Category: Politics

But Did You Really Mean Yes?

A few weeks ago, I blogged on the affirmative consent law passed by California that requires any sexual contact on college campuses to have explicit and ongoing consent to not be qualified as assault. In criticizing it, I noted:

What this really is about is getting a foot in the door for something radical feminists have wanted for a long time: a standard of “enthusiastic consent” to determine the line between sex and rape. According to these theorists, the only time sex should happen is when the woman is eager for it. Anything else is a varying degree of rape.

Do you have any idea how tired I get of being right all the time?

Activists quoted in the Huffington Post now want to extend this “affirmative consent” ideology, and its pinched, misleading definition of “consent,” beyond college into K-12 schools, and beyond sexual activity to non-sexual touching and unwanted remarks, to teach people the sinister evil of things like “unsolicited hugs.” (My wife and daughter hug me without asking for permission, and sometimes it’s a surprise — a pleasant surprise, even if I never “agreed” to it.). Once busybodies start meddling in your personal life, it’s hard for them to stop.

The meddling won’t stop at the schoolhouse gate, and will eventually reach into your private life, too. As lawyer Scott Greenfield notes, progressive law professors have submitted a controversial proposal to the American Law Institute that the Model Penal Code be radically changed to require affirmative “consent” throughout society, for both “sexual intercourse” and a broader range of “sexual contact.” On page 69 of their draft, they explicitly admit that this affirmative “consent” requirement would classify as sexual assault even many “passionately wanted” instances of sex (presumably because of the technicality that such mutually-wanted sexual intercourse is welcomed after — not affirmatively consented to before — the sex is initiated.) Perversely, they justify this massive invasion of people’s sex lives as supposedly protecting people’s sexual “autonomy” from potentially unwanted sex, even though their proposal goes well beyond banning unwanted sex, to banning sex that was in fact “passionately wanted” although not agreed to in advance. See Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses, Tentative Draft No. 1 at pg. 69 (April 30, 2014).

This is why, Ezra Klein, you don’t support what you admit is a terrible law because it serves some social justice function. Because once you infect the legal code with the sort of wooly thinking, it will spread and mutate until the entire law code is a feminist manifesto from Berkeley.

Gun Grabbers Encourage Felonies

It’s hard to pick the most idiotic political movement in this country, but I have to think the anti-gun movement is up there. Behold:

For those of you who don’t want to sit through it, it shows a teenage boy taking a gun out of his parents dresser. He tucks it into his backpack and goes to school to the sounds of ominous music. He waits until after class, goes up to the teacher and … turns it into the teacher, asking her to take it away because he doesn’t feel safe with it in the house.

Let’s count the number of crimes committed in this “uplifting” ad:

1. Illegal possession of a firearm by a minor.
2. Weapons theft (a felony)
3. Unlicensed conceal carry.
4. Carrying a weapon onto school grounds (a federal crime)
5. Transfer of a weapon without a background check (a crime in some states)

Let’s also note that this encourages kids to pick up and handle weapons, something the damned NRA works hard to discourage kids from doing.

It’s too bad I already gave out the Turkeys of the Year awards.

Fallout From A Murder

No matter what one thinks of police and modern policing, police violence, police racism or lack therefore, the execution of two NYPD officers over the weekend was thoroughly evil. Even if these officers were abusive and racist — and there is no indication whatsoever that they were — this act should still be thoroughly condemned by everyone.

I am not an anarchist. We can see around the world how thin the veneer of civilization is and how easily it is destroyed. Law and order are a huge improvement over the lack thereof, no matter how poorly they are enforced. It’s one thing to criticize police and demand reform and changes. It’s one thing to defend yourself if, for example, cops smash down your door in the middle of the night and you have no idea what’s going on. People can and should oppose aggressive policing and the intrusion of government into their lives. But the deliberate and cold-blooded murder of two policemen is an attack on civilization, on the idea of law and order.

The primary problem we have with policing in the United States is not a bunch of evil cops running around. It is a political leadership that has given them a million laws to enforce, authorized an aggressive war on voluntary behavior, shoved assault weapons and tanks into their hands and chipped away at accountability. The system is failing the police as thoroughly as it is failing the rest of us.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of these vile murders, a narrative has emerged that conflates criticism of policing with the murders. This has been building for a long time. A couple of weeks ago, a paper ran a really stupid anti-police cartoon. This resulted in a union head issuing a scathing letter, demanding (and getting) an apology. But this wasn’t an isolated incident nor confined to idiot cartoons.

