Comment Of The Day: “After The Brooklyn Cop Murders, The Sound Of Spinning: WindyPundit Takes On My ‘Smear'”

Neil Dorr is among my favorite regular Ethics Alarms commenters, because he is passionate, articulate and fearless, and because he disagrees with me about 85% of the time. I’m also fond of Neil because he is part of an esteemed father-son team here: Karl Penny, his dad, had registered his commentary at Ethics Alarms since its launch. Neil informed me this month that his father had died, suddenly and unexpectedly. It is strange: I had never met Karl face-to-face, but I feel like I have lost a friend, so vivid and good-natured were his periodic communications here. Neil, of course, has lost far more, and my heart and good wishes go out to him and his family.

Someone had to register this response to my conclusions regarding the assassinations of two police officers in New York. I assumed that this would be the reaction of many and perhaps the majority, which is why I almost didn’t post my position. I know it walks into the spinning propeller of predictable resistance to truth-telling on this issue.

The media is already doing a bang-up job confusing the public and muddying the water, primarily by misrepresenting the situation as a) a dispute over “police abuse,”when the issue is the presumed racism of the system; b) focusing on NYC Mayor De Blasio, who is a minor player at best, and c) making it seem like the consequences of the despicable “Hands up!” propaganda are a local New York issue only. In this they have been ably assisted by clumsy blow-hards like Rudy Giuliani, who virtually made a straw man and handed it to his critics. “Is Giuliani correct in saying that President Obama started a propaganda campaign four months ago that “everybody should hate the police”? asked Washington Post “Fact Checker” on the way to giving Rudy four “Pinnochios.” Of course he wasn’t correct. I, however, am correct when I conclude that Obama and others have created an environment where African Americans fear and distrust the police, the justice system, and their fellow citizens who happen to be white more than any period since the Civil Rights movement. I know that Obama supporters  disheartened Democrats hate to hear this, and will resist accepting it like the approach of grim death. They can take solace, perhaps, in the fact that my influence on and ability to enlighten public perception is negligible, so with the help of the news media, accountability can be ducked once again, at least for a while. Maybe after the death toll rises sufficiently, people will be ready to listen….to someone else with a bigger megaphone, presumably.

Here is Neil Dorr’s Comment of the Day on the post “After The Brooklyn Cop Murders, The Sound Of Spinning: WindyPundit Takes On My ‘Smear,'” and yes, I will have a rebuttal at the end:

“.. who have finally managed to get police killed ..”

Statements like this are indefensible. These shootings are barely a week old and before we’ve even had a chance to try and understand what happened or why, you’re already assigning narrative complete with motive. How does this make you any better than those in Ferguson you were so quick to blame for jumping to conclusions? What if, arguendo, it’s discovered the two officers in question were working for the mob and had been threatening Brinsley for years, or that the shooter was someone else and he’s being framed? Neither of these scenarios is likely, I realize, but they also can’t (currently) be disproven. Yet, before the bodies are even cold, you can definitively lay claim to exactly what happened and exactly who’s responsible? I’m sorry, but I call foul.

Even if you accept that increased race-baiting, blame-shifting, and misinformation have created a culture of distrust and further fostered an “us vs. them” mentality (something I wouldn’t disagree with), no one on the left, right, center, or elsewhere purchased a gun, put it in Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s hands, and told him that executing two of NYPD’s finest was a going to make things better. Yet, over the last few days, I’ve read in disbelief as you hold Obama, John Lewis, Bill DeBlasio, and numerous other lefties as being more or less directly responsible.

Whatever culpability they may have in instigating the aforementioned culture of distrust, none of that equates to homicide. What you’re doing is akin to blaming Columbine on bullies, or that unfair tax policies caused a man to kamikaze an IRS building, or that eroding personal liberties were responsible for Oklahoma City. We’re talking about a disturbed individual (further evidenced by the fact that he also shot his ex-girlfriend, who was otherwise uninvolved) who tried to justify his own sick, murderous rage by using convenient rhetoric that was readily at hand. Yet, suddenly, it’s the rhetoric that gets called into question, not the madman who man manipulated it to fit his own twisted worldview.

