I was listening to Boston talk-show host Howie Carr—who I listen to via podcasts—and he brought up the topic of gun control after the recent shootings in the inner-city enclave of Mattapan ("Murderpan" as we Bostonians call it). Howie is a populist conservative, so naturally he expressed dismay at the familiar attitude that it's guns that are the problem, not criminals nor a welfare system that breeds irresponsibility. He brought up a great point by referring to an old New York state statute called the Sullivan Law that stipulated if you were caught committing a gun crime, you went away for life. End of. Massachusetts and other states had similar laws as well. But now, with plea bargaining, the emphasis on the weapons charge basically gets dropped. My favorite part of the segment, however, came when a caller asked, "Why do liberals believe that crime will go down if the law-abiding public is unarmed?" To which Howie answered (and I'm paraphrasing here): "What they believe is the perfection of human nature, that somehow human nature can be perfected. Whereas conservatives acknowledge the imperfection of human nature." It's true. Liberals believe that if you are generous with welfare bums, they will realize their debt to society by shaping up and at least living clean lives on the public dole. They believe that normal people should be willing to give up their security and protection by having pureblind faith in human nature. And even though I admittedly do approve of some form of gun control myself—I think that if you have to learn to drive and register a car, you should surely be tested on your knowledge of guns and have them registered as well—I have to tip my hat to Carr for saying, "Gun control, yet another area for the government to poke its nose into. How's Obama-care working for you? How'd the BP oil spill clean-up go?" (Though, to be fair, I don't advocate a federal law; I want to leave gun control to the states.) As for the thugs who shot five in Mattapan? Well, you just know they went through all the checks, didn't they? Registered their guns with the police and everything. What a shocker. It's not so much gun control or the lack of it that determines these crimes; it's the dissolution of Sullivan Law-type statutes.
The Montana Republican Party wants to criminalize homosexuality by making it illegal. Montana's long-standing anti-gay policy was struck down in 1997 by the state Supreme Court, but the state Legislature never repealed the law, which Republicans now wish to confirm. The state's GOP chairman Will Deschamps confirmed that two-thirds of Montana Republicans voted in favor of the statute. Way to go, guys. That's the spirit. A real winner, a sure-fire method of getting people on the GOP's side. Why don't you outlaw daydreaming as well? I'm sure if someone tried hard enough, they could control the urge to visit Cloud 9. If they don't, that means they just don't care about society's good standards. Lock 'em up. They clearly show a desire to not live in the real world and we simply cannot tolerate that sort of deviancy. It's a threat to our way of life. Why not criminalize homosexuality? Sounds like a great idea. It falls perfectly into line with the sort of platform that deems Creationism sound educational policy and the idolatry of a bully with too much space between her ears. As if society doesn't have enough misfits who deserve locking up, Montana Republicans wish to protect their desire to create more criminals. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of the extremists calling the shots. Is a Republican Party dedicated to law-and-order and free-market economics as well as personal liberty and a right-libertarian platform too much to ask?
Who'd have thought that the ninth anniversary of 9/11 would be so contentious? The tenth, I could understand, but the past eight years involved solemn remembrance and mourning. No more of that: Sept. 11 is political all over again. It's not as if it has no reason to be. The "victory mosque" proponents, those self-styled Constitutionalists, will be displaying American flags and reading off every name of those killed in the 2001 attack. Good for them, but it's not going to win me over to their side. Emperor Hirohito could have raised an American flag at Pearl Harbor in 1951. Would it honestly have mattered? A slap in the face is still an insult, even if you wore thickly padded gloves when delivering it. However, I am relieved that the pastor in Gainesville called off the Koran-burning. It was a profoundly stupid idea. It doesn't exactly take much to inflame Muslim passions. This would have been catastrophic. Our troops would have been in danger like never before. Americans needed to denounce this. Yes, they burn Bibles in Saudi Arabia regularly. But the Muslim world not taking their own hypocrisy into account is something we've had to live with. Primitive actions on our part do nothing to cancel out primitive actions on the part of another's. I have no idea whether the Ground Zero mosque-builders are moderates or not. I think Imam Faisal has dark links he's not telling us about. