Crime, Spite, and Everyone’s Plight – by E. Marshall Hoyt

Crime, Spite, and Everyone’s Plight – by E. Marshall Hoyt

The world is full of sick individuals.

A lot, actually. I just forget, sometimes.

Today is one of those days: by pure chance and slight boredom, I checked out the trending tab on facebook. It’s the most unreliable course of information, prioritizing the sexuality of a fictional character over a man getting robbed.

Of course, since it is supposedly based on user posting and involvement, maybe it’s the still the fault of the mainstream media and its rigid effect on the common person’s perspective. In either case, even when they do pop up a news story, facebook adds their own snippet of what the trending word is about, and many a time this has been clearly bias. Descriptions of Trump, for instance, are commonly bombastic and vile, and usually defensive of whatever asshat of the week thinks that being related to Trump is reason enough to attack or verbally assault a person.

It’s stupid, but, it’s also to be expected from facebook “reporting” at this point. Needless to say, I thought I couldn’t be any more surprised by anything that’s considered a trending matter.

It turns out I was wrong.

I saw the name Montel Williams trending. Now, more importantly, considering I don’t know who on Earth this man is, the description of “Montel Williams lashes out at accused Facebook Live torturers” certainly caught my eye, along with a snippet telling me that Mr. Williams is a TV personality and Navy vet. Certainly 3 things immediately came to mind: One, who’s stupid enough to not only post video but livestream video of their crime? Two, what in the actual fuck is wrong with people that they thought this was okay? Three, what’s the catch?

Here’s the thing, maybe I’m a bit jaded, but not only is “news” dominated by click-bait titles and misleading perspectives, but often times it has a habit of aiming its sights on the wrong target, or even worse making light of a single tree while missing a whole forest of information. What I found out, however, is about twenty levels more fucked up than I could have thought.

I’ll give you a breakdown- 4 teens, one of which was connected to the victim by the unfortunate circumstance of being his classmate, all kidnapped and tortured the victim and live streamed it. By torture, I mean torture. Cut at his scalp, put lit cigarettes to his skin, kicked and beat and verbally abused him to top it off. He was found shambling around outside near where he was beat, was taken to hospital, where the police then caught wind of the video. Now, what I mind interesting is that every article that popped up focused on one particular thing- The fact that the victim, atop everything else, was special needs.

Don’t get me wrong, that does indeed make it worse. In the grand scheme of victimization, being literally disabled and having a crime perpetrated against you is actually awful in every sense. It doesn’t go into what his disability is, but I can safely say, given the circumstance, that doesn’t even matter. He could be deaf in one ear for all I care and this is still an awful crime (Edit: it appears he suffers from mental health issues, which could be what we all deal with- depression, or something far worse). But- and it took following a single user’s post that lead to an article that linked it- I finally found out what Montel Williams had to say.

It was pretty on the nose, starting with “Life in Prison. No Parole,” and everything in it was justified. What caught my eye was the fact that his second sentence started with “Whether this is a hate crime is a distraction and irrelevant” and later contained “It’s bigger than racism (saying F*ck white people is racist by definition).” Needless to say I liked the cut of his jib but, wait a minute- what does this crime have to do with races at all?

Ah, that.

It took a little more digging, but let me fill in the missing pieces: The four perpetrators were black, and during the beating (As can be seen in the not-so-lovely video) yelled “Fuck Trump! Fuck white people!” at the victim while delivering some thankfully non-fatal beating to him.

Again, don’t get wrong, the victim being special needs is fairly news-worthy, and it’s still awful, but- and I hate to politicize this event in any manner I really do- but why was the fact that this is very clearly a hate crime not relevant?  Why does facebook and roughly 90% of all articles not find this to be important information? It must be reiterated, I agree with Mr. Williams, this is far worse than is worth the efforts to concentrate on it being a hate crime, it’s horrendous and the color of anyone’s skin is almost irrelevant when something this grueling goes down.

But, I’m still keenly aware that if the races were switched, and the criminals were saying “Fuck Obama!” instead of “Fuck Trump!” not only would CNN suddenly find more than 2 minutes to cover it, but every news station would have it be their morning story, with an hour long segment to discuss it. People would be not only saying it’s most certainly a hate crime, but at least 25 college thesis papers would be written off the incident, to further their hypothesis on the growing and worsened racism of America, and how it’s as bad as when blacks were still slaves. There would screaming and grating of teeth, and you’d hear about it for weeks.

But instead, we have people like CNN’s Don Lemon, who has literally said “I don’t think its evil” in response to the incident, instead blaming “bad home training”? What in the actual fuck? No, don’t lie, if the roles were reversed that would be far from the first thought in your mind Mr. Lemon. But because it’s a crime committed by black teens, you for some reason think they need to be made the victims in this situation, their actions the fault of their raising. That itself is no surprise it’s hardly the first on-white violence I’ve seen where some CNN pundit has declared it’s basically “Not *that* bad”.

Still, this sort of shit isn’t acceptable, because we saw this right after the election- riots, protests and city self-destruction all over an election. Not even any action taken as president, but over an election. I said it then and I’ll say it again, but I don’t recall any actions taken that are close to that back in 2008 following Obama’s election. Trust me, we would have heard about it, the media would have grabbed it up like it was a suitcase full of unmarked bills and started raving crazy about crazy right wingers. Yet, I noticed a deafening silence from the media during the post-election riots, and certainly no concentration on the multiple hate crimes that took place. I certainly saw a lot of defenses for these actions but very little actual reporting.

To some extent, it’s kind of simple how we got here. I’ve seen it develop, in the way the “news” reports events, to the way events are reacted to. Over the course of the Obama administration, demonization of white criminals perpetrating on-black-violence is common, wherein black violence has been ignored or immediately defended by the administration. It’s a whole situation, of course, the current culture brought on by hundreds of events leading up to today. But evil crimes should be simple. There shouldn’t a question that they’re wrong. There should be no defense, no forgiveness and no explanation great enough to make up for the actions of the perpetrator(s).Yet here we are.

Here we are in a deeply divided nation. As much as many liberals would like to say it is, this division is not because of the election of Trump, not because he won when they didn’t expect it, creating lines between people. It’s not because anything any Trump supporter has ever said, the most vile of which has been attacked by all people, regardless of politics. Simply, despite the god-like image they attempt to project upon the man, this sort of insanity is very simply because of the Obama administration. Entire forms of humor and friendships dwindled away at over time, the first question asked about any crime or any actions of someone with darker skin being shifted to “Was it because of the white people?” slowly but surely. The sort of books and movies that get promoted, the way you’re supposed to talk, the safe spaces you’re supposed to have because of those feminine feelings that society has clearly deprived you of expressing. Everything in the culture is different than it was in 2008- and it’s no surprise. 8 years changes a lot. Yet, I can say with certainty almost all these changes to the culture have made deeper lines between people, based on their race, gender and even sexual preference. Not even because of repeated, massive and nation-wide attacks against any particular group- other than perhaps verbal, but no one was killed from being insulted too much- but because people have been encouraged to identify themselves differently.

No longer is Joe a hardworking roofer with an odd obsession with Seinfeld, he’s a white, middle class, straight male. No longer is Alice an exotic babe with brains and looks to boot, she’s a discriminated against Mexican immigrant who doesn’t subscribe to the misogynistic views of society, and is in a sexual relationship with Jack. Jack once was a quirky theater major but is now an advocate of how evil white people are- while reflecting the sun off his ghost-like skin- and is currently in the middle of transition to the 5th gender of Twatwaffle, which uses cat pronouns.

This societal division, encouraged and nurtured by the current (And thankfully out the door) administration has divided people into their groups, and made way for the sort of culture that lead to the deep divides we experience today. Liberals surely noticed these divides, they just chose to claim “It’s because Obama is black, isn’t it?” to every criticism of him, worsening these problems but failing to see it’s not the unexplainable (And non-existent) racism of the right but in fact their own prejudices.

This crime against a disabled man is awful. But, I also believe it’s because our society made way for the conditions where these teens thought it was okay. They live streamed it, were proud of it, and thought it was justified because for 8 years of their lives they’ve been convinced that by virtue of their skin color, they are always in the right. They likely believe that racism can only be achieved by white people, sexism by males and bigotry by conservatives. They thought this was fine because in some ways, society has told them they’re invincible and exempt from criticism, all because of their skin color. They thought there would be no repercussions because they have their community, their teachers, their news channels, and even their president ready to defend them at a moment’s notice. Even now, their race is not important to any news station, the incident not interesting enough for most mainstream sources, and the crime not of the right “colors” to encourage a statement by Obama.

As I said, I do believe that is crime is evil, regardless of the people involved or what they are. But I think it’s important to notice what people think is important about the crime, and how the obvious motive of race is not worth a even a footnote. I think it’s important to know this because crimes like this can still happen, because the motive that drove these criminals, is the same motive that drives millions in their daily actions, and it’s probably only a matter of time until someone else takes it too far.

I hear that, despite all this, the teens were indeed charged with hate crimes and additional felony charges, and I guarantee they thought that they could never be charged of a hate crime. I hope these years in prison teach them a few things about the world, and what it’s really like past the coddling they’re received. Additionally, my thoughts go out the victim, hopefully he recovers not only physically but mentally from this incident, and he has my support in light of this truly evil act.