Speech doesn’t equate to action (that’s why one is [mostly] free while the other has heavy limitations), so I can’t see how blame can ultimately lay with anyone but the shooter himself. If I were to tell you that Stephen King is responsible for the deaths of everyone you’ve ever loved and that killing him would bring them all back, would that make me culpable if you were to “make his head explode” with a shotgun? Unfortunately, Brinsley decided to take his own life before society could mete out proper justice, leaving everyone (including you) scrambling to find someone else to blame.
None of the people you’ve mentioned said word one about violence or did anything even close to endorsing murder and, even if they had, there would still be no one to blame but the one who pulled the trigger. You’re using the deaths of two men to justify a political outlook and I find it absolutely deplorable. You’re a better man than this, Jack. Far, far better.


I’m back.

To dispose of the least fair of Neil’s characterizations from the outset, this is not a political issue for me, and I defy anyone to make a case that it is. The fact that Democrats are the race-baiting party (Do you believe in enforcing the borders and not rewarding illegal behavior? You’re a racist, then.) and that they have adopted that tactic with a vengeance since before Barack Obama was a twinkle in the party’s eye, does not mean that I deplore it because it is theirs. I deplore it, detest it and condemn it, and always have, in all its forms, regardless of agent or motive. Am I suppose to applaud the intentional creation of racial disharmony and distrust in the furtherance of bi-partisanship? Any party, and any leader that exploited racial tensions this way would be criticized by me with venom and gusto, and I do not comprehend Democrats and progressives who do not find this as horrible as I do. It is proof of a lack of integrity, clinical denial, or something else I cannot identify. One alternative is total corruption.

The literal complaint that since Obama, Holder, Sharpton, et. al. didn’t put the gun in Brinsley’s hands, they have no accountability is just silly.  I have predicted, more than once, that the irresponsible “narrative” that there is a system-wide effort in the U.S. to oppress and murder black men would get people killed, and the New York cops were almost certainly not the first. Remember the various attacks on whites in 2012 by young black men who said, “This is for Trayvon” or something similar? I will stipulate that Spike Lee, Rosie O’Donnell, the Congressional Black Caucus members who wore hoodies in the House and President Obama saying that Martin could have been his son, as well as the news media publishing angelic photos of the deceased at the age of 13 and playing doctored tapes that made Zimmerman sound like a racist didn’t literally take control of those attackers’ bodies and compel them against their wills to beat up innocent citizens.

Yet in 1995, nobody in the mainstream media questioned the popular consensus on the Left that the over-heated anti-government rhetoric coming from the Republican Right led by Newt Gingrich had activated a lot of crazies and created the toxic environment that led to the Oklahoma City bombing, which took 168 lives.

No, Newt didn’t build the bomb or drive the car. But the GOP thought they had Clinton and the Democrats on the ropes, and the demonization of the Federal government had entered a new stage of irresponsible ugliness. Rush Limbaugh bleated like a slaughtered lamb that the accusation that he and others had sparked the violence was just scapegoating and an effort to silence him and Clinton’s critics, which in part it was. In greater part, however, rational people recognized that you can’t bombard the public with the claim that the Federal government wants to enslave us and not have a substantial number of the ignorant, the easily led, the irresponsible, the angry, the disenfranchised and the insane believe it, and perhaps act on the belief. Conservatives did in fact tone down the rhetoric, at least for a while.

Hyping racism for political gain and spreading false narratives to frighten and inflame the passions of African Americans is far, far worse than demonizing big government—because there is so much in the past and present of American race relations that justifies suspicion.

I won’t rehash what I have written already, except to say that when prominent officials, elected leaders and others with credibility in the black community state, suggest or imply, as Sharpton, Obama, Lewis, De Blasio and many others have, that innocent, law-abiding African-Americans are at risk of being murdered in cold blood by police (This is what “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” means, and again, it is a lie), that someone, or many, will take preemptive action to protect their children and their neighbors is predictable, and I would say inevitable.

Neil’s defense when this happens will be popular and is usually effective. It still ignores reality, and validates an irresponsible political strategy that will not only get people killed, but tear this country apart.


26 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “After The Brooklyn Cop Murders, The Sound Of Spinning: WindyPundit Takes On My ‘Smear'”

  1. I guess my question, Neil, is if you believe that the consistent message bears any culpability at all. To expand a little… If you believe that nothing the media or politicians say or do can have causal effects on people’s actions… Then why do they speak? Of course their voices influence people. And we expect this on at least some level. It’s illegal to make bomb threats on a plane, for instance. (And your argument as it would be applied to this situation is “It’s not my fault everyone panicked, I just said there’s a bomb in luggage.) So at what point does speech carry responsibility?

    I think the line involves understanding reasonable responses to what we say. Is it reasonable that when facing the rhetoric that they have been, the black community might feel like police officers are out to get them? Is it reasonable to expect them to defend themselves from that perceived threat?