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Saudi Arabian money started furnishing the place. But I do know that there are Islamic moderates out there. And burning their holy book is as insensitive to them as the Ground Zero mosque is to most Americans. I was in Morocco last year. The Moroccans pride themselves on a liberal interpretation of the Koran. They welcome tourists and allow churches and synogogues; there is even a Jewish cemetary in Marrakech that is well looked-after. It's an Islamic society but I didn't feel that I had to watch my step. I would not want to offend these people. Your average Moroccan cannot be compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. There are even plenty of Iranians that love America and Americans. We cannot afford to lose them as friends by supporting the torching of the one book they hold in reverance. And do we really want to borrow a tactic from the Nazis? The pastor is not exactly the best example of a Christian. His views on women don't seem any more enlightened than those of extremist Islamists. Grieve for the memory of the crime committed against us nine years ago. Don't stand for being told that you're un-American if you oppose the Ground Zero Islamic cultural center. But leave the Koran alone. That tome is not our enemy; it's the brainwashed extremists who interpret it far too radically, and the pride they take in their unyielding position, who threaten us. And with that said, I'm going to listen to some pure, unadulterated rock'n'roll from a band that's as American as they come:
Sometimes, just sometimes, Democrats impress me. John Kerry holding the Scottish government's feet to the fire over the release of Abdul al-Megrahi, for instance. Kerry doesn't buy the argument that it was right to show mercy to the PanAm flight 103 bomber given his (supposedly) terminal illness, as you would normally expect a bleeding-heart liberal to do. I also respect Dianne Feinstein for approving of the Patriot Act, supporting the death penalty and running San Francisco as a centrist during her tenure as mayor of that normally loopy, hard-Left city. I like Joe Liebermann, of course, for several reasons. Add to the list Harry Reid and the recently defeated Senate candidate Jeff Greene. Why? For their opposition to the location of the proposed Ground Zero mosque and for criticizing the Messiah's thoughts on the matter. President Obama's main premise, that we have freedom of worship, is correct. But, as Greene noted, he's got it all wrong. What gets conveniently lost in the liberal-Left's argument in favor of the mosque is that American citizens have a Constitutional right to voice their opposition to it. What about our First Amendment rights? Like Reid, one of the highest ranking Democrats to oppose the mosque's location, I feel that this isn't a matter of religious opposition. It's simply the mosque's proposed location, and the powerful symbolism it carries with it, that bothers me. Muslims don't like it that we are focusing on the religion of the terrorists that killed 3,000 people nine years ago. But how would they like it if we erected a monument dedicated to the Crusades in a place that carries significant symbolic sentiment to them? The Constitution should not be wielded as a tool to trump popular opinion in this matter. I have heard so much blather with regard to "good, law-abiding Americans who just happen to be Muslim" wanting to build their Islamic community centre at the Ground Zero location. But are they really thinking this one through? If the Muslims who sought permission to build at the Cordoba Centre are that respectful, wouldn't they have backed down after realizing how their fellow Americans, assuming they consider us as such, agonized about the symbolic importance of their decision? If they're moderates, as the Left is assuring us they are, can't they understand that it would please everyone if they simply looked elsewhere to erect their place of worship? I think it's an affront of the highest level to blame the average American for his or her "bigotry" when it's the mosque-builders who are being intractable and intransigent. Consider this, dear reader: the Islamic community centre's imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, described U.S. policy-making as "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11, and asserted that all the "attention is a sign of the success of our efforts." As Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph wrote, that assertion from Rauf is "an utterance that shows he is stupid, mischievous or worse. Even if the aim of building the centre there was to encourage religious understanding, that is clearly no longer a possible outcome. So what kind of success was Rauf referring to?" My thoughts exactly. Though, I suppose I must give Rauf some credit for calling 9/11 a crime. He earns a point from me for that, but nothing more. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg—a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if ever there was one—isn't exactly trying to smooth things out, as you would expect him to do. He condemns the opposition, opining that they "ought to be ashamed of themselves." Honestly, why is it so difficult to understand that there is a line being crossed here, a basic level of civility and respect that is being ignored? But, alas, I forget: Even if you slashed the throat of a Leftie's loved one, he'd still think, "Hmmm, what's wrong with the person who just killed my brother? Is he hurting? Is that a cry for help? Maybe I can help him. Golly gee ..." To tell you the truth, for me, that's what this whole debate over the Ground Zero mosque comes down to. We're all getting our throats cut in a metaphorical sense, and we're still expected to understand "the other side."
