Kind to the Cruel...

Young Co-ed is taken hostage by thug...

Police officer responds to situation.

Thug...

...confronted by cop, puts girl into headlock, gun to her skull, and threatens to kill her.

He then reportedly turns gun toward cop, using girl as shield.   Cop opens fire, killing both him and the woman.

Who's to blame for Andrea Rebello's death?

Interesting back and forth at Instapundit via reader emails, and some other in the comments of the article  linked above.

I think there is some validity to the idea that the cop might have responded to the call differently, as he was fully aware that a hostage situation was in play.

A roommate of Andrea's was sent out to an ATM by the thug to get cash, and she instead called police, so the police knew the somewhat what they were dealing with here.

Perhaps surrounding the house with police might have been better, or perhaps not openly confronting the criminal in a position where the officer could have been fired upon and thus be forced to respond in kind.

As someone mentions on Instapundit, it appears the officer was NOT trained to deal with the kind of shot required to kill Dalton and spare Rebello.  That takes specialized training.  It would have been better had he gotten that kind of training, in hindsight.

All good points.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, let's also realize that second-guessing is real easy in the aftermath.

The police had no idea what was exactly happening in that house when he got there.

For all the police officer knew, Dalton Smith was torturing, raping and/or murdering Ms. Robello and other people in that house.  He went into that house most likely thinking that some truly horrendous could be happening to 3 innocent people while he waited, so he chose to go in.  He had every reason to fear for his life, but he went in anyway, hoping to prevent a tragedy.  The fact that a tragedy occurred is not his fault, because he was not he one who created the situation in which Andrea Robello lost her life.

Let's assign the blame firmly where it belongs.

Dalton Smith.

You'll notice Mr. Smith is wearing some sort of orange shirt.  That is not some sort of bold fashion statement, or part of a pumpkin costume from a Halloween past.  It is from a jumpsuit, the kind supplied to you when you have been behind bars.

Dalton Smith was a repeat offender.  News reports I have read claim he had previously been convicted of such crimes as armed robbery, assault, auto theft. At the time of this shooting, he was wanted for violating his parole.

Dalton Smith broke into the house where Andrea was sleeping, he took her and others hostage and he put the gun to Andrea's head, and then pointed a gun at a police officer.

Dalton Smith is the one responsible for Andrea's death.

But, he is not alone.

The society that left Dalton Smith roaming the streets after he had proved multiple times to be unfit to be walking around free is guilty.  I would love to get a final tally on his rap sheet, being that he was only 30 years old when killed, but suffice to say he was not some wayward youth.  He was a grown man for whom the thug life was a way of life.

The society that decided that such a reprobate, who had on multiple occasion committed acts of violence and criminality, should have the freedom to do what he did, leading to Andrea's death, is guilty as well.  By being kind, or at least indulgent, to a person who had shown they could not behave in a lawful and civilized manner, they were in the end very cruel to Andrea Rebello, and to the officer who will now have to live with what he was forced to do.

At the time he was standing in a sorority house, holding a gun to the head of a young woman who I am betting was about half his size, Dalton Smith deserved to be chained up, breaking rocks or picking up garbage.  Had be been so, not only would Andrea be alive, but perhaps in 10 or 20 years, Dalton might have been tame enough, or broken, enough, that he could have returned to society and live out some semblance of a decent life.

INSTEAD, he's lying in a morgue somewhere, as is Andrea, and he will go to the afterlife with the death of a young woman added to his list of sins.

Good job, indulgent society!

Now, those of the progressive ilk (I don't call them liberals, I will explain why in another post), will try and blame society for not "helping" Dalton Smith, for "failing him", forcing him into his life of crime.  Instead of condemning society for not keeping an animal off the streets, for exposing innocent people to violence and death, they will bemoan how poorly society performed in assisting Mr. Smith, leading to his villainy.

Bullshit.

First, society will never completely eliminate men like Dalton Smith, and that being the case, it has a duty and obligation to keep them apart from the people who don't make theft and violence a way of life.  When it fails to do so, it fails, period.

Second, progressives will always credit the idea of a systemic failure of society creating criminals by failure to care or empathize enough with them, but never seem willing to embrace the idea that the systemic coddling and leniency of deviancy they advocate might in fact be a contributing cause.

They will also accept no criticism of cultural practices and behaviors which they view as being politically incorrect, no matter the evidence indicating they are indeed contributing factors to the creation of a "man" like Dalton Smith.

Why? Because reducing violent crime, even against women, is of minor importance when it comes to maintaining certain narratives.

Dance, Monkey, Dance...

One of the things I try to warn my progressive friends about government largesse (which is really taxpayer fleecing and redistribution) is that when you come to rely on it, the government gains power over you.

Whether it is housing or food stamps or loans or WHATEVER, when you come to rely on it, the government can then threaten to take it away unless you do their bidding.

HOW people do not understand this principle, I cannot fathom.  It is a common theme in entertainment, i.e., someone gets in deep with someone for money or a favor granted, and then is horrified when the bill comes due.

Another case in point...

"sweeping speech codes just imposed by the Departments of Justice and Education on virtually every college campus in the United States...states "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct."  The new rules apply to all colleges and universities receiving any sort of federal money, including Pell grants, federally backed student loans, and more. The letter contends the conduct in question need not be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation." That means that there is effectively no check on what might count as harassment. Course materials, overheard comments, stupid jokes - it's all potentially actionable."

Now, many politically correct progressive nimrods may be perfectly FINE with these speech codes, and would welcome the Feds getting involved.