    We may disagree. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to think that and do that when faced with the information that they are given.

  2. In the parallel of the 1990’s OKC bombing, you left out the deplorable conduct of the ATF and FBI leading up to the bombing. They were a huge motivator of the bombing, articulated by the perpetrators in the aftermath.

    Why no parallel today? Yes, the whole “hands up” narrative was completely false. Wilson was exonerated correctly. Not so in NYC. Those officers should have been held to account for standing around while Eric Garner died. The prosecutor who has to work with the police afterwards failed at his job. All of the “good” cops will stand with the union and make sure that the officers involve suffer no consequences from the department.

    • The Ruby Ridge fiasco and the Branch Davidians were the equivalent of the Garner case, indeed—thanks for reminding me. But Garner, standing alone, would not have got the officers killed, in all likelihood. Martin and Brown were linked to Garner by Holder, Sharpton, the protesters and others like the Holy Trinity, though Brown was killed in Missouri, and Martin wasn’t killed by a cop.

  3. This is a bit of a tangent. Please keep in mind that some people were concerned about evidence of police abuse and failure to be held accountable for it well before these three events, and continue to think that’s the real issue now. It’s reasonable for them to continue making that their focus. I put myself into this group. Our fellow travellers on specific incidents and who turned it into a race based media frenzy are NOT being honest when they try to retreat to pure police violence, but at least some people can legitimately try to refocus on that. Of course, the ones focused on police abuse in general also didn’t whip people up into a frenzy about it.

    Just to keep it clear, I don’t think George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are evidence of police abuse, although there’s a lot to dislike about how the ferguson PD handled pretty much everything after the shooting. Garner is, and the chokehold versus submission hold dispute ignores the fact that the level of violence used was not warranted, regardless of what policies say. I hate it when people hide behind policy as if that makes it ok. The policies ARE the problem to a large extent, although police willingness to lie and overlook bad cops certainly don’t help. This isn’t responsive to anything Jack has said, just to the general sorts of arguments I see from people flailing to defend the cops in Garner’s case.

    I don’t think most cops are directly abusive. However, as near as I can tell, most cops do work with the blue wall of science. Consider what happens to good cops who actually try to do something about the overtly bad cops they work with.

    I feel like the above is a little disjointed, but i don’t have time to fix it up further.

    • You leave out the police unions culpability in this. Departments will attempt to deal with overzealous officers but are stopped by the unions.
      Much of the overheated blowback is coming from the unions too.

      • Yeah, I think the real issue for a lot of people isn’t so much the merits of one specific case or another, but that when cops who clearly went over the line are protected, it ends up creating a situation where even good cops become targets of suspicion, regardless of the facts on the ground. Which of course just makes actual law enforcement work harder (since we certainly can’t pull any CCP/Soviet style tactics here). Add race to that mix, and you sometimes can’t even talk about ways to reduce police abuses in general without having people accuse you of trying to cover up racism. I suppose this is my “curses on you all” moment here.

      • Guess I’m my own worst critic. It just felt similar to stream of consciousness writing (not quite of course, since I can’t help editing as I write), where every tangent I thought of got added in, even if it wasn’t actually necessary or didn’t quite fit where I added it at

  4. Jack:
    “Yet, suddenly, it’s the rhetoric that gets called into question, not the madman who man manipulated it to fit his own twisted worldview.”

    To me if we extended Neil’s argument to its logical conclusion he is suggesting that we can never know why or what drives people to commit violence. As such, he is arguing that there can be no racism because they are only manipulating racist rhetoric to fit his/her own world view.

    We are not born insensitive or racially polarized we become that way through learning. When I learned to add and subtract I was taught by an adult how to come to the correct answer. I followed their lead and they validated my correct work or told me when I was doing something incorrectly. If I had had a teacher that could neither add nor subtract and validated as correct all my wrong answers then I would continue to arrive at the wrong conclusions.

    Hate groups simply reinforce learned behavior. When the young are consistently exposed to only one line of thinking they adopt that line of thinking right or wrong even when they have never personally experienced some event or behavior by another. This is especially true if the opposing point of view is antithetical to the group culture or might impose a personal cost. Challenging the group culture often results in social ostracization

    The rational mind will accept as truth that which allows the person to be rewarded. If an individual is consistently fed propaganda and it allows that person to feel success in the body of the peer group then they will accept it as truth. When the President, Holder or DiBlasio stated that they too understood the fear of police it simply validated in people, who find the police objectionable, a reason to distrust or despise them and further reinforced a common understanding within the affected population subgroup. What the politicians and other respected members of the community have done is simply validate a belief that works for their constituency.

