was part of the heavy security for a free-speech event called the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” featuring Dutch politician Geert Wilders was shot 0utside the building shortly after the event ended at approximately 7 p.m. Central Time.

Two suspects were shot and killed by police. The injured officer, with the Garland Independent School District, was shot in the lower leg. Identified as Bruce Joiner, his injuries were not life threatening.

As the Joker in The Dark Knight said:

Here. We. Go.

And for those who don't quite get what is at stake:

But Spencer contends that few people seem to grasp that the “very foundation of what makes for a free society” is at stake.

“Some have said that they cannot support such initiatives because they find the Muhammad cartoons to be in poor taste, and consider them in the same way that Christians regard Piss Christ — it’s legal, but that doesn’t make the people doing it any more admirable than other louts and mockers,” he wrote on his Jihad Watch site.

Spencer says that viewpoint essentially is “bowing to violent intimidation” and giving away the authority to decide what is acceptable speech, which is “the road to tyranny.”

“What is at issue here is not being respectful, or refraining from mockery, or deliberately provoking jihadis – what is at issue here is whether the West will submit to murderous threats, which will only lead to more demands for submission and more murderous threats, and whether it will accept Shariah blasphemy laws or stand for a free and genuinely pluralistic society in which people put up with offense even to their core beliefs without resorting to violence or attempts to gain hegemony over the group doing the offending.” [my underlines]

This is the crux. Simply put, one doesn't have a right to not be offended. Liberals simply do not understand this hence their steadfast efforts to criminalize things that they object to.

Minimum Wage

I wrote about the long term problems with minimum wage before:
There are businesses that run at very high profit margins on their final product. It is completely false to claim that somehow raising the wages of workers who put together say Nike sneakers would push prices of Nike sneakers up. The only reason why Nike sneakers would go up in price would be because Nike was protecting it's profit margins. Smaller mom and pop stores would have larger problems with large increases in wages. [my current underlines]
And now the shoe drops:
On February 1, San Francisco’s renowned science-fiction bookstore Borderlands Books published the following on its website:

Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in princip[le] and we believe that it’s possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco — Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31st.

Oh whoops.
Hibbs says that the $15-an-hour minimum wage will require a staggering $80,000 in extra revenue annually. “I was appalled!” he says. “My jaw dropped. Eighty-thousand a year! I didn’t know that. I thought we were talking a small amount of money, something I could absorb.” He runs a tight operation already, he says. Comix Experience is open ten hours a day, seven days a week, with usually just one employee at each store at a time. It’s not viable to cut hours, he says, because his slowest hours are in the middle of the day. And he can’t raise prices, because comic books and graphic novels have their retail prices printed on the cover.
Oh suck it up you one-percenter evil patriarchal capitalist pig!

Oh how I hate dealing with short sighted people with more power than intelligence.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Labour would outlaw Islamophobia

England doesn't have a constitutionally protected freedom of speech (sic) so this kind of bullshit is easier to do there.
A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.

Something like this should make a person permanently ineligible for any government office. But that he thinks that it's OK to say this means there are enough people in England who support such an idea. That is a scary thought. I wouls go further and say that for Labour to not immediately oust this fellow, means that they too are unsuited for leadership of any kind.

And don't believe that such nonsense can't be done in the US. There are simply more legal hurdles to get over. But don't think there is not a long game to criminalize and felonize (aggravated) speech that certain people dislike.

Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.
Translation: We will tell you what to think. We will tell you what to like and if you don't comply we will jail you.

Personally, I think this is something to riot about.