234 thoughts on “Crime, Spite, and Everyone’s Plight – by E. Marshall Hoyt

  1. And this is what Obama and the liberal progressives have given us. Year after year of horrible crimes, with race only mentioned if it’s whites (or – heh – white Hispanics!) who can be cast in the wrong. To the point that when this crime first made the evening news, with absolutely no mention of the perpetrators’ race, just the victim’s, and all of the video of the perpetrators you could see was their hoodies – my first reaction was to turn to the other people at the table and say, “I bet you they’re black.”

    Because that’s what the news has been doing for the past decade. If they don’t mention the race, it’s either black, or Muslim. (And never mind Islam is not a “race”.) Given the victim hadn’t been decapitated, I figured I had a pretty good guess.

    Nobody at the table was willing to bet against me.

    If that isn’t the saddest, most horrible thing about the whole Obama administration, beyond even Obamacare, I don’t know what is.

    1. And the other one is if, say, Senator McGuffin is caught doing something untoward it can read like this…

      Senator McGuffin (R – Confusion) was caught with his pants down…

      Or it can read like this….

      Senator McGuffin of Confusion was accused of having his pants down…
      And the lack of party attribution tells you he’s a Democrat.

      1. And that subtle slant you also included, nice that, of caught vs accused. Common trick these days in biased reportage.

    2. Because that’s what the news has been doing for the past decade.

      Decade?! I recall jokes about it during the Reagan presidency. The intellectualcrats, especially the ones in the media, view the mass of Americans as an unruly mob ready to storm the ghetto at any least provocation. Thus they carefully filter the news and constantly lecture us on the evils of Islamophobia, homophobia, racism etc.

      That they believe their veils fool anyone tells you about all you need know of their estimation of the public’s intelligence.

      1. I freely admit I wasn’t paying much attention to the news in general until post 9/11. I was under the mistaken impression if I left people alone, they’d leave me alone. Why I ever thought that, I have no idea.

        After the Towers went down, I spent at least the next 3 years reading up on the Middle East, Islam, and much more. So… I know they’ve been in the tank at least a decade, ’cause I’ve been watching that long. If you say it was as bad that long ago, that tallies with what I’ve researched – I just couldn’t swear to it personally. 😉

          1. Goes further back, even:

            Walter Duranty.

            And, he was just the tip of the iceberg, once you start digging.

            1. Yes. “Progressive” party, even before the actual creation of the Progressive Party, influence on papers, and not just in big cities, goes back a ways. William Allen White of the Emporia Gazette comes to mind, although he tended toward the less-harmful end of the spectrum.

    3. If you see the words “youths” or “teens” used in the description, that’s also a sure tip-off that the suspected perps are black. White suspects are always described as such. (And the Brit press does something similar by substituting “Asian” for Muslim.)

      Pity we have a Soviet sort of media, where what isn’t said and what appears when reading between the lines is so much more informative than the actual words on the page. And the Democrats claim RT is nothing but agitprop? Heh.

      1. To be fair, in Britain, Asia is anything east of Europe.

        Of course, we all know that Wogistan begins in Calais.

  2. Well, I believe the whole concept of “hate crimes” is evil. A crime is a crime, and is determined by the actions one takes. As Montel Williams said, their reasons for taking the actions are irrelevant. “Hate crimes” are efforts to make thinking the wrong thoughts criminal. This is a very bad idea, and enhanced punishment for “hate crimes” should be done away with. These criminal kids kidnapped, tortured, and terrorized this defenseless young man. It doesn’t matter why they did it. They should go away for years. If they had done it to someone who looks like them (so the “hate crime” conditions wouldn’t apply), the punishment should have been exactly as severe.

    1. Nod.

      There was a very nasty killing of a Black Man in Texas several years back and at least one of the killers was executed.

      But the Usual Suspects were complaining that Texas didn’t have “Hate Crime Laws”.

      What In God’s Name would “Hate Crime Laws” have done when the killers were already severely punished? 😦

      1. The incident I recall most clearly is the case of the gay man who was killed (dragged to death behind a pickup? Or was that a movie?) and Bush got loads of crap because he vetoed a bill, tied to the incident, making gay bashing a Hate Crime. Nobody mentioned that he also signed the death warrants of the murderers. He’s catching crap because he doesn’t think it’s appropriate to try to punish them more than killing them? Do-the-what-the-fuck? What is he summoned to do? Feed them to the pigs on national TV?

        1. He’s supposed to let off the OTHER murderers in order to make it clear that this murder was a special, a unusual, a horrible murder, as opposed to the run-of-the-mill ones that aren’t so special.

        2. The “dragged behind a pickup” was the Killing of the Black man in Texas.

          Bush was “blamed” (rightly or wrongly) for Texas not having Hate Speech Laws.

          But as you said, the murderers were severely punished (with at least one being executed).

          1. IIRC, two of the three charged were executed. The third plead states evidence and got a lighter sentence.

                1. One of the Dakotas iirc. Shepard was the ‘gaybashing.’ Ironically the Texas dragging was James Byrd Jr. I don’t think any relation to the grand Kleagle of WV.

                2. *spreads hands* No idea. I never did get into reading the tea-leaves of the nation from extremely biased news reports of select crimes.

                3. Wyoming.

                  Somebody wrote a play about it which was, naturally, very popular among theatre departments.

                  1. That is surprising. Prior Breaking Bad I didn’t think theatre departments were aware of the dangers of Oxy abuse.

                    1. Because it wasn’t from drug abuse. It was just because he was gay and the highschool jocks all killed him shouting epithets at him. Saint Matthew could never have had flaws.

                    2. I believe you’re right. I confess I didn’t watch it and don’t expect to watch it.

                      It is in one of those genres where “critical acclaim” generally means it comprises a world view I don’t care to indulge.

        3. The interesting thing about the Matthew Shepard case was that he was actually killed by other gays, and over drugs.

          Which fact has gone to support my thesis that most actual gay-bashing is perpetrated by other gays, many of whom are deeply closeted when they do their bashing, and in denial about it.

          Most actual straight males I’ve been around through my life are not at all threatened or really that interested in gays. The usual response is “Oh, that’s interesting… But, I’m not interested, friend… Now, would you mind removing your hand from my thigh?”, and unless said gay-whose-gaydar-has-failed refuses to take no for an answer, the incident goes no further. In general, straights find gay sex distasteful, but not worth going out to beat the hell out of people over. There simply isn’t enough animosity, there.

          Yet… Every single one of the “straights” I knew in my early life who were vociferous and militantly anti-gay? The ones who talked about killing gays for being gay? Most of them have come out of their closets by this time in our lives, and are openly gay themselves. Which is why I think, every time I hear someone declaiming on the evils of gay life, “Yep, there’s another one… He’ll be living with another man, and wearing a ball-gag here in a bit…”.

          The really vocal ones, I suspect that it has a lot to do with self-hatred. They are conflicted, and what really pisses them off are other, braver men than they who are openly “flaunting” their sexuality. So, these guys go out to reinforce in their own heads, and what they see as the perceptions of others, their own masculinity, and they do that by gay-bashing or other such childish BS.

          There was quite a clique of these types running around one of the bases I was assigned to, back in the 1980s. I ran into some of these guys again, when I was assigned there in the 1990s and 2000s, and, to a man, they were now out of the closet. I also noted, looking back on it, that there was a hell of a lot more talk about going up to Seattle to bash gays than there were actual incidents of gay-bashing reported in the news or by the gay community, sooooo… I came to the conclusion that a good deal of that “Hey, we’re gonna go up to beat up faggots in Seattle…” might have been either unconscious or conscious camouflage to explain their presence in such clubs in the first place.

          The human mind is a squirrely little place, especially the bits surrounding sexuality and sexual identity.

          1. One would think, if one believed the propaganda, that anyone who isn’t a champion of gay pride wants to crucify homosexuals. There is no such thing as distaste or disapproval of homosexual conduct: It’s all pure hatred.

          2. I made the- apparently HORRIBLE!- mistake of pointing out to someone screaming about the ‘homophobia that killed Matthew!’ just what those facts turned out to be.

            Which, I was informed, meant I hated gays and and even if the (demonstrated facts) were true it didn’t matter because ‘Teachable Moment and Sensitivity’ and other such crap.

            Some of these people don’t give a crap about facts or truth, they care about their feelings and the message. Even- sometimes especially- when the message is bullshit.

        4. And the reality of that particular crime was that it was a drug deal gone bad. Wouldn’t have made a rat-turd’s difference whether the draggie was white, black, straight or homosexual; end result would have been the same for him. Only took a few years for that to come out – and no thanks to our Tass or Pravda media.

    2. I’d be down with some sort of additional multiplier for targeting weak/vulnerable targets, because that might actually get the serial predators put away, but like I said earlier– would it be any better if they’d done it just because he was not in their group?

      Are the two young homicidal murderers from..what, two decades back… who lured a little girl away and killed her any better in that they did it because they had a chance, rather than because she was (demographic)?

      1. That’s actually a rather… Interesting idea, to tell the truth.

        Leave the penalty the same as it is now, for tackling an equal, with fair warning, and add a multiplier for going after someone smaller and weaker and/or unaware?

        Kinda makes sense, and it “feels right”.