    With politicians, it is a co-dependent relationship. We must remember that politicians are people too. They not always leaders and looking out for us. Far too often they are simply looking for a way to be more popular which gets them votes, money, power and prestige. A good analogy is that of the Enron executives and the shareholders of the corporation. The provided less than reliable information telling the shareholders all would be great while they systematically enriching themselves at the expense of the real owners of the firm. The shareholders mad erroneous decisions based on purposely misleading information.

    In our society we are the shareholders and we elect the executives to advance our interests. In Enron, the long term interest of the organization were supplanted by the short term interests of the executives. What we are witnessing is the equivalent of Enron’s executive deceit by our elected and appointed “executives for the purpose of personal power and influence that ultimately translates into money income because of that accumulated power.

    With that said, no amount of positive communications by the police department will change entrenched attitudes in the communities they serve. Chanting demands for justice will fall on deaf ears within the justice system when they are spat upon and reviled by the chanters. It will be incumbent on the opinion leaders and local persons of real influence in the affected communities and police forces to change the narrative from the cops are against us to the cops are in our community to help us/them. The only people that can change attitudes are the people that are currently trusted.

    To achieve any positive result It will require that the community cannot close ranks to protect a known felon simply because he is one of them. Mothers and fathers need to question where their son or daughter got the money to pay for goods that they know their kids would not have had the resources to obtain. Members of the community that want safe streets must be willing to work with law enforcement to identify problem people. The police, teenagers and others should begin by simply starting saying good morning to each other when they encounter each other. In short, both sides need to know that they have each other’s back in the process of making the community a successful one. There are many simple solutions to building trust but they all require a first step in showing some willingness to believe in the trustworthiness of the other.

    To sum up, every person needs to remember that respect is earned and not an inalienable right.

  5. I believe respect for one’s life and humanity IS an inalienable right.
    I have commented previously concerning the need for police and community members to work together in the process of building trusting relationships. Here’s a professional group that seeks to achieve this end:
    I have studied and endorse the book “Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect” that lays out the foundation of their approach.
    I have recently reminded a number of police trainers and administrators that while there is need for new approaches and more appropriate behavior among all the stakeholders, the only part of the equation that the police community can directly change is ourselves. This is where we must begin, and soon.

    • If the message of this project is that “you will have to be the grownups”, then it might be a good thing. If it suggests that police share a significant portion of the blame for things as they are between them and inner-city blacks, then I assure you this is doomed to fail. To wit:”We Believe
      The best cops and genuine leaders have always lived this out, but processes in the police culture have eroded this type of leadership, exposing a layer of fear, cynicism and mistrust.”

  6. I, however, am correct when I conclude that Obama and others have created an environment where African Americans fear and distrust the police, the justice system, and their fellow citizens who happen to be white more than any period since the Civil Rights movement.

    No, you give them too much credit; they lack even that sort of creativity. Do you recall the saying attributed to the late Mayor Daley of Chicago, “the police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve it”? These people did not create that environment, they preserved it.

    For that reason among others, I agree with Neil Dorr and disagree with you: you are confounding what is at most a symptom that adds to and spreads harm with the more fundamental causes of the harm (e.g., in this particular case, the culprit appears to have personally experienced police misbehaviour; if he “merely” responded violently to that but perceived it as part of something wider, then presented his response as part of that wider thing, the wider thing is not causal for this particular violence but something that helps spread this particular violence further).

    Hyping racism for political gain and spreading false narratives to frighten and inflame the passions of African Americans is far, far worse than demonizing big government—because there is so much in the past and present of American race relations that justifies suspicion.

    That is a faulty analysis that could well lead to faulty counter-measures; it supposes that these things are done wittingly, which could lead to trying to counter hypocrites and liars by telling them and showing them that they have been found out (“It still ignores reality, and validates an irresponsible political strategy that will not only get people killed, but tear this [not actually ‘this’, for me] country apart”). But fools are more common than knaves, and the system has generally selected for useful idiots who genuinely believe that sort of thing; as there is no cure for stupidity bar the final one, the proper counter is not to show them what is what but to show that to the wider public, so changing the selection incentives of the system (though it would take quite a while for the current batch of enabled useful idiots to wash out of the levers of power – it’s no quick fix). Of course, once in a while there is a knowing demagogue, like Huey Long of “the time has come for all good men to rise above principle”, but within the wider context of useful idiots it still makes more sense to isolate such demagogues by taking away the water so that the fish die than to tell them they have been found out; as long as they are still fooling enough of the people enough of the time, they haven’t been found out in any material way (think Clinton, to name but one).