Perhaps the Dumbest Huff Post Video Ever

If you think that what happens to "minorities" is because they are numerically outnumbered, please do look at South Africa. But what that video shows is the complete head in the sand attitude that afflicts too many on the left.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Friday, April 24, 2015

How That Neck Got Snapped

Having done my due diligence and waited for more info to come out of Philly before commenting, I'm going to link to this piece from Counterpunch (they can post decent stuff when they want to) by Dave Lindorff:
Here in Philadelphia, Police have long enjoyed giving arrested men who mouth off to them during arrests what is known fondly in the department as a “nickel ride.” That’s where they put the prisoner in the back of the van, hands bound behind their backs so they cannot hold on to anything or protect themselves, and otherwise unrestrained. Then the driver of the vehicle accelerates repeatedly, whips around corners and periodically slams on the breaks, causing the helpless captive in the back to slam against various parts of the vehicle, often with his head
Prior to reading this I was under the impression that we had a situation where a knee was put to the back of Grey in a fashion similar to what was done to Eric Garner. The above suggests strongly that it was that van ride.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Speaking of Children...

FOX13 News, WHBQ FOX 13

Are Black People Children?

If you look at the old reasoning for slavery and later segregation, a big reason that was given for the status of blacks was that they were like children. They were childish with a attendant characteristics of low impulse control, lack of industriousness, prone to misbehavior and a need for "adult" supervision.

When I looked back at pictures of the Civil Rights Movement I was always struck by grown men walking around with placards declaring that they were men. I thought that it was pretty much self-evident that they were in fact men but I came to understand that in many cases these grown men would be referred to as "boy" by many white people or any age. However now, particularly in the recent cases of police shootings, there has been a rise in rhetoric, particularly from the left that infantilizes black people (men in particular) in ways that are reminiscent of the arguments made by those supporting Jim Crow.

The first part is the quick rise of the "No agency" argument. This argument that is seen in much mainstream press (and pointed out here in many posts) is that whatever negative things black people do are caused by white people. Crime is not an individual decision to fuck up. It is because at some point in the past or present, some white person or persons created an environment that left this black person (and people) no other choice than to commit the crime. Embedded in such arguments is the old white "super man" vs, the black "child". Children have little agency. They often act on impulse and instinct. Many of their mistakes can be laid at the feet of their parents who determine the environment those children live in. Indeed if a parent leaves a loaded gun out on a table and a child picks it up and kills themselves or someone else with it, we do not blame the child. We understand that a child does not understand how dangerous a gun is, but that the parent does. Thus the parent with the power of knowledge and ability to determine environments are held responsible.

But black people, who commit gun crimes 7x the levels of whites nationally and in some locations are responsible for upwards of 90% of homicides are not children. They know full well what a gun does. They know full well the consequences for killing. Yet for various reasons they continue to kill one another at alarming rates. Liberals want to tell us the problem is the Gun and the NRA. Guns are inanimate objects and most gun owners in America do not commit crimes with them. But just like when dealing with children, liberals will not see black people as adults and lay the blame for the excessively high gun crime rates on their own decisions. Rather they seek an "adult" to blame.

Are black people children?

The latest example of the infantilization of black people came in a Counterpunch article which had this:

In such a petty, oppressive climate, Scott’s ultimately fatal decision to flee a white officer who had stopped him for a busted taillight was understandable.
understandable?

What exactly is understandable about running away from a police officer who has instructed you to remain in your vehicle?

Does John Grant run away (or drive away)from police who stop him for a traffic infraction? I'd like to know. Because if he doesn't then he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Let me tell you what would be understandable> Scott, after being pulled over tells the officer the truth about the vehicle he was in (whatever that may be). Scott having his ID with him and handing that off to the officer. Scott being a grown ass man sitting in the vehicle until Slager came back to him and asked him to step out because Scott KNEW he had outstanding warrants because Scott KNEW he hadn't been paying his child support.

Side note: Though I object to the weaponizing of child support, that is not an excuse for making children you cannot support or falling behind on child support and not taking preventative steps to deal with the courts so that you don't get a warrant out for your arrest. That's the ADULT thing to do.

Back to the story. So, then Scott would have gotten arrested and if he felt like doing some civil disobedience (which I would support) refuse to pay the court, make a declaration on record that he objects to his treatment and that incarcerating him does NOTHING to help get him up to date on child support.