You might recall, dear reader, that back in July I was outraged at Facebook's refusal to take down a page dedicated to the killer Raul Moat because it was very inflammatory—a place for hordes of brain-damaged people to jot down their violent fantasies of cop-killing anarchy and the overthrow of society. It was also highly insensitive. Even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, demanded that Facebook remove the page; they refused on the grounds of free speech. But apparently free speech doesn't apply to those outraged by animal abuse. Mary Bale, a bank worker, was on her way home from work when she stopped to pet Lola the cat, owned by Stephanie and Darryl Andrews-Mann. After stroking the cat for a few seconds, Bale picked her up by the scruff of her neck, threw her in a large wheeled garbage bin and walked away. Footage of Bale grabbing the cat, throwing her in the garbage container and closing the lid was caught on the Andrews-Manns' CCTV security camera, and they uploaded the video to YouTube to try to identify Bale. When she was identified and questioned about it by reporters, and unaware of just how furious the reaction was to her vile act, Bale shurgged it off. "I really don't see what everyone is getting so excited about. It's just a cat," she remarked. Only after she started receiving death threats did Bale do an about-face. Bale reckons she had "a split second of madness" and cannot explain why she did it. She apologized to the couple and to cat-lovers in general. Her apology is worthless; only because she was threatened to the point of needing police protection did she claim she was sorry. Understand, dear reader, that this was no harmless joke. The rubbish bin in question is four feet tall. The bin was empty. A small cat could not jump out of there even if the lid was open. And Bale had closed the lid. Lola was trapped in there for fifteen hours. If it had been a hot day—an absolute rarity here in Britain, I grant you—Lola could have suffocated in the heat. Realistically, if the outside temperature had been above 75°F, Lola might not have survived. Plus, the obvious scenario of being emptied into the rubbish truck and crushed by the packer cannot be ignored or discounted if the trash collectors had come by at any point during those fifteen hours. People have boycotted the branch of the bank at which Bale works, so she's likely to be fired. It's also likely that the RSPCA will prosecute Bale for animal cruelty. Now, I can understand why Facebook would take down a page entitled "Death to Mary Bale." I don't think Bale deserves vigilante capital punishment for her act. But I doubt whether most people making threats against her were serious about it. It was intended to make Bale realize how despicable she is. I agree whole-heartedly with one man who'd written, "Mary Bale needs to be head-butted several times." Bale is the sort of po-faced, arrogant-looking person who should be head-butted on general principle, but for trapping a cat in an enclosed space and disrespecting the cat's owners in the process? Most definitely. Head-butted, sucker punched, a brick through her window: whatever works, karma-wise. Now then, if Mary Bale crossed the line with her "joke," so did some of those who were rightly outraged by it, and that's a valid argument. My problem here is with Facebook for being hypocritical. If free speech was so paramount that they allowed the Raul Moat dedication page to flourish—it was eventually taken down by the page's creator, not Facebook itself—and did not see the violent threats inherent there, then how exactly do they justify taking down the anti-Mary Bale page? Discussing the decision to remove the page, a Facebook spokeswoman said that moderators would remove anything deemed to be a "credible threat." So exactly how was the Raul Moat "Legend" page any different? How the hell did that not constitute a "credible threat"? Did they not notice the surfeit of threats against the cop that Moat disabled? It's enough to know that Bale will pay a severe price for her horrible behavior at the hands of her employers and the RSPCA, and that's how the Andrews-Manns want it as well. "Now that the police know who she is, I think people should leave it to them and the RSPCA and not take matters into their own hands ... I don't like her, but it needs to be dealt with properly," said Stephanie. (The RSPCA will probably act, but the police certainly won't because they're useless.) Fair enough. But I just have to wonder if a fan page dedicated to Josef Fritzl is doing fine and dandy under Facebook's selective free speech policy. Again, I'm too afraid to look for myself.