But the point here is that if you DON'T agree with this policy, if you think it is utter horse shit and/or a gruesome example of fascistic overreach by a government out of control, then suck it up unless you go to one of the FEW institutions of learning which don't take handouts.

Even if you are independently supporting yourself in a university or college, the institution to which you go IS not.  It relies on that government cheese.  SO, if it wants to keep raking in the Federal money (which is yours, BTW, or it WAS), it will clamp down on you and your speech to remain compliant.

This, in another form, is the same scam the IRS was pulling with its intimidation audits.  They have the power to hurt or even ruin you financially if you DARE speak out about things they don't want to hear.

If you are not chilled by this, you are either a blithering idiot, or a closet fascist.  

Passive Aggressive Planners...

Not sure if the above is the right term, but I am going with it right now.

I am annoyed by the people who will NOT make a decision about something when you offer them choices, but will THEN do so after you go ahead and make a decision to cut short the back and forth, vetoing what you suggested/offered.

Example:

"Where would you like to eat?"

"I don't know. Somewhere close."

"Well, there is A, B and C..."

"OK, but how about D, E and F?"

"Okay, how about we meet in front of F?"

"Uhmm, let's meet in front of E. It has X..."

"Why the F*** did you not just suggest that in the first place."

Yeah, I Guess the Debate IS Over...

I have not posted in over a year, but I had written something some time ago, just after the 2012 election which I never posted, apparently/. Just reading the first sentence, it seems like it might be curiously appropriate for today, considering everything which is going on. Let's take a look...

**************

It is interesting to try and form a snapshot of the world around us today, and wondering how that picture will look in a year, two years, and then 5.  I am betting it will not look pretty, but am I wrong?

We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy.  He is not the first to exert his executive power overzealously, no doubt, but it is more troubling this time.  Why?  

He, and his administration, truly don't seem to give a damn what a good portion of the country thinks, even the majority on certain issues, and seems determined to rule rather than govern.  He seems openly contemptuous (and he is not alone) of anyone or anything that seems to challenge his will.  And the same seems to go for much of the "watchdogs" who are supposed to guard against such hubris and protect the little people, but whom seem just as disgusted by the peasants who refuse to get with the program.

Perhaps it does not help that a professor of constitutional law at a major university thinks the constitution is passe', and that the "newspaper of record" would publish it without comment, let alone rebuttal.

Perhaps it is also that he is not the first person of supposed position and esteem who has espoused the same view in recent years.  

Perhaps it is some of the same people, and certainly the same side, which just a few years earlier was screaming "Fascist!" when a different man held the office.

Perhaps...

Could it be that I am wrong about that future when a nation which already has the best armed, by far, populace in the world, feels the need to buy even more guns, or guns for the first time, even as the political class talks about "getting them off the streets".   People even like my spouse, who two years ago, did not want ANY gun in the house, and now ponders whether we should get a second?

Am I in error to worry about a worldwide financial system which seems increasingly based on cheap parlor tricks to keep it chugging along, even as the wheels falls off?

Am I paranoid to think that an Arab Spring which supposedly would usher in a new era of freedom and democracy more resembles the lights going out in Europe circa the 1930's or the march of Communism post 40's? 

Maybe.  

As Hindenburg reportedly claimed, maybe God does look after drunks, little children and the United States of America.  

Of course, we are busy pushing God out of the public square, mocking him in the private, except when he is worshipped by those who take such actions as legitimate cause for murder.  So, God may decide to sit events out for a while.  Sorry.

The point of taking this snapshot now is to keep in mind these kind of ironies...

...in the future as events unfold, in the vain hope some might understand how we got where we end up.

I say vain because I don't think it will happen, at least not until the shit well truly hits the fan, and, to paraphrase Herman Wouk, the scales don't fall from people's eyes, but are shot off.

I told a friend of mine today that I had found a new kind of loathing for the Left to describe my changed feelings toward them, but I realize that was not quite right.  I always had loathing for the Left, and it's not really a matter of degree that has changed.

What is different now is that previously, I felt it was important to try and engage in some sort of discussion or dialogue with them, to argue or even beat them over the head with facts and logic in an attempt to get them, at least some of them, to see reason.

I no longer feel that.  What I feel is that the Left, the hard core liberal cult, is not interested in facts, logic, fair play, consistency or anything else.  None of that matters when it does not suit them.  Their agenda matters in the ultimate expression of the ends justifying the means.

So, the Left, having made it clear to me and others with differing views that nothing we do or say, nothing we prove or disprove, nothing experience reveals nor common sense dictates will ever divert them from their goals, have made my task in dealing with them far simpler, if not easy.

Resistance. Pure and simple.
  

*No energy to be burned in pointless arguments with those not interested in debate.  

*No effort exerted to master or organize facts or issues.

*No time wasted trying to convince those whose faith trumps all reason.

No, that time is past. What remains is to decide what core principles and beliefs we hold dear, and to hold on to them without any negotiation or equivocation.  

******
Interesting that I would return to this blog, to find this unpublished post, at this time, when much evidence of what I am talking about is coming to light.
"We have a president in office, elected for a second time, who truly seems to believe in autocracy."

The IRS admits to using the power of it's organization for partisan political ends.

Allegations that the EPA did very much the same thing.

The Department of Justice secretly obtaining phone records of a media outfit, and then hedging on who ordered it.

The continuing Benghazi cover-up.

There have been plenty more indications that this administration simply does not care about the rule of law and simple accountability, but this week seems to a particularly busy one for scandals.  

Will it amount to anything?

Well, if history is any measure, no.

 A compliant press corp, even if annoyed at being bullied and spied, will likely fall back in line as it has done before.