        But… What do we do about people who take on bigger opponents, or ones they issue “fair warning” to? Would someone like Jody Arias get time taken off, for her “sportsmanship”, in taking on a larger opponent?

        The other question is, how do we adjudicate the “handicapping” on these matters, and do we even want to open that can of worms? We’re already doing this, de facto in a lot of spousal murder cases, where the smaller and weaker wife is claiming she shot her husband in his sleep because “abuse”.

        I think it might actually be wiser to stop at “Hey, if you’re going to use violence to solve an inter-personal problem, you need to be put down… Period.”. I really don’t care if the person doing the violence is a six-foot-eight linebacker that puts his girlfriend through a wall when he slaps her, or if it’s that five-foot-nothing girlfriend who strikes him ineffectually with her tiny little fists; both parties demonstrate an inability to handle things as decent human beings, and need to be dealt with accordingly.

        1. Disagree.

          The Linebacker likely seriously harmed his girlfriend if he puts her through the wall.

          The girl-friend isn’t doing harm by “using her fists” against him.

          IMO the amount of harm done should a major factor when deciding how much the attacker should be punished.

          Now, if the girl-friend used a hand-gun against her Linebacker boy-friend, then she deserves serious punishment.

          On the other hand, an attack that “misses” should be punished according the amount of harm that would have been done if the attack was on-target.

          1. Women can do a heck of a lot of damage with their fists, especially if the man can’t fight back for fear of getting the blame. Especially since there are frail men and sturdy women.

            1. No argument there.

              I was just commenting on the specific situation given.

              On the other hand, in cases with that sized-woman and that sized-man, the woman would do more harm throwing objects and/or attacking from the rear with blunt/sharp instruments.

          2. So, if I shoot at someone and miss, that’s a lesser crime than if I shoot at them and hit?

            Yeah, that’s the logic that pervades our legal system, but I’ll be the asshole and point out that this “logic” is a large part of what is wrong with it.

            You strike out at someone, you own what happens. That’s the way it should be, and there should be no difference in how you are dealt with, based on the outcome. We can’t effectively adjudicate intent, and all we are left with is “Was what you did an attack, or not…?”. Effectiveness of the attack is immaterial; the fact is, the attacker chose to make it. That choice is what we should be focusing on.

            I’ve been on the other end of this, as a victim. Young dipshit-in-uniform decided to deliver a rabbit-punch to the back of my skull one night when I went in to shut down the on-camp club, and he and his buddies were wanting to keep partying and brawling. He broke his hand; I laid him out with a Mag-Lite, end of story. I have an exceedingly hard head, as anyone I’ve head-butted will unhappily testify. The chain of command chose not to prosecute this POS because he “didn’t actually hurt you, and he got hurt worse than you did, in the end…”. Despite the fact that I was on duty, in uniform, and representing the commander, that commander chose to “look the other way”. End result? The “young gentleman” later pulled a similar stunt on a different camp, with the Military Police, and wound up doing actual time for assault and battery on an MP conducting his official duties.

            The theory that we’re going to judge things based on what the actual outcome for the attack is functionally bad; the problem is, the person making the attack was sufficiently feral enough to make the attack; if his victim was able to dodge the attack or defend himself, that’s immaterial. The fact of the attacker being animalistic enough to try to solve their issues with physical force is what we need to deal with–And, by including the effect of the attack and/or the identity of the victim, we’re bypassing that fact in favor of some very difficult to adjudicate things.

            Incidentally, don’t you think the fact that that theoretical girlfriend is making an ineffectual physical assault on someone is something we should be paying attention to? If she’s willing to attack a much bigger target, what the hell do you think she’s doing to those she is stronger than? Like, maybe her own kids?

            One of my subordinates, years ago, had a major problem with his girlfriend/wife, very similar to this–She’d throw temper-tantrums and become physically abusive on him, as a routine thing. He’d just smile and laugh, holding her at arm’s length. It was cute. She was “a handful…”, but the sex was great. Or, so he related, when people asked him why the hell he put up with her bullshit. Didn’t hurt that she was hot as hell, either.

            It was cute, alright–Right up until he got called out of the field to go deal with a dying baby, who his wife had basically beaten to death. At that point, he realized what the hell he’d been enabling, and living with; the toddler they also had told the nice lady from CPS that Mommy was always hitting him, and that she always hit Sissy, too, when she was mad. Husband had no clue; the kids didn’t tell him, and he never saw it.

            Bitch went to prison, and I hope she’s still there.

            To my mind, that’s where the kind of thinking you are supporting leads, in the end.

          3. Reasonable expectation of harm, on both parts– like how a guy who (reasonably) believes he’s got a movie prop gun and shoots someone is less guilty than a guy who robs a bank with what he knows is a movie-prop gun, but those he’s threatening (reasonably) believe it to be a real gun.

            Depending on the situation, a tiny woman coming at you with fists might be reasonably expected to be a threat, when taking into account heat-of-the-moment stuff. There are a lot of dead or maimed cops who got knifed because they thought the woman in a domestic violence call was just flailing harmlessly.

            In contrast the “scream, cry and beat your fists on his chest” thing (one of the few movie things that seems to really be from the real world) is obviously not a threat.

        2. *shakes head* Nope, pure multiplier, basically as a way to give the system a way to remove human predators.

          Sort of like how there is a difference between animal cruelty and the whole “serial killer starting on animals” thing. Unlikely these twerps never did anything before.

          1. I don’t like that line of thought, to be honest.

            You start from a premise that an attack on someone weaker is deserving of more punishment than an attack on someone who is equal or stronger than you, you’re essentially discounting an attack on the able-bodied as being deserving of a lesser punishment.

            The problem isn’t that the attacker made an “unfair” selection of their victim, the problem is that they chose to deal with a situation with physical violence in the first damn place.

            It’s like training a dog; the dog jumps on me, who can handle it, and I do nothing or simply scold them, applying a standard corrective. Dog jumps on my 70 year-old mother or a toddler, injuring them? What then, do I beat the shit out of the dog, kill it? After all, that is doing what you suggest on a micro scale; the act is the same, on the dog’s part, but the more severe corrective is somehow going to make everything better, if it is more severe when there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim?

            And, before you point out that the dog is a dumb animal, unable to reason… Have you met some of these ferals, dealt with them one on one? I’m here to tell you, with sadness, that my damn dog has more conscience about crapping on the floor than some of the skells I’ve dealt with have about badly hurting someone. If anything, the equivalency runs in the dog’s favor.

            A judicial system needs to be consistent, fair, and… Merciless. You can make all the justifications for those four kids that kidnapped that special-needs peer of theirs, that they had bad childhoods, whatever: The fact remains, they did what they did. Adding or subtracting from the punishment because of the various statuses and externalities involved…? Nope. Not a viable long-term way of doing business, because it’s going to inevitably lead back to the lynching tree, when enough people decide that the justice system isn’t dispensing the justice they assigned their rights away to.

              1. Our courts are not sufficiently backed up, our criminal justice system insufficiently clogged, that we want to enable lawyers to fight about whether the victim was “weaker” and how much?

                Implementation of such a simple seeming scheme is rife with details and we all know who makes their living there.

              2. That’s what I’m getting at: You can’t adjudicate these things fairly, once you start looking at things like “the victim was weaker/in a position of lesser power”. The problem isn’t the choice of victim; it’s the act itself.

                Saying to someone that we’re going to punish them more because they beat up a smaller, weaker little girl is essentially telling them that doing the same thing to her big brother was acceptable, when what we want is for them not to be beating up anyone at all. By raising the price for beating up the weak, you’re basically offering a discount on beating up the strong.

                And, then, too, how the hell do you propose to adjudicate this crap? Let’s posit that some fool choses to beat the crap out of a random woman for grins and giggles, and experiences a failure in victim selection: As in, the “helpless little girl” he picks out on the street is actually the girl who beat the living crap out of Rhonda Rousey, Amanda Nunes?

                Not even getting into the odds such an attack would succeed, I think we can agree that our theoretical attacker entered into a fight with much more even odds than if he had picked out a more average girl to beat up. So, should he get that “discount” we’re basically offering, because his victim wasn’t quite as easy as he thought?

                You can’t adjudicate this crap fairly, which is why I say “Punish the deed, not the choice of victim–And, punish the deed good and hard”.

                1. Saying to someone that we’re going to punish them more because they beat up a smaller, weaker little girl is essentially telling them that doing the same thing to her big brother was acceptable, when what we want is for them not to be beating up anyone at all.

                  That is only true if the only purpose of criminal punishment is to express the value of the victim. (Part of criminal punishment is protection of the community.)

                  If it were the case that the value of the victim was the only consideration, then premeditated murder being punished more harshly than heat-of-the-moment would likewise be wrong.

                  Let’s posit that some fool choses to beat the crap out of a random woman for grins and giggles, and experiences a failure in victim selection: As in, the “helpless little girl” he picks out on the street is actually the girl who beat the living crap out of Rhonda Rousey, Amanda Nunes?

                  …why are you assuming that being Random Woman On The Street would be an indication of vulnerability big enough to suggest a predator, on par with a child or a mentally disabled guy who can be lured off on the basis of “I know you from school!”

                  You can’t adjudicate this crap fairly, which is why I say “Punish the deed, not the choice of victim–And, punish the deed good and hard”.