McNesby has a history of lashing out at journalists. When Philadelphia Daily News reporters Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman broke an incredible story about a Philly PD rogue narcotics unit that was essentially robbing immigrant-owned bodegas, McNesby called a press conference in which he called drug-using police informants “one step above” reporters like Laker and Ruderman. Someone launched a Web site specifically to attack the reporters. The two women later won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting.

(Both the state and the Feds cleared the bodega cops despite video supporting the claims of multiple independent witnesses.)

Last week, police officers demanded an apology from a Cleveland Browns player for wearing a T-shirt demanding justice for John Crawford and Tamir Rice, as if being angry about the shooting of two men carrying BB guns was completely out of line. This followed demands for an apology when Rams players made the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture before a game. A police chief in California is under fire for marching with protesters in favor less police violence.

Bill de Blasio has become a lightning rod for this. Shortly before this incident, the PBA said that de Blasio was not welcome at any police funerals for “anti-police” views.

This pushback has only intensified in the aftermath of the murders. During de Blasio’s press conference, police literally turned their backs on him. Union leaders have said there is “blood on his hands” for his “anti-cop” positions, as though a career criminal and violent psychopath only needed to hear de Blasio’s speech to go on a murderous spree. Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Rahm Emmanuel have also been accused by Howard Safir, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki of fomenting this event from their anti-cop rhetoric and “hatred” of cops.

But as Jamelle Bouie points out, none of this has been anti-cop unless you regard any criticism of police as anti-cop:

Police officers aren’t under siege from hostile elected officials. At no point, for example, has de Blasio attacked the New York City Police Department. Instead, he’s called for improved policing, including better community relations and new training for “de-escalation” techniques. “Fundamental questions are being asked, and rightfully so,” he said at the beginning of the month, after the grand jury decision in the death of Eric Garner. “The way we go about policing has to change.”

Likewise, neither President Obama nor Attorney General Eric Holder has substantively criticized police. After a Ferguson, Missouri, grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown, Obama appealed for calm and praised law enforcement for doing a “tough job.” “Understand,” he said, “our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.”

When directly asked if “African-American and Latino young people should fear the police,” Holder said no. “I don’t think that they should fear the police,” he said in an interview for New York magazine with MSNBC’s Joy-Ann Reid. “But I certainly think that we have to build up a better relationship between young people, people of color, and people in law enforcement.”

Note that Bouie is actually quoting those accused of anti-cop rhetoric rather than making vague quote-free allegations.

Nothing here should be a surprise. Despite what these police organizations and their allies allege, there isn’t an anti-police movement in this country, or at least, none of any significance. The people demonstrating for Eric Garner and Michael Brown aren’t against police, they are for better policing. They want departments to treat their communities with respect, and they want accountability for officers who kill their neighbors without justification. When criminals kill law-abiding citizens, they’re punished. When criminals kill cops, they’re punished. But when cops kill citizens, the system breaks down and no one is held accountable. That is what people are protesting.

Given the dangers inherent to being a police officer—and the extent to which most cops are trying to do the best they can—it’s actually understandable that cops are a little angry with official and unofficial criticism. But they should know it comes with the territory. For all the leeway they receive, the police aren’t an inviolable force; they’re part of a public trust, accountable to elected leaders and the people who choose them. And in the same way that police have a responsibility to protect and secure the law, citizens have a responsibility to hold improper conduct to account.

On the subject of de Blasio specifically, Doug Mataconis points out that it is unreasonable to expect the reflexive absolute loyalty to the police that Giuliani exhibited:

Politically, DeBlasio may or may not have bungled his relationship with the NYPD during his first year in office, but that hardly makes him responsible for murder. Additionally, the fact that the Mayor may have expressed some sympathy for the people who were protesting the Garner decision is neither outrageous nor inappropriate. For one thing, it’s worth noting that he is the Mayor of all the people in New York, not just the police officers, and that as the elected leader of the city it is his job, in part, to be responsive to the concerns of civilians who see what they think is an injustice being committed by the police department and the justice system. The argument that being willing to listen to those protesters makes any political leader responsible for the actions of a violent criminal thug who traveled some 200 miles for the express purpose of committing murder is nonsense that ought to be rejected out of hand.