A Republican leadership, too drunk on the same power which fuels their opposition, will be unwilling to pursue this kind of malfeasance far enough to make a difference because that will mean diminishing governmental power when it's their turn.

The problem is, that it is not the administration alone, not the entire left, and sadly, even the politicians on the right.  This administration has been the most blatant in its abuse of power, but it is aided and abetted by a Left wing for which standards are applicable only when they view it as beneficial.  That things that were unspeakable abuses of power before, are shrugged at now, if even acknowledged.  In some cases, there is literally an attitude of, "Well, it's us, doing it, so it's cool."  The Left as a whole has gotten used to not being called on things, and for obvious reasons they wish that to continue.  Ideals and standards are simply tools to be picked up and put down as needed.  What matters is POWER.

Of course, this is where the Right comes in, insofar as the establishment Right.

They like power just fine, even if they make the obligatory protestations about the encroachment of governmental reach.  After all, if we really did reduce the size and power of government, it would reduce the stature and power of ALL members of government.

Who readily gives up power and prestige, particularly when you have come to rely on it as your only means of subsistence?  

The American people sense this increasing sense of entitlement to rule autocratically in much of the government structure, and they are making preparations for it, because it does not seem it will stop and recede on its own.  

One can label all those people buying guns and ammunition as militia crazies, but when one looks at all the corruption, abuse of power and haughty denial of responsibility rampant in government, one has to ask; when does it stop?

And if you cannot answer that question, then you will understand why people are preparing themselves for some of the worst possible scenarios.

  

Got you...

...you mother-Fucking prick.

Oh, it took almost 10 years after you brought murder and chaos here, but in the end, we tracked you down, ran you to ground, and fucking ended you.

I sat up late at night almost 10 years ago (God, how recent that seems to me) and watched the aftermath of what you and your fucking twisted ideology wrought.

I sat up again this night, drank a whiskey in tribute to the brave and intrepid heroes who hunted you down, and to the souls of all those you viciously murdered.

I hear your son also died in the attack.

GOOD.

I just kissed my child goodnight. Tomorrow they will wake up in a world which does NOT have you fucking in it...

...and that is JOYOUS! God IS good.

Enjoy Hell, you fucking goat molesting genocidal ass-wipe.

Burn in fucking Hell!

Idiocy Keeps On Coming...

Mediocre film director Spike Lee weighs in on the Tuscon shooting, taking to heart the calls to "tone down the rhetoric":

"Here's my, my take in it. I think that, as film makers, as politicians, as artists, we have to understand that all, whatever we do goes out in the universe. And you should be aware of what you're doing. And you cannot just say "Well I just did this and, and my - had nothing to do with what happened." That's, that's not, that's not the case. Also the United States of America is the most violent country in the history of civilization. And this NRA thing. We gotta turn this around. You know these, these guns are out of hand. And I know they have a very powerful lobby but something has to be done about the gun control in this country. That's my opinion."

Hat tip:Media Research Center

And the left gets SO annoyed when they are accused of hating their country.

Spike was on the Today to promote his line of children's books, but maybe if Spike cracked open a few books himself, he might actually be embarrassed to be spewing such laughably false bullshit.

I don't care what metric you try to use, that is nothing but an American-hating fantasy. Don't make me have to break it down for you. If you can't think of something to dispute it right off the bat, you are an ignorant jack-off.

But the real kick is this little biographical note:

"His personal life has become somewhat well known, too. He had a relationship with Halle Berry and started a family with Tonya Lewis Lee, with whom he has two children."

Got that? This guy has two kids and unless I missed his move to France, he still resides in the good ole' USA. So, he chooses to raise his children in "the most violent country in the history of civilization."

Me? I like children in general, and am really fond of my own, and if I found myself living in the demonic abattoir that he apparently believes the United States to be, I would move them the fuck out, especially if I had the juice to do it. Spike sure does, so I can only surmise he really does not care about his kids all that much, or he REALLY digs violence. Maybe both.

"Lee is also known to have an obsessive love of the New York Knicks."

Interesting. Spike hates his country enough to slander it viciously, but he has a profound love for perpetual losers.

Left Continues to Spin Tragedy

I have noticed that some people on the left, some I know, have had the brains or basic decency to STFU when it comes to making ANY sort of opportunistic comment on the Tuscon shooting. Others are so fucking morally bankrupt that they can't help spinning shit any which way they please to self-gratify their limp egos.

Case in Point: Gawker

"Sarah Palin Blames the Media for 'Blood Libel'

After the horrific Tucson shootings last weekend, future U.S. president Sarah Palin retreated to her prayer cave and prayed for guidance. Today, she's announced her findings: The real tragedy here is "journalists and pundits" who "manufacture a blood libel."

See, after days of a left-wing orgy of accusations that Sarah Palin was a blood-soaked murderer for all intents and purposes, the editors and readers of Gawker are now pissed at her for calling bullshit on bullshit.

It is now readily apparent to anyone with remaining brain cells, or who is not a complete ideological hack, that the tragic shooting in Tuscon was in no way related to ANYTHING happening in this reality politically, despite numerous claims to contrary from the left. Everyone from Palin, to Rush Limbaugh, to Republicans, the Tea Party to the right in general were told "YOU DID IT, YOU BASTARDS!" by the media and the left-wing moonbats, but then I repeat myself.


It is also BLINDINGLY obvious that despite the lack of facts early on, and then in spite of them later, the left attempted to exploit the tragedy in Tuscon for political gain, trying to stoke incendiary anger against the right while decrying all things incendiary. Oh, wait, did I say "attempted", as in past tense? It still continues with fucktards like Bill Maher and the cretins at Gawker.