  7. Jim:

    I toyed with the idea of allowing for unconditional respect for life but could not get past the problem in our society that we do not grant unconditional respect for all life. The Supreme Court has said that some life can be destroyed at will. I did not want to go there.

    I reviewed the link and I think it is a good first step but it is aimed at police and not the community at large.

    From the site you referenced:
    As a result of extensive research, observation and personal experience, Chip Huth and Jack Colwell believe that cycles of blame and mistrust between officers and community members persist because of personal schemas (mental maps) that collide during community member/officer encounters.

    I agree 100 % with that statement. In fact it validates my thesis. But the collision of personal schemas or mental maps he mentions takes place when opposing schemas collide. These schemas as described are a learned behavior as I pointed out. If you automatically assume that a set of circumstances is of a suspicious nature, it is because you learned it somewhere or from someone that you trust. If you are taught that someone will lie to you then you expect a lie and treat it as such without thinking.

    I don’t know how you define respect but to me I define it as deference to another based upon some attribute, capability or behavior that warrants such deference. I can respect the ideals of life and humanity but that may not translate to any specific individual beyond helping them in life threatening situations. I can respect the ideal that all should be treated equally but I also understand that we are not all equal in terms of our abilities or how we use those abilities. As such, I may try an untested idea from someone with no experience in a matter but he/ she is not entitled to some form of deference to that idea. I can grant life respect to an older person but that does not mean that I must give deference to his/her ideas that are dismissive of others. I think there is a great deal of difference in trying to understand why a person acts or behaves in a given manner and granting unconditional respect to that person. I just cannot come to believe that I should unconditionally respect the actions and thoughts of people like Charles Manson, Huey Newton, Huey Long and a long, long list other social miscreants.

    The reason I believe that respect for any individual is not unconditional is that I believe that people are responsible for their own behaviors. I cannot respect someone that squanders their ability to think for themselves. I cannot respect someone that has no respect for others rights. I cannot respect someone that demands that others do for them. I cannot respect another who has no respect or compassion for someone else. I have negative respect for those that prey upon and sacrifice the ignorant to gain power. We have kids getting gunned down because someone felt “disrespected”. We have bastardized the definition of respect.

    While I can respect a person’s right to live life as he/she chooses so long as it comports with established social norms and standards and does not infringe on other’s ability to live as they choose, I am under no obligation to respect or give deference to anyone as an individual if his/her behavior or actions do not warrant such deference.

    I have no problem extending a hand in friendship but if there is no outstretched hand with similar goodwill as a motive coming back toward me then it is impossible to reach a mutual understanding and agreement. More importantly, that failure by the other reinforces my distrust. My premise is that real leaders will expend political capital by demanding from themselves and their constituencies that they should view the behavior of the opposition from their own lens and not how the outside activists/brothers in blue tell them to interpret the behavior. My suggestion was that both sides do some simple and harmless goodwill gestures first.

    When the Michael Brown incident was a main topic here I stated that Michael Brown would be alive today if the encounter went like this: Wilson: Young man, for your safety and others please don’t walk in the middle of the street. Brown: Sure thing officer, have a great day. It was the demand for unconditional respect from both sides that ultimately cased the situation to devolve into chaos.

    • You put that all on Brown for the tone of the exchange. Given that one of the two participants is dead, I do not take Wilson’s word on how the exchange went.

      It matters not for criminality – once Brown assaulted Wilson and attempted to take Wilson’s sidearm, there is no criminality on Wilson’s part. We also don’t need to rely on Wilson’s testimony, as the evidence backs his account of the event.

      What happened prior does go to Wilson’s fitness as an officer. The exchange may have started as you suggest. But do not consider it impossible that the exchange started with “Get your n***er a** out of the street boy”

      You can count on the fact that many African Americans think the latter.

      • Yeah, I’ve heard this before, and the fact is, that is pure, PURE bias and speculation. Eugene Robinson, the Post columnist, said thes same thing: he chose to believe Brown’s habitually lying and loyal friend, rather than believe a law enforcement professional would act like one. Why? Because it fits the narrative, because it’s anti-police, and gives Brown some semblance of an excuse to act like an asshole.