Yes, it is true that there have been some assholes calling for dead cops. Let’s not pretend that element isn’t out there. And people like Sharpton have been disgracefully slow to condemn such rhetoric. But this shooting does not mean the movement for better policing and more accountability is wrong. When a husband-and-wife team ambushed and murdered two cops earlier this year, it wasn’t the fault of the Tea Party. When Gabby Giffords was shot, it wasn’t the fault of Sarah Palin. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, it wasn’t the fault of Rush Limbaugh. Arguing that acts of violence committed by crazed extremists discredits an entire movement is the sort of thing I expect out of the Left Wing in this country. Read Ross Douthat’s post on how isolated violent acts have been used throughout history to discredit political opponents. Nick Gillespie:

As the New York Daily News and other outlets are reporting, the apparent shooter was not only violent and unhinged but had bragged via Instagram that he was “putting wings on pigs” and “putting pigs in a blanket.”

The distance between such rantings and, even worse, the act of shooting policemen sitting in a patrol car is so vast that they simply have no relation to legitimate and even impassioned criticism of the militarization of police and the protesting of specific acts of apparent injustice.

To suggest otherwise is not simply disgraceful and cheapening to serious public discourse. It’s all too often the first refuge of people on the right and the left who are afraid to actually engage in any sort of meaningful debate.

This was an isolated incident. Last year saw the fewest cops murdered in seven decades and rates of violence against cops we haven’t seen since the 19th century. 2013 was an unusually safe year for cops and 2014 is likely to return to the 40-50 killings we’ve been averaging over the last decade. Doubtless, this increase will be cast as a “war on cops” by the usual sources. They dragged out the “war on cops” a few years ago when the number of murders went up, then went silent when it dropped back down again. But violence against cops is still at historic lows. As I note every time there is a mass shooting, these incidents are mercifully rare. These were the first NYPD cops murdered in three years.

And it’s worth noting something else: violence by cops is also down. It’s hard to tell how far down since official national statistics are not kept. But for the NYPD specifically, cop shootings of citizens is way down. So there is progress being made. But that progress still leaves us with a thousand people dead at the hands of police every year. That compares to about four a year in Germany, about a dozen in year in Canada and zero in Great Britain. Most of those killings are justified; some are not. But we have a system that has trouble distinguishing between the two.

The reaction to the killings is not unexpected. As I noted above, there has been a sustained campaign by police unions and supporters to delegitimize any criticism of the police (while ignoring provocative speech on their own side.) But let’s not pretend that there is no middle ground between the vicious execution of two cops and concern and criticism over a system that allows for consequence-free bad behavior.

Two good men are dead at the hands of a vile killer, a man who showed no compunction about shooting his ex-girlfriend before this or committing other acts of violence. Let’s not legitimize his deranged excuses by calling it a political movement.

Cops Murdered

As you no doubt have heard, this weekend a man attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend in Maryland then drove to New York where he cold-bloodedly shot two cops. He then killed himself. I’ll maybe post something later on in the week on the reaction to the events. But not right now. Right now, here are the two men who were killed:

And a heart-breaking message from Ramos’s son:

Steal, Lie, then Steal Again

Earlier this year, I talked about an outrageous government swindle enabled by the Democrats. The IRS was withholding $75 million of people’s tax refunds based on decades-old Social Security overpayments to their parents. In the face of withering criticism, Social Security backed down.

Guess what?

The Social Security Administration, which announced in April that it would stop trying to collect debts from the children of people who were allegedly overpaid benefits decades ago, has continued to demand such payments and now defends that practice in court documents.

After The Washington Post reported in April that the Treasury Department had confiscated $75 million in tax refunds due to about 400,000 Americans whose ancestors owed money to Social Security, the agency’s acting commissioner, Carolyn Colvin, said efforts to collect on those old debts would cease immediately.

But although some people whose refunds were seized were reimbursed in recent months, some of those same taxpayers have since received new demands from Social Security, asserting that the debts remain and seeking repayment.

This shouldn’t surprise us. This is what our vindictive greedy government does. When they are caught in outrageous behavior, they back down, wait for the furor to die, and then continue to do it. They’re like roaches who scatter when the light is turned on then come back out when it’s dark. Asset forfeiture efforts slowed after Kelo, then resumed with greater furor. Drug War abuses will be suspended when there is a particularly horrible case, then resume when everyone’s moved on. And this particular Social Security-IRS grave-robbing hid under the baseboards for a few months and then came back. And any attention now will make them back down. And then in six months, they’ll be demanding money again.

Until Congress changes the law, Social Security will continue to hound people like this. It’s not enough to get outraged; Congress needs to act.