Of course, this is, in a sense, brilliant. Having being caught out, AGAIN, as dishonest fanatics, the Left will try to Ju Jistsu the discussion back to Palin, the topic of discussion being, as always, "Sarah Palin is an asshole because we were losers in high school, and still are. So there!"

Apparently, Gawker feels it is unfair and insensitive for Palin to use the term "blood libel" when describing the vicious smear campaign the Left engaged in over the shooting in Arizona.

STOP.

First, we would not really need to go further, would we?

Pot. Kettle. Unfair Asshole.

Basically, Gawker is saying:

"How DARE you use overheated rhetoric and make ridiculous accusations that point out our overheated rhetoric and ridiculous accusations!!"

Short note to Gawker.

Fuck you.

Longer note....

Is "blood libel" really an unfair use of the term? Let's see how Gawker explains their umbrage:

"Maureen O'Connor pointed out that "blood libel" actually "refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Is Sarah Palin accusing the liberal media of murdering Jew babies? Where does the ADL stand on this? "

The whole accusing the media of murdering Jewish babies line is not just meant as a witty crack. It's meant to distract from the fact that the metaphor immediately previous is actually pretty accurate when read.

The Left is continually trying to pin the actions of lunatics who go on murderous rampages on the right, either by claiming they were of the right (when they are most typically, NOT) or that the right influenced their decision to kill. As has been pointed out numerous times over the last few days by others, it was done in the case of JFK, RFK, Oklamahoma City, and even 9/11. It happens when the maniac is even demonstrably of the left mindset.

So the left is repeatedly making collective false accusations of murder against sections of a population, claiming they do so to further their ideology, libeling them.

So, HOW does this analogy not work again?

Of course it does. It's accurately pretty on target (heh) as analogy or metaphor, but it cuts way too close to the truth; it demolishes yet again one of the Left's precious narratives that make them feel superior despite their bitter mediocrity.

So Gawker and its cretinous cohorts act like it is some sort of bizarre comparison, claiming Palin was saying something she was not, making cracks about "prayer caves", because, you know, anyone who prays is a primitive.

It would be entirely infuriating if it were not for the fact that their smug delusional asses are getting whacked in public opinion. Our job is to make sure to kick them while they are down, and if you have a trouble with that violent rhetoric, kiss my fucking ass!

UPDATE:

Hey, looks like a whole lot of people agree with me, right and left!

Bullshit Flying Fast And Furious

I have been observing with ever increasing disgust the darkly cynical machinations of the left, trying to exploit the Tuscon shooting for partisan advantage, whether it is over particular issues like gun control, or an overall smearing of the right/tea party/Sarah Palin and whoever the fuck else stands in their way to power.

Even for someone who loathes the Left, and sees their worldview as destructive, I am in awe of the balls on display here. There is just simply too much bullshit to tackle out there, but luckily there are many people on the case. Let me focus in on a particular piece of trash that I just came across:

"

Democrats move to limit guns, threatening language in shooting's wake

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

Reacting to the assassination attempt on one of their own, two House members on Monday said they will introduce legislation that would ban certain ammunition clips and make it illegal to threaten a federal official, both of which they say contributed to the mass casualties in a shooting rampage in Tuscson over the weekend.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., plans to introduce a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one used by Jared Loughner, the gunman accused of killing 6 and injuring 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., as they gathered at a “Congress on Your Corner” event.

And Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to uses threatening words or symbols or incite violence against a lawmaker or federal official."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/01/democrats-move-limit-guns-threatening-language-shootings-wake#ixzz1AjwjOc1s

The gun control issue is a farce in its own way, but I want you to reread that last bit.

At least 2 levels of bullshit here...

First, why make it illegal to just threaten or incite violence against a Federal official or lawmaker? Don't we ALL deserve equal protection under the law? Is what we need right now even more special privilege for our Lords and Ladies?

If I am a working dad, or single woman, who has some psycho stalking me, sending me or my family psycho shit, should I not also get to drop the legal hammer on his ass?

Second, can we make this more vague? Make it illegal to use threatening words or symbols? And what, pray tell, would be defined as threatening words or symbols, and who would get to define them?

Why, I do believe it would believe it would be some of the same Lord and Ladies who feel themselves worthy of special treatment!

This is a bad, bad, BAD idea, wrapped in supposedly good intentions with a crunchy, candy coating of crisis. What it will be used for is make, with the force of law behind it, freedom of speech unacceptable when it comes to close to challenging authority. What is "threatening" will be applied both liberally and selectively, to suit the needs of those already wielding power.

We already have laws covering harassment, terroristic threats and the like to deal with true threats from fanatics and nut-jobs. Making certain terminology or metaphors verboten is just one more way the authorities try to rig the game in their favor.

NFW!

Sorry. We are paying attention now, and are onto your game.

****

BTW, I have gone back and forth over using strong language and frothing at the bit, or trying to be more measured on this site. I have decided I can't do either exclusively. I will try to be measured in my words and tone as much as possible, but when something pisses me off, I intend to vent. God KNOWS I need to vent. If you have a problem with that, then fu-, er, go away....

What Did I JUST Say...

Considering my last post, these two news items just seem to fit in horribly well, don't they?