                  I am suggesting punishing the deed, and doing it hard– and just like someone who plans out a murder then carries it out, someone who is willing to wait and pick a victim that’s unusually vulnerable is doing an act of criminal violence that is more dangerous than someone who does a more impulsive act. Likewise, someone who does one impulsive criminal act is a lot less dangerous than someone who does it at every opportunity.

                  1. Fox, you’re basically demanding your legal system possess god-like powers of divination, in order for them to determine these things.

                    You say that the criminal who attacks the vulnerable should face a higher penalty; I say the penalty ought to be one for all, regardless of the victim. Which is going to be easier to determine?

                    How do you propose to determine the relative issues of vulnerability, here? Are you going to go by appearances? Medical records? Relative sizes? What, precisely? For something like this, you simply cannot pull the old canard about pornography out of the hat, and say that you “know it when I see it…”–You’ve got to be able to codify this and make it simple enough for complete idiots to understand and adjudicate, because that’s what juries are.

                    It sounds nice, but I really don’t see it working. At all. You’re injecting the same sort of undefinable and unknown value judgment into the equation that the guys advocating for the existence of a “hate crime modifier” are, and the end state of that is confusion and injustice.

                    About all we can expect to be able to say in this imperfect world is “Did he do the crime? Yes? Then, the penalty is “X”…”, and leave it at that. You start saying that crime “Y” is somehow worse than crime “Z”, because the victims were different, and you’re going to wind up perverting your system of laws out of recognition in short order.

                    It’s already pretty bad when we have a state of affairs going where you murder one guy and get an automatic trip to the death chamber, and killing a different guy gets you a term in prison for a defined period instead–And, that’s precisely what happens in a lot of jurisdictions if you kill a cop instead of a normal citizen.

                    1. Fox, you’re basically demanding your legal system possess god-like powers of divination, in order for them to determine these things.

                      No, no more than allowing premeditation does.

                      Just because something can be considered a factor doesn’t mean it’s required to be figured in, and you seem to have made a rather large leap from “some sort of additional multiplier for targeting weak/vulnerable targets,” specifically for finding serial predators, and spun it into an elaborate ladder of degrees of OK victim.

                      You seem to have decided it’s exactly like a hate-crime laws; I know it’s not that hard to come up with a simplistic system to hammer out actual problems with, Aacid14 managed it well enough without even the example of premeditation to go off of.

                      And, that’s precisely what happens in a lot of jurisdictions if you kill a cop instead of a normal citizen.

                      If it can be shown it’s because they’re a cop, I believe the enhancement is bigger in ALL of them, and that’s a good thing.

                      Again: criminal justice isn’t just about the value of the person harmed or threatened, it’s about protecting the community/society as well. Assassination, be it cop or judge, is an attack on both– not only does it threaten the stability, it makes it so that there’s an antagonism between Average Joe and Officer Joe, because of the risk of Officer Joe being slaughtered for being on garbage duty.
                      This can be seen in action in cities and communities where a cop who enforces a law against the “wrong” guy is hung out to dry.

                    2. Premeditation is another can of worms, entirely. Why should it make a difference if you commit a “crime of passion” “in the heat of the moment”?

                      YOU. MURDERED. SOMEONE. You took a life. Your intent, your predisposition, all of that means precisely nothing; you committed an act of violence that ended another person’s life without justification.

                      Anything the system does to either excuse or “enhance” the punishment for that is inconsistent and immoral–And, it opens the system up to things like we just witnessed with regards to Hillary and Comey, where he tried to divine “intent” from her actions, decided she meant well, and didn’t prosecute. I can think of no more destructive an idea to impose on a legal systems than that–“Different spanks for different ranks/victims”.

                    3. Your philosophy of the purpose of criminal punishment seems to be radically different from either what I think it should be or what the US system currently is, in any of the various expressions.

                      Explains a lot of the disagreements we’ve had.

                    4. Premeditation makes a big difference. Suppose two guys in a bar get into a fight. One takes a punch just right and keels over dead. Now let’s suppose two guys in a bar get into a fight, head home, and one is ambushed by the other, knifed, and killed. In the first there is the possibility that the fight wasn’t an attempt of one man to kill the other. In the second, one has thought about it and decided to kill the other. That’s the difference.

                    5. There’s also the classic “person gets home early and discovers spouse in bed with neighbor, loses it, and kills them both”. Do we punish that the same as a pre-meditated murder?

            1. A dog you can only expect so much of. It is not (usually) done out of spite. When the justification for an ax murder is just wanting to know what it felt like, that is even more base than a dog.

          2. The only multiplier should be cases against those that reasonably are not able to completely defend self. Disabled, children elderly. Otherwise you run the risk of creating a set of tiered laws.

            1. *nod* Exactly, vulnerable.

              Injured, too, for serious injuries– there’s been enough of an uptick in attacks on pregnant women that several ladies I know won’t go out alone after dark anymore.

              When there’s an issue of human predators circling the herd, it’s a good idea to stomp a mud hole in him.

                1. I seem to remember that they already use how likely someone seems to be to be able to defend themselves as a basis for showing if something was heat of the moment or premeditated.

                  The big hanging point is that it can’t be what the facts of the matter are, same way that threat with a deadly weapon isn’t removed by it turning out to be a rubber gun.

    3. I once reduced a hate crimes label advocate to incoherence and abuse merely by observing that non-hate-crimes were therefore ordinary, hoohum, and run-of-the-mill. He could not stand that if you designate some crimes as horrible and out of the ordinary, therefore the others are ordinary and not horrible.

    4. I agree with you on the concept of “hate crimes”, but as long as those laws exist, they must be applied equally to all races, sexes and groups otherwise we will never get rid of them and the rule of law will take another hit. The rule of law does not have too many hits left in it before it dies and people take the law into their own hands.

        1. Many years ago I heard that in American Samoa manslaughter was the highest crime a native Samoan could be charged with as they were considered incapable of forethought.

      1. Jut to be contrary, I am going to defend the idea of hate crime laws now. In essence, a hate crime is a case of inter-tribal violence. Inter-tribal violence is much more damaging to the country than ordinary inter-personal violence because it feeds tribal identity and that is something that this country is not supposed to encourage, therefore hate crime laws are a good and appropriate thing as hate crimes do more damage to the country than the exact same crime commuted for non-tribal reasons.
        I think that I am going to wash my hands now. I feel dirty.

        1. By this reasoning Hate Crimes™ act as legitimization of inter-tribal violence by reinforcing tribal identities. They make the fact that the violence was inter-tribal more important than the fact of the violence, thus deteriorating the Rule of Law principle of individuality.

          Moreover, because such laws inevitably are unevenly enforced they create hierarchies of tribal ranking, further legitimizing tribal identity.

          1. I see your points however I am not sure that I agree. In our system all crimes are regarded legally as crimes against the State. That is why the State makes the decision to prosecute or not whatever the victim wants. Thus to say that a “Hate Crime” is not only the assault on the victim but evidence that the person doing the assaulting takes their membership in their tribe as more important than their citizenship in the State and is thus liable for punishment for both transgressions does not necessarily break down the principle of individuality.
            Of course if the legal system has been captured by tribalists, any law can be applied as a tribal weapon, so that objection is valid.

            1. A “Hate Crime” is not only the assault on the victim but evidence that the State takes the victim’s membership in their tribe as more important than their citizenship in the State.

              1. Right now, yes as the legal system has to a large extent been captured by tribalists. However this may be starting to change. I offer as evidence that the torturers in Chicago are being charged with a hate crime and the tribalists are going nuts over it.

        2. Oooh, that’s actually a really good point… and it makes it a lot easier to argue against hate-crime laws, if it turns out to be accurate for the person you’re arguing with, because they’re not especially good at avoiding tribal-type violence.

          It’s a lot easier to get somewhere if you can deflect away from the head-butting part, and instead try to figure out a shared goal and how to get there.

    5. been saying that for years, Hate Crime laws are these most ignorant forms of excess law there is, imho.
      I once asked what made the killing of someone because you thought they were gay worse than killing them to steal $5 to get money for an addiction or just because you thought you knew you could get away with it, and was told I just didn’t like gay people. I guess if a homophobe kills a gay the gay is somehow deader than a random crackhead killing them for spare change. I’m somehow the bad guy for thinking the punishment should be the same for both and be the death penalty

      1. Hate crimes make as much sense as enhanced sentencing if a gun is used to commit homicide, rather than some other weapon.
        As in, no sense at all.

        The victim is just as dead either way.

        1. AFAIK, no state nor the Feds have a “gun-crime enhancement” for any category of homicide. The enhancement comes when a gun is used in other crimes, such as robbery, burglary, or drug trafficking, The reasoning is that when the criminal uses a gun, it greatly increases the risk of death, even when the criminal does not intend to kill anybody.

          1. Several states have ‘firearm use in a felony’ enhancements, and the enhancements vary by the states. CA even varies it by what firearm you use.

        2. I think it’s a legacy of the Civil Rights laws. Most of those came about after all-white juries acquitted those accused of actions against blacks. The idea was to be able to try them again on different charges in Federal court where they’d still be held accountable.