If you are a lefty looking for whatever your “ism” du jour is…

As Obama’s true colors and ineptness finally overwhelm even the media’s most rabid attempts to control the narrative, and American people realize how much of a dimwitted idiot – inept asshole is fitting a name here – and that Obama’s promise to fundamentally change America definitely meant changes that would destroy the once great nation, and react accordingly, by showing their disapproval, it is no surprise to me that the Obamas and the left are desperate to silence the naysayers. Hence the preponderance of stories like this one where Obama tells about how the country is full of closet racists. Funny thing is that it isn’t even a month ago that I was actually standing in front of a fancy restaurant’s valet parking area, with a young lady of all things, having a discussion about the day’s events, when some idiot in a Mercedes pulled up and asked me to park his car. We both chose to laugh the whole thing off. After all, we were standing where people drop of their car, and the guy just assumed the wrong thing. Shit like this happens, and to always assume racism or some other ill intent is behind it, tells more about you and about the stupid attempt to perpetuate your narrative, than it does about the person that made the mistake.

Then you have Moochelle’s story about how she was asked to pull shit off a shelve at a Target. Must have happened a long time ago, because I doubt she does her own shopping these days, and if she does, I doubt it is at Target. Of course to her this happened because of the inherent racism of the person asking. Like her husband, she never assumed anything but ill intent and racism on behalf of the person that asked. My bet is that we are dealing with a short old lady that just figured the Wookie could reach the top shelve with ease, and asked. Moochelle, not proud at all of her country, as she herself has told us, immediately assumed racism was involved. After all who would ask a tall woman for help unless they assumed she was the help in the first place, huh? It’s just crazy to expect some stranger might want to help you out!

There is a nagging suspicion in me that I can not shake, and while I am inclined to chalk all this off to people looking for racism always finding it, whether it is there or not, and that is that I can’t let go of my feelings that that this shit is all made up anyway. We are dealing with a bunch of hucksters that want to control the narrative and take focus away from the problems they have caused, and they have used this very tactic, repeatedly, in the past. At this time when Obama and the left are imploding we sure seem to have a slew of leftist media peddled stories about all the various “isms” and abuses their special interest groups feed on all fall apart when closely scrutinized, haven’t we? From the leftist take on what happened in Ferguson and how the LSM chose to report it – until the facts bore out that story was a heaping pile of dung – to their take of Jackie’s frat party rape fest at a UVA by some fact checking challenged writer at Rolling Stone, we have had story after story peddled either fall apart or turn out to be blatantly made up shit. Conveniently, neither the story by Moochelle or the Manchurian candidate can actually be researched properly and validated, and I doubt anyone in the LSM would do so anyway if it could be done, as recent events have bore out.

Perspective matters, and we should keep that in mind whenever you hear one of these media sob stories peddling the grievance politics of the left, I tell you. And again, I have to admit that I am not a bit surprised that Obama’s promise of healing America and the post racial age, like all his other promises, fall flat. In fact, the age of Obama has brought us a lot more of the things candidate Obama told us he would do away with or fix. My only consolation is that people are finally wising up and this weapon that served the left so well in the past to squash any attempts at having a debate based on logic and facts, has lost its luster. More and more people can now immediately see this bullshit for what it is, and I do have to thank the media and the Obama’s for that.

Opening Cuba

This is a pretty big deal:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced plans to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba and ease economic restrictions on the nation, an historic shift he called the end of an “outdated approach” to U.S.-Cuban relations.

Obama said he’s instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to immediately begin discussions with Cuba to re-establish diplomatic relations, and that the U.S. will re-open an embassy in Havana. The administration will also allow some travel and trade that had been banned under a decades-long embargo instated during the Kennedy administration.

There are aspects of the embargo that Obama can’t undo because they were encoded into law when it was feared that Clinton might normalize relations with Cuba. Related to this are the release of about 50 political prisoners in Cuba, including Alan Gross and at least one US intelligence asset who has been in prison for 20 years. Apparently, the Vatican and Canada played a role in bringing this about.

As you can imagine, this is drawing a lot of fire from Cuban-Americans and Cuban-American politicians:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he would do everything in his power to block any potential U.S. ambassador to Cuba even receive a vote.

He also called the easing of economic restrictions “inexplicable” in a statement.

“Appeasing the Castro brothers will only cause other tyrants from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang to see that they can take advantage of President Obama’s naiveté during his final two years in office. As a result, America will be less safe as a result of the President’s change in policy,” he said.
Rubio promised that as incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee he’ll “make every effort to block this dangerous and desperate attempt by the President to burnish his legacy at the Cuban people’s [sic] expense.”

I have long been in favor of lifting the embargo. For 53 years, it has accomplished nothing. The vile Castro brothers have kept their brutal police state in place while becoming extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, average Cubans are among the poorest in the hemisphere, despite past support from the former Soviet Union and ongoing support from other socialist and communist idiots. It’s not like we don’t have relations with vile regimes like China or Saudi Arabia.