"A Northwest Side man has been charged with plotting to bomb a strip of crowded Wrigleyville night spots around the time people were leaving a Dave Matthews concert at the ballpark over the weekend. Sami Samir Hassoun, 22, of the 4700 block of North Kedzie Avenue, was arrested as he placed a backpack containing what he thought were high-explosives in a trash can in front of Sluggers on Clark Street, about a block south of Wrigley Field, according to the FBI." - LINK

"Sonia Nassery Cole knew that shooting a movie on location in Afghanistan could get her killed. The most vivid reminder came a few weeks before filming, she said, when militants located her leading actress and cut off both of her feet." - LINK

CUT OFF HER FEET!

Hmm, it seems that neither one of these news stories is going to get ANYWHERE the coverage that one yahoo down in Florida got for threatening to burn Korans.

Funny, that.

Yeah, I know, the last item was not someone in America who had her feet cut off. I guess that its irrevelevant to that whole "irrational fear" thing I was speaking off, right?

Islamophobia? Really?

-
A recurring theme for the last 9 years, but one which seems particularly prevalent now, is the worrying tide of Islamophobia that is supposedly sweeping the US. As I have found, when one examines the actual meaning of words, you discover a clever manipulation has occurred in order to bolster a narrative.

The definition of Phobia as listed by Wikipedia:

"A phobia is an irrational, intense and persistent fear. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus. When the fear is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.[1]"

So, to accurately describe Islamophobia, we would get this:

""Islamophobia is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of Islam and/or Muslims. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid Muslims or Islam. When the fear of Islam or Muslims is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.[1]"

So, as defined, Islamophobia is an irrational, intense fear of Islam and Muslims.

Consider this List.

Even discounting some of the incidents cited as questionably more domestic violence related than Islamic terror AND allowing that some incidents listed are misreported, the totality of it still comes down to an inarguable fact.

There have been dozens of religiously inspired attacks by Muslims on Americans, ON American soil, over the last 3-4 decades, and they seem to be escalating. 3,000 Americans of all religions, colors and creeds have been targeted for murder by members of a self-identified group.

The only known incident of anti-Muslim violence was a Sikh man murdered by a couple of yahoos that were too stupid to know he was not a Muslim.

Even considering that the vast, VAST majority of Muslims in America do not approve, let alone participate in these violent acts, it brings into question whether Americans' fear of Muslims is irrational OR intense. If it does not qualify for either or both, it's not a phobia of any sort.

So, considering the record of attacks, and the body count resulting over just the last 10 years, and the motivating factor in all those attacks, there is nothing irrational about the fear. Irrational is defined as:

ir•ra•tion•al

   ɪˈræʃ ə nlShow Spelled[ih-rash-uh-nl]

–adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

irrational (ɪˈræʃən ə l)

— adj
1. inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd
2. incapable of reasoning

Now, one can argue about the degree of threat Islam or Muslims present; what should be done about it; how much it can be attributed to the fringe as opposed to the mainstream; etc.

However, there is nothing irrational about the fear, since there is some logical basis for it when looking at the known facts and the record. Those who are "fearful" (and we'll get to that term in a second) do not utterly lack reasons for their fear, nor can their concern be labeled absurd:


ab·surd 

–adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.

In regards to intensity, the word "fear" does not even apply, further discrediting the use of Islamophobia.

A real, intense, uncontrollable fear of Muslims would result in weekly or daily attacks on Muslims or their Mosques, attempts to ban their religion from being practiced or at the very least protests at Mosques across the nation. This has not been happening, thank God, although the media loves to dress it up as such.

No, the Ground Zero mosque controversy does not count because the concern is those building it appear to be less moderate than they portray themselves, and are doing it for political or ideological, rather than religious, reasons.

A better, much more appropriate word is not "fear" but "concern". Americans of all stripes, including other Muslims, are concerned that a militant faction of Islam, present even in the United States, is at war with us and has the blood on its hands to prove it.

Now, since the definition of "phobia" is not a "irrational, intense and persistent concern" we need to resist the liberal (pun intended) use of that word.

Tea Party Extremism...

...is a fantasy, particularly when one recalls the vitriol we've endured from the Left over the last 10 years.

Washington is Broke has a fantastic, and I mean FANTASTIC, little video exposing the hypocrisy of both the Left and the Media over supposed extremism from Tea Party people.



WARNING! You are going to see some disturbing images and ugly language, but that is entirely the point.

Let's remember how aghast the media and the Left were over the Joker poster images, and the few depiction of Obama as Hitler (mostly from Larouche nutballs, not tea partiers) and their contention that ANY disagreement with Obama's policies was merely hatred boiling to the surface.

Note particularly the number of images and signs that directly call for the ASSASSINATION of Bush and other politicians.

Note the kind soul whose sign tells us that the removal of the World Trade Center was an improvement for New York.

Also note that this video, as well done as it is, is merely a small taste of the nasty swill the Left has been spooning out for decades, let alone the last 10 years.

Once again, the utter lack of consistency rears its head. Its do as I say, not as I do from the Left, ad nauseum, and the media for the most part plays right along.

Who's Intolerant?

In this back and forth over the Cordoba Mosque, and now this bible burning story in Florida, I keep hearing that people are becoming more and more bigoted against Muslims.

We are then told not to confuse the small number of radicals in that faith with the vast majority of moderates.

Then we are told that if the Mosque is NOT built, or if the Korans ARE burned, the Muslim world is going to explode with anger and violence, because the extremists (the ones who oppose the mosque) have taken over the debate.

????

I'm sorry?

The extremists are the ones who oppose the Mosque, not the ones who threaten riots and murder and mayhem if they don't get their way?

This kind of blatant hypocrisy, seeking of special privilege, and the propensity for violence over any slight, is WHY people are so wary of Islam in the first place.

Piss Christ was a work of "art" where a crucifix was dropped into a jar of URINE, and was exhibited with NEA support, IE, tax-payer funds.