          What the hate crimes advocates miss is that the same thing isn’t going on now. So they create a two-tier system where some have more legal protection because they belong to the “right” groups. Ironically, it legally creates the same situation that Civil Rights charges were supposed to remedy.

          Frankly, I’m surprised that the four in Chicago were charged with hate crimes. Not because of what they did, but because of the way hate crime charges have been filed in the past. And while I think hate crime laws are a terrible thing, actually charging the four with such will do much to defuse the growing sense of second-class citizenship that hate groups feed upon. It’s not so much that they are charged with hate crimes, but because it’s an instance of hate crime laws applied equally.

          1. The “tried for Civil Rights violation” thing always sounded like a way to get around the double jeopardy prohibition.

              1. Yup. I saw an FBI Files ep about a CHiPS officer who extorted, raped, and murdered a lady on the highway. The locals had a hard time convicting him locally because he was popular, he had blackmail stuff on many of the potential witnesses, and there was a lot of internal conflict in the highway patrol. When they finally got enough new evidence via the FBI labs to convict him, they were already in double jeopardy.

                So the FBI charged him in federal court with violating the lady’s civil rights, although apparently she was not the first extorted into rape sex by using his badge — just the one he panicked and killed. (The local ladies were too scared to talk.)

                This got them a change of venue and all the new evidence, and it did call him to account for not protecting and serving. But it set a bad precedent in a bad part of the federal courts. OTOH, it was better than lynching him.

            1. Yep.

              What’s funny is to hear people who praise the “civil rights violation charges” but hate the Wrongful Death Civil suits (like OJ was hit by). 👿

                1. True and “Wrongful Death” suits can only cost you money not your freedom or life if you lose.

        3. The key point here is that “hate crime” laws are for *thought crime.*

          And that the burden of proof is on the defendant, for something that can’t be proved.

          You. Don’t. Want. To. Go. There. That’s not just the “slippery slope”, that’s waxing the skis and strapping on the ACME JATO rockets.

          1. Especially since a lot of the protected groups are already common insults.

            Sorry, but calling someone an M-F-er in a bar fight does not indicate that you attacked him because of a belief in his alternative lifestyle of Oedipal love…..

    6. I was just listening to a guy on the radio who said “We need hate crime laws because it’s one thing to spray ‘Have a nice day’ and a smiley face on a synagogue, but it’s another to spray ‘Death to Jews’ and a swastika. One inspires fear!” and then went on to say how horrible it is that the current Utah law doesn’t include sexual preference and handicaps as protected classes.

      I find it highly questionable that the law doesn’t recognize the difference between “Have a nice day” and “Death to [group]”. One’s ridiculous vandalism, the other is a direct threat. Why should we create the notion of “protected class” for which threats are evil, but if you’re not in that protected class, then sucks to be you? What happens when someone spraypaints “Death to Mathematicians” on the college Math and Stats building? Do we need to create another special class, just to investigate the crime, or do we recognize that someone has made a threat, and should be prosecuted for that?

      We don’t need “hate” crime to make such threats double plus ungood: it’s the threat itself that’s evil.

      This person speaking on the radio went so far as to say “most crimes aren’t crimes of hate — just crimes of opportunity” (which is true enough, I suppose, but mostly because most crimes don’t involve personal harm of some sort…I still have a difficult time believing most murders, rapes, tortures and assaults are “crimes of opportunity”…) but even granting that, do we really need the protection of special classes to prosecute crime? I would propose that it’s the *threat* that makes such crimes worse, not the fact that it was specifically against some “protected class”.

  3. Again, don’t get wrong, the victim being special needs is fairly news-worthy, and it’s still awful, but- and I hate to politicize this event in any manner I really do- but why was the fact that this is very clearly a hate crime not relevant? Why does facebook and roughly 90% of all articles not find this to be important information?

    From the right, because “hate crime” is a rather foolish category– not seeing how if they’d done this to him because he was just available it would be any less horrible, and there’s already a category for downgrading stuff based on lack of control.

    From the left… I have to guess, but I think it’s because they think in race etc categories.
    So attacking “a black target” is extra horrible, the same way that luring a child (or mentally disabled guy) in and then abusing him is extra horrible, because of weakness… and they actually think that normal people are going to go “this is a thing Black People are guilty of.” No, four people who happen to be black, and who were soaked in their racist world-view, are guilty of this. But it’s no more “the group Black People did this and are guilty” than “the group White People are victimized by this.” That’s tribal thinking, and it’s wrong– a guy, apparently because he’s white and was vulnerable, was victimized, and I empathize because he’s a guy, a person, a dude, another individual. Not because of his demographics.


    In defense of the world/humanity, it’s not full of sick people in the sense of being a large/majority portion, but the law of really big numbers definitely comes in hard here so it’s “full of” in the sense that there are many individuals you might meet.

    Yeah, semantics, and I’m pretty sure you meant “there are a lot” sense, but semantics are important. Those nasty idiots are being defended with bad semantics.

    1. I saw an article from someone who has a stronger stomach than me (I am not watching the video, nope, no way) that the worst indicator was the jaded boredom with which the perpetrators did the torture. They had apparently demoted their victim to the level of “thing”, which probably explains why they live-streamed the video, and were probably quite shocked when they got arrested.

      The writer went on to say that they might not be psychopaths by the clinical definition (and there is one), but certain aspects of our culture inspire psychopathy by action. One of those aspects is the search for fame. Well, they’re famous now.

        1. Ever see that movie by Cornel Wilde, The Naked Prey?

          Someone did a quick video interspersing cuts from that with the video we’re talking about. Not a pretty juxtaposition, at all.

          And, I’m not entirely certain that “normal” tribal behavior is automatically psychopathic, to be honest. There are tribes, and then there are tribes; some of them are as insane in the aggregate as the most dangerous inmate in an asylum for the criminally insane. Others… Aren’t. I think it would be more accurate to portray these societies not as being “tribal”, but as being “f**ked up”. After all, are not the Quakers a tribe, by definition?

          1. No, not in the social/cultiral organization meaning. They’re Christian– they recognize all humans are people. At very least in theory.

    2. The Left, simple materialistic pagans that they be, tend to believe that laws have actual effects even if nobody enforces them.

      Thus if you declare “Hate” a crime, people will no longer feel hatred, and if you make firearms illegal they will all disappear (no stop’n’frisk) because feelz.

      This says a great deal about the insulated world they occupy. We need not discuss those who cynically manipulate such people to their own benefit.

    3. Multivariate statistical analysis is clearly racist. So we won’t do it. Hey, it worked for Steven Otter!

  4. Incidentally, I only heard about yesterday’s Ft. Lauderdale shooting (young man with history of mental health issues retrieved checked gun from baggage and started shooting up the baggage claim area) because one of the other moms at my school works at the local airport and mentioned it before pickup yesterday. While “mental issues” is often unfairly given as a reason for shootings, this may actually be the case this time, given the accompanying details.

        1. “Look! 10mm is on sale!!”
          “I don’t even own one of those anymore”
          “Quiet, you! It’s on sale!

          1. Dude, just buy a 10mm barrel. You know you want it.

            At least your Voices don’t keep reminding you that .318 Westley Richards Accelerated Express will feed through various Kalashnikov variants…

            1. So one should ignore the voices saying to get an M1 Carine in 5.7mm Johnson Spitfire?

              Asking for a friend.

        2. Hearing voices isn’t the problem. Trust me on this one, please.

          The problems come in when you start to actually listen to them.

          Although, it is interesting that “voices” in US culture tend to be evil ones, while in many others, they apparently manifest as giving good advice…

          There’s some study out there on the cultural effect on mental illness, and that was the most striking/disturbing thing I read in it. What the hell are we doing wrong in our culture that most of our young schizophrenics are manifesting as violent, vs. being relatively benign? This expression of culture through mental illness, if it is indeed real, must be downstream of some feature in our culture, so… What the hell is it?

          1. My guess is that it is a long term thing. Remember our ‘fists and feet’ murder rate being higher apparently goes back a ways.

            If I were to blame the indians/Irish/Puritans I would be unsure how much was serious and how much in jest.

            Though Socrates is said to have spoken of doing what a voice told him to do, and that apparently got him executed, so…

          2. I’m not deeply read on this, but I thought that whole thing about “% of CEOs that are functioning sociopaths” was the other side – basically if your voices tell you to up your 401k contribution or stay in school, they never rise to notice.

          3. Remember the selection bias. People hwo ignore their voices or get good advice from them don’t appear in the news. (Well, unless something is very unusual. Like Vincent van Gogh, who tried to cut his ear off because he blamed it for hearing the voice telling him to kill someone and took an overly literal interrpetation of Matthew 5:29-30.)

          4. Extensive drug use in their mothers, train-wreck home situations, bad role models, gang affiliation, and the disaster they insist on calling “school.”

            You also have an extensive and profitable infrastructure supporting the status quo, because what would happen to their fancy government jobs if they actually managed to *do* those jobs?

            1. Have you noticed there is a close correlation between the defenders of the status quo systems for managing societal disorder and the people who denounce drug companies for spending on amelioration of symptoms rather than curing illnesses?

            1. Apparently that is the actual manifestation of schizophrenia. The little tag that says “this is coming from inside your head” (and is therefore safe to ignore) is missing, so the sounds/voices/imagery seem to come from an outside source (and are filed under “more important”.)