Will this cause “reform” in Cuba? I’m dubious, especially as the embargo is only partially lifted and most American businesses will not be able to open shop in Cuba. But I’m also aware that the Castros are in their 70s. Even assuming that they live for much longer, their rule is going to become increasingly fragile. Trade and travel between the two countries can hasten that day by loosening the absolute political and economic power Castro has over his citizens. But even if it doesn’t, it is long since time we abandoned this stupid and destructive approach.

We’ll have to see what happens. But overall, I think this is a good step. The most encouraging sign to me is the number of liberals lamenting that capitalism is going to take over Cuba.

Good Lord, we can only hope so.

The Face of Terror

Yesterday, we watched as a homicidal nut took hostages in Sydney. In the ensuing action, two hostages died and the gunman was killed. While the gunman proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS, there were no official ties. Furthermore, he had some serious criminal issues going on. He was complicit in the murder of his wife, who was stabbed 18 times and set on fire. And he was being charged with 50 counts of indecent behavior and sexual assault. Why he was not sitting in a jail cell is a bit of a mystery to me.

There have been some attempts to divorce his actions from his Islamic fundamentalism, to say that this was just about a crazed nut. Well, the Taliban reminded us yesterday that this is what Islamists are like:

Pakistani Taliban gunmen stormed into a military-run school in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday, killing scores of teachers and schoolchildren and fighting an eight-hour gun battle with the security forces, officials said.

At least 145 people were killed, more than 100 of them children, in a siege that lasted more than eight hours before the last of the nine attackers were killed, government and medical officials said.

A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said his group was responsible for the attack and said it was in retaliation for the military’s offensive against militants in the North Waziristan tribal district.

So, yeah, this guy helped murder his wife and sexually assaulted women. That makes him pretty much your basic Islamist. That’s practically a job application for Al-Qaeda. These radicals murder children, they shoot teenagers in the face, they throw acid on women and girls, they kidnap women and force them into rape marriages. They engage in honor killing and behead innocents. This is what they do. Why are we acting like this guy in Sydney was unusual?

Nazca Attack

Dear Greenpeace: I accept the reality of climate change. I think environmental protection is important. So understand where I’m coming from when I tell you to fuck off:

Peru says it will sue activists from the environmental pressure group Greenpeace after they placed a banner next to the Nazca Lines heritage site.

The activists entered a restricted area next to the ancient ground markings depicting a hummingbird and laid down letters advocating renewable energy.

Peru is currently hosting the UN climate summit in its capital, Lima.

A Greenpeace spokeswoman said the group was investigating but its activists had been “absolutely careful”.

Like hell they were. First of all, Greenpeace and other environmental radicals have made it abundantly clear that they have no regard for anything created by humans. If they thought it would save an endangered snail, they’d raze the Pyramids tomorrow. Second, you can check out video of Greenpeace activists bumbling around the Nazca site. Their smug self-satisfaction will radiate through your computer. And the Nazca lines are the sort of thing you have to be careful about:

[Peruvian Deputy Cultural Minister] said the Nazca Lines, which are an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 years old, were “absolutely fragile”.

“You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years,” he said.

The Nazca lines are delicate, created by the removal of pebbles to expose the lighter soil beneath. Simply walking around the site can destroy a 1500 year old monument. If radical Muslims did this — as they did Bamiyan or in Timbuktu — we’d call it an act of terrorism.

Greenpeace has issued one of the standard garbage “we’re sorry you were offended” non-apologies and are saying they will “take responsibility” for any damage. Good. I can think of no better way of taking responsibility than going to prison.

And just a reminder that Greenpeace is not some impoverished grassroots org:

Did this embattled scrappy activist group have no other means to get their message out other than casual vandalism of a historical site and the accompanying “earned media”? Guess not with their meager total assets, according to their financial reports for 2013, of just 54 million euros.

Organizations like Greenpeace are, by far, the biggest impediment in environmental policy. For all the “evil oil money” out there, nothing turns people off of climate policy faster than the rabid anti-capitalism and mindless destructive stunts of organizations like Greenpeace. Forty years ago, when Lake Erie was almost dead and the Cuyahoga caught fire, there was a need for environmentalist organizations. There isn’t any more. Everyone supports a clean environment, with their actions and with their votes. The Western world is cleaner and healthier than it has been in centuries. So what we’re left with is “evaporative cooling” where mainstream sensible environmentalists like Patrick Moore have left the environmental orgs and they’re left with radical watermelons who pull stupid stunts like marring a world treasure.

Go away, guys. We’ve got this.