Let me restate that:

A crucifix, an object symbolizing and representing the most important figure and most sacred event of his life to Christians, was put into a jar full of excrement.

HOW MANY people were killed world-wide when Christians rioted in protest?

ZERO. Zip. Nada. None.

Ditto for when a image of the virgin Mary was covered in elephant dung and pornographic images.

Ditto for when a play was done representing Christ as homosexual.

Somehow, SOMEHOW, Christians manage to endure this insults and provocations without mass violence, or violence in micro, and protested these things as unfair and bigoted. That's how religions on liberal (old school) democracies are supposed to react.

Too many in Islam, however, wants it both ways. They want tolerance and understanding and sensitivity, FOR THEM, but don't want to hear about any of it when it involves something that is not to their liking. And if they really don't like it, some of them will kill you over it, and others may say, "Well, what did you expect?"

Build a mosque right by Ground Zero? We demand the right under the first Amendment!

Burn the Koran in protest of Islamic terror and violence? You better *$^%* not or so help us, Allah, we won't be held responsible for the murder and destruction we wreak!

The American public has picked up on this very selective outrage and the underlying threats that come with it, and are fed up. When, with a straight face, Mayor Bloomberg says he thinks the Times Square bomber might have been someone upset with Obamacare, they know they are being fed a diet of BS for politically correct purposes

For the record, I don't support the burning of Korans, because I think people's religious symbols should be respected, and that antagonizing them by displaying blatant provocations is not kosher. Its an a-hole move in most situations.

That's the same reason that while I understand legally the Mosque at Ground Zero may be built, it should NOT be. It's a provocative act, something which many Muslims also believe, and for people to see it for what it is and decry it, they are called bigots.

Sorry, that is not going to wash anymore.

Now the media is trying to stir up a narrative that the protest against Muslims is going nationwide, leading to things like arson and general bigotry against them.

As usual, this is something the media will create with whatever disparate incidents that occur, ignoring the larger picture of tolerance in this country despite the facts.

However, I think there is some truth here in the sense that people's tolerance for being played for fools is wearing thin. As a 9/11 family member said on Anderson Cooper last night, the Mosque controversy is a microcosm of the way the middle class in the country has been ignored on any number of important issues.

People who dare speak their minds, who dare to question the powers that be, to question the narratives being spun are called radicals, or bigots, or extremists.

They know they are no such thing, and that those accusations are code for, "We don't care what you think or what your concerns are. We intend to do exactly as we please, so shut up and take it."

Well, they are not going to take, and how hard they push back will be determined by how hard they are pushed in the first place.

Europe wants a Batman...Obama Ain't Him...

In a much earlier post, I did an analysis ("The Nature of the Threat") of the film “The Dark Knight” as an allegory to the war on terror, and a particularly good one:

"To see The Dark Knight as anything OTHER than a pro-war on terror film takes some pretty fancy mental gymnastics. The funny thing is that it is not pro-war or war-on-terror out of some ideological partisanship, but an understanding of common sense, history, and human nature. The characters of Batman and the Joker were written long before the War on Terror, or Bush, or Bin Ladin, and the struggle they represent is as old as history, but they fit so well already to our modern issues.

Batman is born in a society which has become rotten to the core, where criminals run amok due to both their ruthlessness and avarice, and the corruption of the state, which refuses to reign in them out of fear or in complicity.

In short, they support one another in preying on the citizenry, with no one able to stop them.Batman is necessary because there is no one else; no one who is in “official” authority can or will do anything either of fear or self-interest or both.”

I loved the film although the very ending, with Batman agreeing to take the rap for the murder of those killed by Two Face, did not sit well with me. I did not get the ending at first, but upon subsequent viewing and reflection, I began to understand the point.

As I alluded to in that post, the problem Batman runs into when trying to defeat the Joker is that the fear he generated among criminals has been eclipsed by the white faced psychopath:

"Salvatore Maroni: No one's gonna tell you anything. They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him for you. You want this guy, you got one way. And you already know what that is. Just take off that mask and let him come find you. Or do you want to let a couple more people get killed while you make up your mind?"

As I wrote:

"In order to truly combat such a demon, Batman cannot operate by all the rules of society, even one that was less corrupt and more capable than his. The Joker operates so far out of norms of civilization that Batman has two choices; let him do his evil work and accept the losses, or follow him out just far enough out into the darkness to grab his scrawny little neck and drag him in."

This post came right back to mind when I came across an interview of Victor Davis Hanson conducted by Michael Totten, the very end of which COMPLETELY validates the metaphor of the film:

"I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama's election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, "We are Obama. You can't be Obama."

Everybody looked at him. And I said, "What do you mean?"

He said, "There's only room for one Obama."

I said, "So we're supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?"

And he said, "Right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our public, which is lunatic. You don't really believe there's going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?"

At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman takes the rap for killing people he did not because he realizes that by doing so, not only does he preserve a sense of hope for Gotham who won't see their Golden Boy Harvey Dent corrupted, but because he regains the sense of fear and dread among the criminals who had come to view Batman as the lesser of possible evils.

Europe wants us to be the bad guy, to be the Batman, because we have the means to fight the bad guys, the aggressive attitude they seem to have lost, and because they don't want to get their hands dirty, to be the bad guy. They want the security that comes from a Dark Knight prowling the streets and back-alleys, roughing up the criminals and psychos, but they don't want to assume the risk to either body or reputation that entails.