              We all have that kind of chaos going on inside our heads all the time, but if you don’t have that particular issue, you can file it appropriately under categories such as “overactive imagination.”

          5. I can think of all kinds of voices that give good advice– they do tend to be identified as God, or “my guardian angel,” or even a passed loved-one, though. Although I do have an aunt who may or may not think the fay are talking to her… she’s nuts, but only dramatic, not dangerous.

            Heck, even some of the nasty psychos say “god told me to do it.”

            A thought– the cultures where voices are most commonly giving good advice, how likely is a homicidal maniac to survive to explain “the voices told me to do it”?

    1. Point of order: If you count history of recreationally using certain types of substance, a fair number of spree shooters do, at least potentially, have mental issues. The media and a fair number of politicians do not want to hear that, so you have to dig to find the evidence and hearsay.

      Re-institutionalization is probably a bad option, but considering only the options and the small portions that are convenient to politicians and journalists means that things will continue to fester.

      1. Well, there’s recreational use, and then there’s using recreational sources to self-medicate.

        While the former might be indistinguishable from the latter except through markers like use frequency os escalating dosage, the latter is obviously problematic and should be a major trouble flag.

        1. We can grow or make a wide variety of chemicals. Some of them have very potent and lasting effects on neurochemistry.

          Some psychiatric medications can be quite harmful to healthy people.

          The pop cultural awareness of risks is such that healthy people do sometimes try these recreationally.

          At least one of these shooters had used one of these without a prescription. I do not know or really care whether he was self medicating. If he was not, he may well have caused himself a problem that contributed to the decision to murder.

  5. “Trust me, we would have heard about it, the media would have grabbed it up like it was a suitcase full of unmarked bills and started raving crazy about crazy right wingers.”

    They did that second part anyhow.

  6. To a certain extent I will blame the ravening maw of the 24/7 news cycle desperate for something, anything to titillate the viewership and sell that overpriced soap and toilet paper. There is no longer any such thing as “local” crime. It’s all about how much appeal it may have for a national audience. If it makes the grade whether by cuteness or horror then kablam it’s lead story on the national feed.

      1. I suspect that Chicago thing won’t have gone nation if they had “kept it off Facebook”.

      2. A few years back a black gang raped, tortured, and murdered a young white couple in Knoxville. Barely made the local news feeds let alone national coverage. About the same time our fearless leader (TM) was lecturing all cops about treating minorities with greater respect.

        1. Pietrzak murders over in Cali in ’08, too. Marine and his new wife, less than three months married, made news when it was staged like they were killed because it was a Polish Marine marrying a black… some medical, not sure if she was a nurse or going for Doctor.
          And it was. By black gang dishonors-to-the-Corps. That part didn’t get as much news.

      3. Like Kermit Gosnell.

        The only reason I know the name Jodi Arias is because that’s the court case that the media was trying to shove in our faces at the same time that it was rabidly insisting that Kermit Gosnell (the most successful serial killer in US history) was a local crime story.

        Mind you, I don’t actually know what Arias did because I didn’t read any of the news stories about her.

  7. “Jack once was a quirky theater major but is now an advocate of how evil white people are- while reflecting the sun off his ghost-like skin- and is currently in the middle of transition to the 5th gender of Twatwaffle, which uses cat pronouns.”

    I see your mother has been a baaaad influence on your upbringing.

  8. One of the biggest and farthest reaching lies the Progressives ever put over on us is the idea of an ‘unbiased media’. The entire concept is utter crap. It isn’t POSSIBLE. All reporting will necessarily be biased. But it’s deeper than that.

    The narrative goes that, one upon a time, there was an era (implied, or sometimes eve stated, to include the late 19th and early 20th centuries) during which there were two newspapers in every city and most towns, and then “both’ sides got into the paper and bias didn’t matter.

    Go read H. L. Mencken’s autobiographical work. If such an era existed, he didn’t see it. Yes, Baltimore had two major papers in his day (and several minor ones, most of them German Language, but not all). One supported the majority party, got the government printing contracts, and made (some) money. The other supported the opposition party, and was generally kept on its feet through regular injections of cash from opposition hopefuls. According to Mencken, this situation held true for all but a few of the biggest cities. New York supported two profitable papers. Maybe LA and Chicago.

    Everyone bright enough to get down stairs and around corners knew which papers were in the bag for which politicians. Nobody seriously expected ‘unbiased’ reporting. All reporting was taken with a grain of salt, at least by anyone with the smarts God gave a gnat.

    What does this have to do with the ugly case of barbarous behavior by children only slightly removed from the simian? Simple; the Mainstream Media couldn’t get away with this swill if they hadn’t raised the false standard of ‘unbiased media’ and then completely ignored it in actually running their operations.

    We don’t need to fight ‘bias’ in the media. We need to STOP fighting bias in the media. We need to kill the idea that ANY media is unbiased, and get some media of our own. Any time somebody complains about ‘bias’, we need to tell them “Get a newspaper, a TV channel, whatever. Get your own bias out there. Or shut. Up.”

    We also need to tell the Liberal Progressive media that we hold them in contempt. Early and often. If only because it hurts their egos.

    1. It’s worse than just whether the reporters have in-born biases. The real problem is that while they’re claiming to be objective, only a small handful are trying to act like it. The hacked e-mails revealed reporters who regularly went out of their way to accomodate the Clinton campaign.

      It’s one thing to let your unconscious biases lead you astray. It’s another entirely when you don’t even bother to try being objective.

        1. Yeah, but the answer isn’t to whine “You’re biased. It isn’t FAIR!”, but to say “Oh, come off it. You aren’t objective. It isn’t possible to be objective. The idea is absurd, and that you ask us to believe it shows that you are a liar and hold us in contempt.”

          Then go out and found your own media, and don’t pretend to be ‘Unbiased’. Fox should have fired the idiot who proposed “We report, you decide”, and made their slogan “You know their side, here’s ours.”

          1. Third option:
            it’s to go “Being perfectly unbiased isn’t possible, but you’re not even trying, you lying sack of low grade fertilizer.”

            It’s false to say that someone saying they’re objective is lying and contemptuous; when there isn’t already a massive issue with lying, in common language, it means “we are correcting for bias as much as possible.”
            Assuming that someone is claiming perfection when perfection isn’t possible, when they are not saying “perfectly ______,” is itself dishonest. It’s like calling me a liar when I say a pair of pants fit, even though they’re not an absolute perfect fit– perfection isn’t possible for variations even inside of a single day, much less a longer time, so it’s functional fitting, and functional accuracy.

            In calibration terms, the +/- on the measurement exists.

            I greatly disagree about Fox News’ slogan; they do attempt to either correct for bias, both objectively and by making sure that you know where the person talking stands, at least as of the last time I watched them. Removed the tea-leaf reading to figure out what perspective someone was coming from.

            1. Jake Tapper isn’t perfect. He’s obviously got his liberal biases. But he *tries* to self-correct. And he hasn’t been afraid to go after Obama.

              In the entertainment sphere, Jay Leno is similar. He’s a liberal. But when he was hosting the Tonight Show, he kept in mind that over half of his audience was either moderate or conservative, and went after Obama when he felt it was appropriate.

              I personally prefer it if individuals try to compensate for their biases. The less of a role bias plays in reporting, the better the chance of you getting to the actual truth of a matter. Listening to a “Yes man” and a “No man” argue back and forth over what happened doesn’t necessarily leave me any better informed than I was before I started listening to them.

              The problem right now is that we have lots of reporters who have quietly removed all pretenses at objectivity. Journolist was evidence of it, but wasn’t widely known. The DNC leaks have also revealed similar information, and are much better known.

              1. Fundamental Rule Of Life: You cannot correct a problem you do not recognize you have.

                Jake Tapper, Sharyl Attkisson, Jay Leno, Tim Russert (the former Mario Cuomo speechwriter) all acknowledged their bias and actively leaned against it. Attkisson famously employed the simple test of asking “Would this be news if Bush had done it?”

                Too many of the MSM are not simply in denial about their biases, they actively indulge them — examples from this last year alone are too many to list.

              2. The most irksome thing to me about the whole Journolist thing was at the tail end of the whole affair when it was tacitly acknowledged that Journolist 2.0 was already in use, and we were apparently just supposed to accept it.

      1. There was reporting in the last few months on how the NY Times has a Newsroom Theme assigned periodically (i.e. at the new year or more often if needed), and reporters are expected to align all their individual work throughout the time period when it’s in effect with The Theme as a individual job review performance item.

        In that case it doesn’t matter what biases individual reporters have – there’s basically a creative writing assignment in place to enforce a newspaper-wide bias in every single story.

        And the people who set that theme at the NY Times are puzzled as to why that might be seen as a problem.

        Which is one more reason why that media is going away.

        1. Deadline Hollywood article here –

          The individual who wrote the article worked at the LA Times, and spent twelve years working at the New York Times. For all of its faults, the writer describes the LA Times as a bottom-driven paper – i.e. the reporters write the stories. Perhaps that’s why the LA Times was one of the few groups that actually had accurate polls for the presidential race. The New York Times, on the other hand, has reporters map a narrative up to a year in advance, clear the narrative with their editors, and then write stories to fit the narrative.