At the Lincoln Memorial today, conservative commentator Glenn Beck is to kick off a rally entitled Restoring Honor. Tea Party devotees have flocked to Washington, D.C. in their thousands to hear Beck's speech and participate in the rally. But, lo and behold, a little something a rally-supporting blogger wrote has caused a stir. The "Tea Party: One Lump or Two?" blog cautioned rally attendees to avoid certain areas and subway lines in Washington and asserted that certain immigrants in the city, such as Arabs and Africans, should not be engaged in conversation. Bruce Majors, the blogger in question, responded to charges of racism by asserting that all he did was post links so people could get an idea of what areas of Washington should be avoided. "My suggestion to any visitors to DC this weekend is to check these URLs and learn what is safe and what is not. All the Liberal hatemongering aimed at visiting citizens to DC is crap. Even the DC police think the Green Line is dangerous," Majors wrote. Also, it seems that the point behind mentioning the African immigrants in Washington, despite what those civil rights activists currently crying foul have to say, was about respect for their sensitivities rather than fear-mongering. "As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African-Americans," Majors wrote, "and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions." Majors' point would appear to be that well-intentioned people sometimes say things in ignorance that can be deemed offensive, so conversation with certain immigrants, who don't yet understand the average American's puppydog-like curiosity, should be kept to a minimum. It's hard to fathom how either piece of advice could be considered racist. But, of course, as far as the liberals are concerned, if we don't give an African immigrant a friendly slap on the back while saying, "Hey, my brother, where you from? Somalia?" or if we're not willing to place our total and complete trust in our fellow human beings no matter what sort of neighborhood we find ourselves traversing, then we're racist and a threat to civil rights. Because you do realize that if you're not skipping down the street in a "disadvantaged" neighborhood, handing out lollipops to everyone you see on the street, you're as bad as Hitler? Don't you?
If you were part of a social networking website (Facebook, 'cause I is a name-dropper) that refused to take down a page dedicated to a psychopathic lunatic—one of far too many people out there for whom a miscarriage would have been a blessing—that encouraged anti-police violence, and gave some semblance of creedence to the testosterone-soaked, thuggish culture that is flourishing in this country (Britain), wouldn't you be shocked? Prime Minister David Cameron even demanded that the killer's digusting memorial page be removed, expressing his horror at it and enquiring of Facebook if it had any respect for the victims and the majority—or what I dearly hope is the majority—of the nation that felt nothing but revlusion for Raoul Moat and his crimes. Raoul Moat is a former bouncer, a steroid-raging creature who shot dead his ex-girfriend and her new boyfriend, and nearly killed a policeman, who is now disabled as a result of his encounter with Moat. Facebook refused. They responded that they did not care to get involved because everyone has the right to free expression. Isn't that just groovy? I wanted to see if there were any Charles Manson, Jon Venables or Josef Fritzl fan pages on Facebook, but I was too frightened to conduct that research. I feared the worst, which is to say, I was confident of finding them. The lesson to be learned from this, apparently, is not that Facebook will allow any garbage to flourish on their site, but that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't support free speech. Bummer, man. I announced that I was leaving Facebook in protest, and the support I received was nothing short of underwhelming. The cumulative response was something along the lines of what sort of fascist, authoritarian creep was I for denying such obviously outstanding citizens their right to free speech? When I stated that I needed no lessons in defending free speech, taking into account my experience in helping to revive the student newspaper during my college days, and therefore no-one had better dare to lecture me about that subject, I was told, "It's got nothing to do with a dare, but everything to do with free speech." Brick wall, anyone? (This same wingnut accused me of being as bad as Moat because I support capital punishment. As I'm sure he would tell you, he deserves an award for that.) I would, of course, tell you of any supportive replies I received if not for the fact that they were completely non-existent. Thirty-thousand people expressed their total love and devotion to a paranoid killer, a monster, and that's of no concern whatsoever to these self-dubbed Voltaires. There is no line you can't cross these days, unless you're calling terrorists well, "terrorists." Then, lo and behold, we find that there is no such thing as free speech! But making a heroic figure out of a murderous bully? Who cares? There are more important things to worry about, such as when will the next Strictly Come Dancing show be on and does KFC have a new range of sauces? I guess I shouldn't be surprised by any of this, considering we're living in a society that thinks ass-crack is a fashion accessory. The page did come down two days ago, but not through any official decision made by Facebook themselves. The creator of the site de-activated it. Turns out, whatever decent people are left in the world were harrassing and threatening her. So, citing personal safety concerns, she removed the page from the site. But she still feels that Mr. Moat is "legend" and hopes to re-activate the page if/when the furor dies down. The good First Amendment stalwarts at Facebook, meanwhile, will still be operating out of their collective back passage while the Ted Bundy Love-In page attracts more than 100,000 admirers.
I was listening to Boston talk-show host Howie Carr—who I listen to via podcasts—and he brought up the topic of gun control after the recent shootings in the inner-city enclave of Mattapan ("Murderpan" as we Bostonians call it).