I guess that would make this Admiral a Commissioner Gordon of sorts, who knows the threat and what is needed to deal with it, but needs to deal with the public and politicians who want their city safe and quiet, but don't want any of the ugliness and politically incorrect trouble that results when fighting monsters.

The Joker understood this even better than genius Bruce Wayne:

"The Joker: Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.

Batman: Where's Dent?
The Joker: You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you."

Europe wants the ability to treat Americans as rogue cowboy yahoo neanderthals they are superior to, even as we keep the psychos off their throats. We foot the bill, in blood and cash, take the wrath of the collective world over our "brutality", even as we keep the really brutal from storming the gates to rape and murder at will.

Hat's off to that Admiral for having the guts to say what he did, but the problem remains that the farce we are part of will end in disaster. As Hanson states at the very end:

"I was surprised at his candor. And it's worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they're getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it's tragic. And it's dangerous. We shouldn't be doing this."

No, we should not, because it is not sustainable, and at some point the European populace* will need to man and pony up or we will all pay a heavy price. That means bolstering their military expenditures, authorizing their armed forces for more serious and sustained missions, and taking some of the heat, or learning to ignore it, when things get rough.

David S. Goyer and Christopher Are credited with the story, and Chris and brother Jonathan Nolan wrote the screenplay for Dark Knight. The more you peel back the layers on this script, the more astounding it is.

Freakin' brilliant.

*There are European men and women with their asses in the field, fighting or at least helping with the war against terror. This statement does not dimish their efforts and sacrifices, but calls upon their governments and population to treat with more seriousness and honor the job they do with money, respect and support.

Messages and Massacres

From the BBC:

"Britons link Islam with extremism, says survey

Half of those questioned linked Islam with terrorism, according to the survey .

Most people in the UK associate Islam with extremism and the repression of women, a survey has suggested.

The online YouGov poll found 58% of those questioned linked Islam with extremism while 69% believed it encouraged the repression of women.

The survey of 2,152 adults was commissioned by the Exploring Islam Foundation."

Now, how did my British bretheren come to THAT conclusion?

"The organisation has launched a poster campaign on London transport to combat negative perceptions of Muslims. "

Hmm, maybe the reason for the negative perception was the last time Muslims put things on London transport, they exploded.

You know, this may sound crazy, but a better way to "combat negative perceptions of Muslims" may be for Muslims to openly and continually denounce the radicals who preach hatred and Jihad, particularly those IN London and the UK.

Organizing fellow Muslims to rat out the bad guys to MI5 might also do the trick.

Just a suggestion.

Buried in Time

I happened to find this video on YouTube while setting up an account...



I did not know what to think, because I had never heard these lyrics before, and while they and this guy's rendition were pretty stirring, I am wary of plants in Tea Party crowds.

Knowing how the left thinks, and knowing it has no scruples, I worried that the guy had made them up, and worried that things like him holding up his hand like many singers or a preacher might do, would be taken by the left as a cryptic neo-fascist sign.

God bless Al Gore and the inter-tubes, I Googled it, and damn if I did not find this:

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

I had no $%#* idea that there were other lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner. How is that possible? Now, I get that the version sung at most events would be shorter, but did I learn this in school and forget it, or did they not bother to teach it?

I would love to find a version of this entire thing sung with fervor. Some of the lines fill you with a pleasant chill:

"On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,"

Has a Tolkienian quality to it.

This reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson's book Carnage And Culture:

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

What strikes me about all this is the feeling that as Americans we are re-awakening to our history and our legacy, one that has been buried slowly over time. Some of it was merely covered over with the silt of years, others of it purposefully covered over to hide it.

Let's all grab a shovel and dig it out.

Heroes without a Clue

I somehow missed this news from last week:

'Heroes' Canceled


"NBC is no longer holding out for 'Heroes.'According to the Live Feed, the network has officially axed the series, about ordinary people with extraordinary powers, after four seasons.The news ends a rocky ride for 'Heroes,' which premiered in 2006 to a staggering 14.3 million viewers and a 5.9 rating among adults 18-49, making it NBC's highest-rated fall drama premiere in five years. The show continued to hit ratings gold in subsequent episodes, including its season 2 premiere, which attracted 14.1 million viewers."

The show attracted viewers because the first season was astounding, although low-key in a "Unbreakable" way, which was its main strength. It was a super-hero show, or was supposed to be, and its first season did a masterful job in building the reality of a world where super-heroes could actually exist. It was not easy taking what could easily seem like a silly premise of men and woman dressed up in tights flying around with flaming fists, and turn it into a eerie, haunting and fascinating journey into the realm of what just might be, if only things were a little more strange in our reality.

It was also a great time for such a show, seemingly with the stars aligned, as our real world seemed to tumble out of control. What better salve than seeing a weekly show where empowered individuals could set things right. Super-hero movies like Spiderman, Batman, X-Men had all done very well at the box office, with other titles doing decent business.

So, it seemed like the perfect time, and the perfect start, for a super-hero television series.

And, of course, they pissed it all away:

"But numbers fell sharply by season 3, due in part to a messy second season and the now-famous writers guild strike of 2007-08 that kept it off the air for months. Only 9.9 million viewers tuned in to watch 'Heroes'' third-season premiere, marking a 25 percent drop from season 2.And that was just the beginning: Season 4 averaged just 6.5 million episodes, with 4.4 million viewers tuning in to its season finale, on Feb. 8."

I may do a larger post on this, because it deserves a more detailed examination and explanation, but for now, a mini-rant.

I stopped watching Heroes I think around the last part of the second season. The writer's strike did indeed make for a little confusion in the series progression, but to blame its ultimate demise on it is frankly bullshit. The blame rests squarely on the writers, and ultimately on the creators, who failed to keep a steady hand on the production.

