Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Some people got shot. Surprise!

Posted: January 15, 2011 in News, Politics

The response to this whole Gifford-shooting thing is sickening.  American Left, you make me sick.  For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, check out this week’s cover of The Stranger, one of Seattle’s newsweeklies.  Normally I find the Stranger’s leftist rhetoric to fall within bounds of decency I can tolerate, but this is just shit.  Shame on you, Stranger editorial staff, for permitting this, and shame on you, Dan Savage and Aaron Huffman, for creating it:

That’s very very extremely clever you guys.  Blame Sarah Palin, the one person who might have a shot at unseating your hero Barack Obama next year.  And in the process, insinuate that she’s somehow associated with every assassination attempt on anyone, ever.  Keep it classy.

If you actually believe that putting crosshairs on a map makes someone responsible for a killing, you’re an idiot.  Either that or extremely deluded.


Let’s assume for a moment that the premise at the root of this accusation is true:  that inciting a criminal act makes one culpable.  All right.  I think we can find some more likely suspects than Sarah Palin.  Let’s start with one of my favorite quotes of all time:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.”

— Thomas Jefferson

I’d say that’s rather more of an incitement to violence than some crosshairs on a campaign map.  Or how about this one:

“I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence.”

— Malcolm X

Or, if we want to get a bit more modern, how about this one:

“… I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I’m thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.”

— Alec Baldwin, The Late Show with Conan O’Brien, 1998

Oh, but there’s more:

““Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.””

— Bill Ayers, of the Weathermen, a Communist terrorist who later served on the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Prez. Obama, and is reported to have written Obama’s 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father

“Michele, slit your wrist.  Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic].  Move that knife up about two feet.  Start right at the collarbone.”

— Montell Williams, farcically speaking to Republican Representative Michele Bachmann, on the air

“Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and [gunshot sound]”

— Air America host Randi Rhodes, in 2004, comparing president Bush to an unfortunate character in The Godfather

“On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. – where are you now that we need you?”

— Charlie Booker, in England’s Guardian newspaper, October 23, 2004

“And this current administration is no exception. It should be hung and tried and shot, as any war criminal should be.”

— Rage Against the Machine lead singer Zack de la Rocha, Coachella music festival, April 2007

“See I’m a get him the crowd with a couple heavies / And lay the barrel to the ground, hold the gat steady
And now I’m ready for my adversary, talk is cheap / I’m looking for a way to make a plan and keep it neat
And check it out and make around and pick a rooftop / And get a spot where the view’s hot, set up shop
Cause all I wanna see is motherfucking brains hanging / Another level when it’s me and Devils gangbanging
So don’t be telling me to get the nine, violent spirit / Cause when I’m violent is the only time the devils hear it
Rat-tat-tat goes the gat to his devil’s face / I hope he think about how he done us when he lay to waste
And get the feeling of the peeling from the other side / From guns given to my people from my own kind
So get with Ollie cause I’m probably fin to make you mad / I’m steady waiting for the day I get to see his ass
And give him two from the barrel of a black guerrilla / And that’s real from the motherfucking Bush Killa”

— Rap artist Paris, in his 1992 song “Bush Killa”

I think that’s enough.  What was that you were saying about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party spreading hate?

But that wasn’t really what I wanted to write about.  I wanted to discuss the question that the left is obfuscating, and everyone else is avoiding: WHY Mr. Loughner did this.  Why try to kill a congresswoman and everyone around her?  To me, the answer is obvious, and yes, of course it’s political.  Loughner felt that Representative Giffords held power over his life, and that she was misusing that power.  The first cause is reason enough for resentment — by what right does she rule?  Why SHOULD she have power over the lives of others.  Because she was voted in by a majority?  What sort of justification is that?  If you believe that you own your own life, why should any one person, or group of people hold that sort of power over you?  If it sounds like I’m making an anarchist argument, you should know that that’s probably because I’m an anarchist.  I see the Tucson shooting as a response, not to some rotten media environment, but as a response to power.  Specifically, the power that is growing, accumulating in the hands of the US Federal Government.  If you doubt this, I’ll be happy to make that case in another post.  Our government has been continually accreting power more or less since it was created, and it is now beginning to reach the point where people find it intolerable, tyrannical, oppressive.  Crazy people serve a purpose in society not unlike canaries did in mine shafts back in the day.  They’re sensitive to the environment in a way that ordinary people aren’t.  Loughner saw the power, and resented it.  He felt his helplessness, and wanted to do something about it.  Rep. Giffords was merely a convenient target.