          Further, the NYT is becoming more and more insular. The writer points out that recently even the Los Angeles office for the NYT had only four of the thirteen staff that it was designed to accommodate. That’s the second largest city in the US, and the NYT, which bills itself as a national newspaper, can barely be bothered to pay attention to what’s going on there.

          1. Logic fail: it isn’t that the NYT “can barely be bothered to pay attention to what’s going on” in LA. By the logic of the narrative, what is actually going on in LA matters less than what the NYT wants to believe is going on there. LA news is only useful to the extent it supports the narrative; anything there that does not support the narrative goes down the Memory Hole, the faster the better.

            The NYT has given up reporting news and switched to writing the news.

            1. That fits along with Dan Blather proclaiming “I don’t report the news, I *am* the news!”

              In your dreams, Danny…

          2. The NYT as described in the article isn’t a news organization, it’s a propaganda organ. Consciously and intentionally so.

            1. The thing is, newspapers ARE. They nearly always were, too. Used to be that everybody (save a few that should have been kept on leashes, lest they injure themselves) knew that. You paid your money and you took your voice of party lines. Or, if you were seriously civic minded, you bought two or more papers, and tried to balance.

    2. My leftwing brother (bless his heart) was ranting about fake news and when I told him I’d read something in the National Review, he called it a tabloid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      1. You can always remind him that the National Enquirer broke the news of John Edwards’s affair after all of the major news organizations turned a blind eye to it.


  9. The ‘interesting’ thing is that all of this division is being done on purpose, with the goal of destroying the United States of America. Not too long ago, if I’d said that, I’d be accused of being a conspiracy theorist — now, it’s so self-evident that I hear people talking about it quite often (makes you wonder which other so-called conspiracy theories might not actually be theories).

    1. I loath how folks talk about things being a “conspiracy theory” like it automatically disqualifies it– there are a ton of conspiracies, successful and not, that we know about.

      What they mean is a “crazy conspiracy” theory.

      With current evidence, the “world is controlled by lizard-men” theory is a crazy one.

      With current evidence, the “USSR slandered WWII Pope as Hitler’s Pope and it stuck until people could get primary or from-the-time sources easily” is a successful conspiracy theory. (Outlasted the USSR….)

      One of my rule-of-thumbs is figuring if it requires a large number of people to act against their self interest, long or short term.
      “The Senate is really a satanic cult complete with black magic blood sacrifice of streetwalkers” would require that too many people keep quiet when there are big rewards for talking and the cost of being quiet is rather high.
      “The EPA games the rules so that they’re sued and ‘forced’ to do things they wanted to do anyways by activist groups” doesn’t require ANYBODY acting against their own interests.

          1. On behalf of streetwalkers, whores, and fancy-men, I wish to lodge a protest at your lumping them in with Congressmen

            I’d prefer an honest whore as a neighbor, over the average member of Congress. She’s more likely to offer honest service for a wage, and a hell of a lot less likely to pick my pockets. Not to mention, her clientele would be less abhorrent…

        1. “What, the Senate isn’t a satanic cult?”

          No, Ba’al. It used to be Bacchus when Kennedy was there.

              1. Well, they technically mean slightly different things. Mammon would be a reference to greed, whereas Ba’al is (iirc) more of a master/slave sort of abasement. Moloch is sacrificing kids. Etc…

                They all eventually lead to the same place. But the starting motivations might be different.

                On a slightly different note, I’m suddenly reminded of the House stenographer who flipped out a few years ago, shouting things like “He will not be mocked!”

          1. While I was living in AL, one of my Senators was a Southern gentleman named Howell Heflin. I can sum him up by saying that he was either the real life inspiration for Foghorn Leghorn, or Foghorn’s human twin —- opinions vary.

            Anyway, right after they found oil in Mobile Bay, he and Senator Kennedy were fighting over whether or not offshore drilling should be allowed in the Gulf — Kennedy against. While this was going on, some sharp-eyed paparazzi spotted Teddy and some sweet young thing out on Teddy’s sail boat “making waves in the no-wake zone.” GQ published the pictures.

            The next day, Senator Heflin buttonholed Senator Kennedy in the Senate cloakroom, magazine copy in hand, and in his best Foghorn sotto voce (audible across the Capitol) asked the Senator from Massachusetts “if the Distinguished Senator wanted to revise his position on offshore drilling?”


            I never felt quite as bad about voting for him after that.

      1. “With current evidence, the “world is controlled by lizard-men” theory is a crazy one.”

        Hillary Clinton is Exhibit A in favor of it being true. 😎

  10. This…does not help my general hatred of humanity. I realize there are many good people in this world, and that most individuals would not lower themselves to torture for fun (I hope).
    But, when a person has been brainwashed by the extremists of either end of the spectrum, the lengths they will go to in pursuit of what they see as “the good” is terrifying.
    I don’t think that “Go along to get along” is going to work anymore. To many extremists have been tossed in the pot; put in positions of power and authority.

  11. Contemplating FB news as a source … or PuffHo, or Vox or Salon or the coterie of “mainstream” news outlets puts me i mind of living in a medieval kingdom, with five town criers and a slew of neighborhood gossips — and the only thing of which you are certain is that the criers are crazy and the gossips uphold the well-earned reputation of gossips for accuracy. Even if only four of the five criers are crazy at any given time …

    As for the other matters, I think Shelby Steele pretty much said all that needed saying in his White Guilt. The one thing Liberals are truly good at is lecturing others on guilt. That they always go on about your guilt, our guilt and rarely my guilt is merely one factor to take into account when watching them at sport.

    1. You left ‘The Daily Show’ off the list. Fortunately, it hasn’t fared well since its former host left.

        1. I don’t recall ever watching it although I will own up to viewing the odd clip on line.

          The Daily Show never seemed to me a news program so much as it was a court jester and it was obvious whose court it was in. Less subtle than Pravda I figured it only influenced those already in the cult.

          1. John Stewart was smart. He realized that he fit a kind of grey area, since he was both talking about the news and parodying it. So he could and did pass himself off as both news and not news, depending on the specific accusations being leveled against him.

            And because Stewart focused on things related to the news, it generally meant that he was covering things that were of at least some importance. Whether he was giving accurate coverage was another matter entirely. But if someone watching ‘The Daily Show’ saw Stewart covering a topic with which the viewer was unfamiliar, then the reasonable assumption was that the viewer had missed something important in whatever they used as a news source.

            And he also did interviews with people related to the news stories, which are kind of hard to fake, until you fail to mention to your viewers that you’re chopping those interviews up to make the interviewee look ridiculous.

            1. Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows,
              Such are those who deceive their neighbor, and then say, “I was only joking.”

  12. It was a truly evil act– I agree. That the young man was disabled makes it so despicable that I wonder how anyone could apologize for the perps.

    1. Evil almost always self-identifies. You just have to learn the “tells”.

      I’ve about come to the conclusion that the majority of these “soft on crime” types, who so enthusiastically take up the cudgels for the criminal perpetrators in these cases and ignore the plight of the victims and their survivors, are actually taking up what they instinctively see as “their side”, because they’re inclined towards criminality themselves.

      It’s a theory, anyway. I’m seeing more and more evidence pile up to support it, though.

      The whole thing is equally of a piece with the syndrome where the general public seems to identify with the predator, rather than the prey. There is something going on with modern mentality where the wolf is seen as a victim, and the calf/sheep it kills is seen as inconsequential, along with the rancher who is trying to make a living by keeping that stock. The other examples of this inherent insanity that spring to mind include that woman in California who was killed by a cougar while having the temerity to go jogging. After the cougar was hunted down and killed, with the attendant protests from the idiocracy, there were donation sites set up for the woman’s children and the cougar’s cubs. The cubs got more money donated by the general public…

      There’s been a severe disconnect take place in our society, over the last few generations. I can’t even begin to imagine my grandparent’s generation, that which came to maturity among the horror of WWI, ever responding like this. For them, things were fairly clear and healthy black-and-white; cougar kills a human? Too bad; too sad–The thing to do is hunt the damn thing down, kill it so it won’t kill another human, and call it good. Same-same with human criminals–Commit the crime, do the time, and if it was a crime of violence against another human being, well… That’s why the hemp rope manufacturers have an outlet in town.

      Where all this went off the rails, I don’t know. Sure seems as though the consistency of the messaging in media might be something suspicious, though. It’s almost like what’s happened in my lifetime, where the general public has been “educated” out of its disdain and instinctively visceral hatred of sexual deviancy. I’ve watched that process, and it’s been interesting to observe; had you told me that the situation in the ranks that I lived amongst during the 1980s would shift sufficiently in my lifetime that we’d have openly-serving gays in the military, I’d have said “Don’t see it happening…”. But, it has. And, I would take it as a given that the social reason behind it has little to do with a “real evolution” in human behavior and response to sexual deviancy, and a lot more to do with propagandizing seen in the media. How long they can keep this ball in the air, I don’t know, but I do know that artificially imposed “solutions” tend to come unwound rather quickly and usually in a very ugly way.