I LOVED the show in its first season, and even my wife found it fascinating and watched every week. I was astounded at how well done it was, amazed that network TV was still capable of delivering something like it. To have two demographics like me and wife watching it says alot about why it had so many viewers initially.

In the second season, however, the show began to run off the rails, alternating from meandering aimlessly, to making jarring transitions for plot, character nature and motivations, and recycling certain devices to the point of inanity.

Case in point was the threatening future premise, where a character would go to the future, find it was all *#&$* up, and then had to try and prevent it. Once, interesting. Twice, well, okay. Three times, ZZZZZzzzzz.

There is plenty to cite, and maybe I will go back to it, but let me get to the core problem of the show, because it speaks to a larger issue with a LOT of Hollywood fair.

The show was called HEROES, but what was lacking in most all of it was the HEROIC. The characters were doing pretty much everything BUT being heroes in the series, from out-maneuvering one another, to continually questioning and/or tentatively testing their powers to the point of OCD, to following any number of small quests to solve the riddle of why they were what they were.

Now, don't get me wrong, ALL of this would have been fine grist for the story-line mill, and entertaining. However, what was lacking was almost ANY super-hero like action, of one or a small group of these people using their powers to help someone, even while they were running around with the various other subplots.

NOT doing this for the first season was fine, as it set the tableau, but what looked like atmosphere and mythos building turned to apparent uncertainty about where the show was going and even what it was about. It got tedious as not only all the characters had this continuing existential crisis, but the entire show seemed to develop one as things went on.

As I said to my wife as my frustration grew, "All this background and mood-setting is great, but at SOME point the audience wants to watch some Heroes kick some bad guy ass!" It was about this time she stopped watching.

All of the characters, except maybe Hiro, were absolutely self-centered and narcissistic when it came to their powers, with very brief and fleeting exceptions.

Hiro seemed to be the idealistic core around which the series would be based, the nerd who in his heart understand what it meant to be a hero, which had little to do with your abilities, and in large part depended on WHAT YOU DID WITH THEM! I thought, I think many did, that Hiro would eventually pull the heroes together, remind them and convince them that what they possessed was a responsibility.

Instead, Hiro became a bumbling joke, the comic relief to break up the dreary angst fest all the other heroes were wallowing in.


I think I really got aggravated during the plot line where Peter gets trapped in the body of a super-villain who escapes with two others as they go on a crime and killing spree. The suspense builds as Peter can't use his range of powers, on the villains, and goes along with the gang for the moment.

Now, a true Hero, limited as he was, would try to do something anyway, but let's give the benefit of the doubt to the writers and Peter, in that he thought he could nothing and maybe is the most reluctant of the heroes.

However, at one point Peter GETS HIS POWERS BACK while in the midst of bank robbery, but instead of allowing us even a minute of him kicking some major bad guy ass to punish them, stop them, and protect the innocent, someone stops time (I forget who) and whisks Peter away so Sylar can stop them.

DIS-SATISFYING to say the least.

About the only character who was somewhat immune to this, and thus the most interesting, was that of Sylar, the lead villain in the series, played by Zachary Quinto. His character, evil though he was, as complex as they managed to make him, seemed to know what he wanted. It was clear what drove him, and he did not vacillate too much, even with his doubts. HERE was the guy who was not afraid to use his powers.

I say somewhat immune because even Sylar got the wishy-washy treatment as they had him turn to a good guy, then a bad guy again, then a good guy (in the future), then bad, then in love and good, and then bad at a flick of a switch, killing his love interest.

"So what?" one might say, "It's bad writing. Happens all the time."

Well, that explains part of it. As I understand it, the creator and original team of writers left the show, and the new crop were either incompetent, or really did not have a good grasp of the show, which may be the same thing. So, fair enough.

However, I think the bigger issue is that Hollywood is uncomfortable with the concept of heroes. To be a hero means you have to stand for something, have to declare lines of right and wrong, good and evil, and ACT of them, accepting the consequences.

They were afraid to take any stances on anything as writers, and so left their characters helpless and timid when courage and conviction were needed.

In a scene in season 2, when Peter and Nathan are down in Haiti, confronting the evil brother of the Haitian who has become a super-powered warlord, Nathan sees a young girl in the prison with him. He realizes that at some point she will be forced to be a soldier prostitute, and gives a speech about those unable to protect themselves, and the role of others to be the protectors.

FINALLY, I thought, the series will get some firm grounding, and how nice a twist that Nathan, potentially a villain in Season One, will be one of the first to recognize it.

What does he then do?

Returns to Washington DC and rats out the other super-heroes to the President, who then begins rounding them up and putting them in a Gitmo style prison.

WHAT. THE. ****?

Now, one could argue that this set up an interesting dynamic where Nathan comes to view the super-powered as being the victimizers, or the threat, but it would have been nice to have seen some balance to this with the super-powered defeating some regular criminals. It would have been a nice ongoing conflict, and one suitable to the genre; is a super-hero a hero or vigilante?

However, we were not really GIVEN the opposing view, shown the positive side of being a super-hero, of helping defend the weak. It was almost all inter-supers intrigue and combat and hand-wringing.

Again, this is just one TV show, but the fact that writers whose success depends on the success of a show CANNOT understand or so ideologically driven that they can't supply the basics of a comic book story, speaks volumes.

I will maybe come back to this and better organize my thoughts on it, but I am a little too disgusted at the ruin of so much potential to think clearly.

RIP, Heroes, we hardly knew you...the way we wanted to.