Loughner is headed to the slammer, but there are many more potential Loughners out there, and the power of our government is growing.  These sort of attacks will increase.  In response, our government will crack down, becoming more and more of a police state, and inspiring more attacks.  It’s a vicious cycle.  Power grows, and it protects itself.  We’re headed for a dark future, politically.  My advice:  stay the hell away from politicians.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for sources.


Here’s the AP story.

This is one of those political issues that has always been a curiosity for me.  It’s one that many people feel very strongly about, but I never have.  My thoughts run along these lines:

The military is not a social justice sandbox.  The military exists to do one thing and one thing only:  kill people.  Every feature of the military should be optimized in order to best serve the goal of killing people quickly and efficiently, with as little loss to our own side as possible.  To this end, the military discriminates in a myriad of ways:  gender, height, weight, intelligence, physical fitness, eyesight, hearing, reflexes.  They even discriminate, in certain circumstances, on the basis of good looks or ethnicity.  I’ve heard a few complaints about the exclusion of women from the combat arms MOSs, but other than that, all this discrimination goes by without a bat of the eye.  What is it about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that gets people so up in arms?  If General James Amos, USMC, says “I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction.  I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction,” then who are we to second-guess him, and on what basis?  If we’re going to conclude that he’s a bigot and is lying about the reason he doesn’t want homosexuals in his unit, then that’s an issue of integrity and fitness to command, and the solution would be to remove him.  Is it totally inconceivable that a combat commander might genuinely believe queer-integrated units would pose a threat to mission accomplishment?  Is it inconceivable that he might be right?

Supporters hailed the Senate vote as a major step forward for gay rights. Many activists hope that integrating openly gay troops within the military will lead to greater acceptance in the civilian world, as it did for blacks after President Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order on equal treatment regardless of race in the military.

This rings completely empty to me.  Race integration in the military improved race relations in this country?  How?  As far as I can tell, race relations are shit and getting worse.  In a country where Cynthia McKinney, a member of the United States House of Representatives, thinks its ok to accuse a capitol guard of racism merely because he asked to see her ID (his job), I’d say we’ve hit rock-bottom.  Also, nothing about military service has anything to do with “rights”.  In the military, you have fewer privileges than a typical prison inmate in the USA.  When people talk about the “right to serve in the military”, a little part of me dies.  What does that mean, that we all have a right to a military-industrial complex?  A right to war?  There is no such right.  If the military has become an entitlement program, then I think we have bigger problems to worry about than DADT.

Now please don’t misunderstand me — I’m not arguing in favor of DADT, or of a ban on homosexuals in the military.  I’m simply arguing that this is not a question with an easy, “no shit” answer.  It’s not about rights, it’s not about equality.  Like the abortion debate, this issue has gotten so politicized that its almost never debated in terms of the real-world consequences of the policy.  Let’s talk about a few of those.  In the military, men and women sleep in separate rooms, and use separate toilet facilities, much like in the civilian world, and probably for the same reason.  Men and women are (typically) sexually attracted to each other, which can lead to either discomfort, or hanky-panky, both of which the military frowns on.  These issues become even more intense in the field, or in a combat zone, when you’re sleeping in foxholes together and showering outdoors.  So where does an openly homosexual man fit into this picture?  Well, unless you’re just going to throw him in with the rest of the dudes, he has to have his own room, and his own shower.  If not, well then you might as well say fuck it and throw everybody together, men and women, queer and straight alike.  If that’s the goal, a la the film Starship Troopers, then ok.  Let’s talk about THAT, not “rights” and “equality”.  Because that’s the road this puts us on.