      A lot of this stuff doesn’t feel genuine to me, to tell the truth. I don’t have a particular dog in the fight, not having any real personal antipathy towards any of the bunny-huggers or the gays, but the current atmosphere strikes me as being artificial, and very likely to evaporate. The Gods of the Copybook headings will have their due, and the current regime of “acceptance” is going to shift over in popular thought as being “licentiousness and immorality”, followed by repression and pogroms. The next couple of generations are going to be telling, as to the actual depth and permanence of these social changes…

      Wolf-hugging is only going to last so long as that wolf remains affordable, in terms of raw survival. When the folks on the board of the Sierra Club are faced with the reality that they can’t feed their kids properly because that wolf is out there, eating the stock…? Oi, will the attitudes shift with a quickness…

      1. Short sleep and some other factors left me in a very bad state yesterday. Had some fun and not so fun insights.

        1: Environmentalism is basically idolatry, and we’ve seen the Islamist precedent for handling that. Imagine such a regime in the United States. Imagine the national parks being defaced for defacement’s sake.

        2: Dispersed authority and Taqiyya (sp?) mean that it is hard to prove that an organization isn’t Islamic. The way to get a loophole closed is to make sure it is abused in a way that hurts the people keeping it open. Perhaps this is a way to approach the ‘Islamophobia’ matter.

      2. I would say that one of the drivers of rampant public stupidity is prosperity. When your society is prosperous, you can afford to help out the “less fortunate”- and get votes in return. When your society is prosperous, you can afford an utterly useless higher educational establishment. When your society is prosperous, you can afford a massive, overly paid bureaucracy.

        All these things were started for good, worthy goals. But, like pond scum in a lake with an over abundance of nutrients, they have bloomed out of control and out of balance.

      3. My mother, who grew up on a sheep ranch, is of the opinion if you can see wolves in the open, they’re over-populated.

        I am of the opinion that if one darted a couple wolf packs, and transported them to Maryland, not only would you solve all of the deer over-population, you would also suddenly see the removal of the wolf from all endangered species lists.

        1. Don’t stop there. I’m sure that importing a large population of grizzly bears to the area would also be rather beneficial.

        2. They’d just classify them as “coyotes.”

          She’s got a good point about if you’re seeing them in the open…. oh, by the way, they’re harassing the coyotes in daylight half a mile up the hill from where my kids play. And just down the road, they dragged a road-kill deer up out of the ditch, across the road and 15 feet up the far hill, stripping it to dirty bones overnight. Between the two points is where the first and second calf cows are going to be calving in the next two weeks, although the first two are already on the ground…my dad goes out every night to check them.

          Yeah, I’m quite worried.

      4. Don’t worry. Us werewolves go after the more savory unsavory close of humans.

        But I’d put a huge portion of it to the personification of animals in movies and tv. Pets are people, wild animals are pets ( I saw a piece earlier asking Californians what they would do if they saw a cougar. Of course one wanted to domesticate it. He’ll, I’ve seen it from some people running animal sanctuaries for big cats.

        There is a level of predation that we may want to accept (we should find a balance for human/wild interface) but many see wild animals killed by man as different than ones that starve. And not in a good way.

        1. I’ve looked multiple times, with no success, for a youtube clip of a Robert Klein stand-up routine about the public danger resulting from Hollywood’s depictions of bears as big dumb lovable amiable beasts.

      5. Evil almost always self-identifies. You just have to learn the “tells”.

        Almost everyone I know who loudly and consistently exclaim “ALL politicians are crooks!” is a Democrat.

      6. I’ve about come to the conclusion that the majority of these “soft on crime” types, who so enthusiastically take up the cudgels for the criminal perpetrators in these cases and ignore the plight of the victims and their survivors, are actually taking up what they instinctively see as “their side”, because they’re inclined towards criminality themselves.

        A bug to watch out for in that data– I think it was Chesterton that observed that the guilty desire mercy, justice is desired by those who don’t think they have any guilt.

        They can both be malignant, as the SJW’s demonstrate in the “justice” mirror of the “mercy” you point out.

    2. Democratic political operatives. Why do you hate free speech? 🙂

      Is kidnapping a disabled man and beating him to death worse than being high and beating a random passerby to death? With BLM, they practiced defending both close cognates to the latter and staged political riots. They’ve also been legitimizing Trump by throwing massive hissy fits over nothing. It’d be pretty easy to get excited and continue in such habits once one had developed them.

      1. You have to wonder whose side these people are really on, to tell the truth.

        Wouldn’t surprise me a bit to have Obama come out in a few years and admit that he was actually a deep-cover Republican asset, running a disinformation operation meant to discredit the Democratic Party.

        Also wouldn’t surprise me if he later adopts this idea in order to retain some semblance of dignity and relevance. ‘Cos, I sure don’t see him retaining much of that, as time wears on. Especially once these Gitmo Guys he’s been so enthusiastically releasing start getting more publicity for their post-release activities…

        1. I understand that I forecast what Obama would do for White Supremacism either before or very early in his administration.

          I think if Obama had the wits to deliberately destroy the Democratic Party from the inside, he perhaps could have more effectively helped the Republicans by turning his talents in that direction.

          I think the real driver hollowing out the Democrats may be the Clintons.

          1. Obama’s actions make sense coming from his campus/Leftwing community organizing background. Put pretty much any Leftist professor in the office, and they’ll act pretty much the same way.
            Obama’s mistake was thinking America was one big college campus, and that he could execute single party rule by fiat. That all the people would fall into line with the campus groupthink, and he could safely ignore the marginal opposition.
            Thus, his racial policy is pretty much what you would find on campus. Of course the specter of the racist label causes students and facility to fall into line.
            Obama never really groked that his 2008 popularity faded fast, that people got sick of him pretty quickly. He never had to learn how to work with others, or how to deal with dissenting opinions.

            The Clintons, on the other hand, gutted the party to clear the field for Hillary’s coronation in 2016. They were surprised in 2008, and weren’t going to go through all that again.

            1. I think the Clintons have been clearing out the competition since the early nineties.

            2. Obama never really groked that his 2008 popularity faded fast, that people got sick of him pretty quickly.

              Not fast enough.

              He *should* have been thrown out in 2012.

              1. He had the advantage of being the incumbent, and having a very lackluster challenger.
                But the screaming mobs of fainting fangirls were conspicuously absent in 2012.

              2. Massive fraud. No, trust me on this. Massive fraud.
                What’s astonishing is that Hillary was so bad the fraud didn’t put her over the top. Also the polls showing she would win easy lulled her to a false sense of security. Apparently she thought she was at risk ONLY of losing the popular vote, so the fraud was concentrated in secure areas.

            3. One also notes that from the activist side, actually solving problems means you need a new job. It creates a certain unwillingness to come to grips with things.

              1. Perhaps this is an argument for the old volunteer organizations where the leadership was not paid and was primarily wives of rich men. At least if they succeeded, they did not lose financially.

    3. If they don’t apologize for the perps, then clueless yokels might think that there are actual hate crimes against white people.

  13. Oh, Marshall, it’s worse than you think. This was a guest post by a Florida A&M professor, on TaxProf blog, linked by Instapundit earlier this week, and the e-mail I sent him after reading it. Read the whole thing, and weep.

    I found your statements on how you and your fellow African Americans thought even innocent transgressions should be handled fascinating:

    “Cultural rules required the kid take a beat down for his offense no matter how much he might previously have been a member of our crew. It was a painful thing to witness, knowing that the kid thought and wanted himself to be so much one of us that he would repeat a word reserved to us exclusively. And forever thereafter was the reminder that you are not really one of us even if we do have sleepovers.”

    In which case, integration is a pipe dream, and dangerous to everyone else in America who is not your race.

    You are a perfect example of why the Chicago beating of a white teenager by four black teenagers happened. You and your Democrat cohorts both white and black enabled it. And acts like this are not rare, as your acceptance of a beat down based on race shows. Those beatings happen every day, whether uploaded to Facebook or not.

    I fully expect you to respond with some variation of “White people do it too.” Except for one crucial difference: No one is hesitant to condemn it. No one sweeps it under the rug. When Dylann Roof gets the same invitation to the White House that the leaders of Black Lives Matter got after leading mass parades of people chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now.”, your tu quoque might be taken seriously.

    Ten days before MLK Day, you have provided a sterling example of why his dream will NEVER come to pass: because his people don’t want it.

    This attitude of justifying violence against whites has been excused for 50 years, and it is absolutely deadly to civil society.

    1. The impression that I got from that article was that he found the requirement for a “beat down” horrible, but he had no idea of what to do about it. Admittedly the clues that pointed me that way were somewhat subtle. On a larger level you are quite right. Even if the author abhors this attitude, the attitude still exists and is common.

  14. …we have people like CNN’s Don Lemon, who has literally said “I don’t think its evil”… I’ve seen where some CNN pundit has declared it’s basically “Not *that* bad”.

    Oh, really?

    I don’t care what other people might say. If this incident is not an example of evil in action I don’t know what is. The act of kidnapping, the subsequent prolonged assault and glorying in the act – what else would you call live streaming the torture? – falls under my definition of no good, terrible, very bad.

  15. They (as much as) said if Trump were elected, the disabled would suffer organized political violence, and they were right.

  16. Just saw a meme. Basically, “everyone up in arms about the beating of a disabled teen had NO PROBLEM with Trump mocking a disabled journalist.”

    I don’t even know where to begin if you really think these events are comparable. O_o I know words can hurt and all, but you’re just being stupid.

Comments are closed.