Even when Scott ran, once he was caught he could have been a man about it, admitted he was caught, laid down and took the cuffs. Scott didn't do that. Instead he decided to assault the officer. I suppose John Grant thinks that was understandable to. After all, THese talking heads (writing heads in this case) never stopped to condemn the fact that Mike Brown assaulted a police officer who was responding to Mike Brown's earlier crime. None of these folks condemned the attitude as noted by Brown's buddy, that assaulting the store owner after an attempted theft was "no big deal". Matter of fact none of these talking heads have even bothered to discuss how WRONG it was for the robbery to happen in the first place! No, they were mad because the tape was made public! And none of these folks condemned specifically the trashing of the store during the protests.

Of course all of that is "understandable".

But this is the new left. It has resurrected old slave era arguments to prop up their critiques of police. Black people should be seen as children and you need to be careful around the children lest they get hurt. The children cannot help themselves with guns and fighting so we have to put more responsibility on YOU, Mr. Super White Man to take care around them.

Take the "accidental" shooting of the gun buy suspect by a retired police officer. Lets contrast. The retired police officer was out trying to help get illegal guns off the street. The suspect was trying to get illegal guns onto the streets. The retired cop immediately admitted his "mistake" (I still think he acted wrongly because once the suspect was down, there was no need to have a gun on him, similar to the Oscar Grant case). The suspect, once caught, tried to run away (duck responsibility and consequences).

Immediately after the news media made this about the guy getting shot. Nowhere was there commentary that the guy who was shot was supplying illegal guns that have probably taken the lives of many people. In other words, the white people are the adults and the black person was a treated like a child who had a fatal boo boo while running around like children do.

Many decades ago black men marched with signs declaring their manhood. How about we treat them like men.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Walter Scott shooting: Officer Slager refused to speak to investigators on scene

In what apparently comes to a shock to the LA Times (and others):
According to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division spokesman Thom Berry, investigators from the agency arrived at the shooting scene around 10:30 a.m. on April 4, less than an hour after Slager fatally shot 50-year-old Walter Scott.

When investigators attempted to speak to Slager, he told them he had retained an attorney, Berry said.

"We ceased any questioning and we then contacted his attorney," Berry told The Times on Tuesday. David Aylor, who at the time was representing Slager, told law enforcement officials that he would make Slager available to investigators on April 7 at his office.

Because apparently people at the LA Times (and perhaps elsewhere) are shocked to learn that police officers are citizens as well and have the right to remain silent.

I'm sure it also comes as a shock to the people at the LA Times (and elsewhere) that a person has a constitutional right to not be compelled to incriminate themselves. So for us who know the law, Slager's refusal to speak without the presence of his attorney is evidence of nothing and not striking in the least bit. And after the fiasco that was Ferguson, ANY officer involved in a shooting ought to remain silent and retain a lawyer quickly.

Monday, April 13, 2015

The San Bernardino Beating Is WORSE Than Eric Garner

For those not paying attention, there was a police beating captured by heli-cam in California:
In video captured by cameras aboard a helicopter for KNBC, deputies gather around the man after he falls from a horse he was riding to flee from them. The video shows deputies using a stun gun on him and then repeatedly kicking and hitting him...

KNBC reported that the man -- identified by authorities as Francis Pusok -- appeared to be kicked 17 times, punched 37 times and hit with a baton four times. Pusok was later hospitalized, KNBC reported, citing authorities.

Left unsaid in this report is what I consider to be the most significant part of the story: The victim was laying face down, hands spread out and then behind his back as ordered.

This is unlike the case with Eric Garner who though he wasn't threatening the cops, was in fact resisting arrest. That doesn't mean Eric Garner deserved what he got, but the difference in behavior is important. It is also unlike the rapidly unfolding narrative in North Charleston, where the video evidence may show that Scott shot Slager with the latter's taser. That very action would upend the assumption that Wilson was not threatened with bodily harm by Scott and that Slager had reason to believe that next time Scott may grab his gun and attempt to kill him with it.

That's all speculation, but the important part is that the other cases and this case are differentiated by the California suspect doing what he was told. If we are going to argue that citizens have an obligation to obey lawful orders given by police then we cannot allow for police to get away with this kind of beating when a citizen IS following orders. That erodes more public trust than ten Eric Garners.