        • The appropriate response to the claim should be “so what” though. Unless the officer is threatening you with murder, you don’t try to grab his gun. 9 times out of 10 you’re going to end up like Brown, and the officer won’t be charged. That 1 in 10 where you succeed will send you to the execution chamber if you survive the manhunt.

          The appropriate response is what Chris said below: Report it, and if possible record it and report it.

  8. Matthew
    Please read carefully. What I stated should have been the appropriate verbal exchange not some conjecture of what took place.

    If the exchange began as get your N*** A** out of the street boy then Mr. Brown should have said OK, took note of the patrol car’s number and reported the incident as harassment. If not satisfied he should contact his alderman or councilperson in Ferguson and elevated the issue. If remained unsatisfied he could then have written a pointed letter to the editor of the local paper outing the officer and the department’s actions. That is what responsible citizens do when they are adversely affected by overzealous police officers. I don’t think this is too much to ask.

    How do I know, because that is what I did when I was pulled over by Frederick County MD police after leaving a nightclub. Given that I don’t drink, the claim that an air of alcohol about me was pure BS. However, I also know that most impaired people, when stopped will lie about the amount of alcohol consumed. My issue was not with the statement about alcohol but the fact that he claimed my lights were not on and that is why he stopped me. That was a pretext because my vehicle’s lights are designed to come on when dark. There was no probable cause for the stop, just a demand by the community to reduce drunk drivers. In this case, I got a statement from the dealer that the car’s lighting system was operational, that they cannot be manually shutoff by the driver and I went to court. After the judge reprimanded the officer he approached me and offered an apology. I accepted it and told him that ends don’t justify the means. I let it go after that. What I did not do was decide that I would fight the officer on the street.

    Overzealous police action is a reaction to community wide demand for eliminating a known hazard. The problem the police face is they cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys all the time and the bad guys like it that way.

    • The ubiquity of the cell phone camera is rapidly eliminating the ability of the few remaining racist cops to hide. Complaining to the local officials and news media might work. Sending off a video to every news station most certainly will.

  9. A Fox affiliate in Baltimore aired a segment on Sunday showing footage from a “Justice For All” demonstration in Washington, D.C. in which it edited a chant to sound like protestors were shouting “kill a cop.”

    “At this rally in Washington, D.C. protestors chanted, ‘we won’t stop, we can’t stop, so kill a cop,'” the WBFF broadcast said.

    But the full footage, flagged by Gawker on Monday via C-SPAN, revealed that the chant was “we won’t stop, we can’t stop, ’til killer cops are in cell blocks.”

    • Ok, so what solutions regarding inner city violence do you suggest?

      Will black, white and other inner city youths abandon the gangsta couture and get an education and respect the property assets of the school system?

      Will the black community stop calling people who are succeeding and assimilating into the mainstream economic system “Uncle Toms” when they challenge conventional black wisdom?

      Will the black community leaders hold the black school superintendents and their administration accountable for the physical decay of the infrastructure and the failure of black youths to succeed academically? This includes elected black leaders.

      Will the residents of housing projects turn in the dealers that poison their communities and not allow them to take refuge in their homes?

      Will inner city parents work to find out if their kids are in possession of illegal firearms which could get them killed and turn those weapons over to the police.

      Will the parents of kids begin questioning the activities of their sons and daughters when the kids are seen in possession of expensive vehicles, gold jewelry, electronics and other goods that they know that the kids do not have the resources to obtain legitimately – and then do something about it?

      Will inner city women and girls stop entering into sexual relationships with men simply because they provide them resources and status gained from illegal activities? Will the young men start taking responsibility for their own sexual behavior? These men need to be fathers not just baby daddies – there is a big difference between the two

      Will the people residing in the inner cities demand their kids stop tagging other people’s property with spray paint – and punish them when they do? I don’t care if it is “art” they can’t paint my property unless I allow it.

      Will the inner city residents work to keep their neighborhoods clean of litter and other signs of lack of respect for their own environment?

      Will the inner city parents demand their kids spend more time studying then loitering on street corners.

      If you want jobs for these people what are you doing to create some? Why should it someone else’s responsibility to risk his/her capital to do so? Tell me why I should risk my money to create employment in those communities when, from learned experience, that have a higher risk of losing money, being robbed or killed in those communities by the people that live there than in other communities that don’t have the signs of social and physical decay.

      Finally tell me why I should help a community when the residents don’t want me there?

      Maybe if the protesters started chanting when the murder of an white, black, Asian shopkeeper occurs at the hands of some of the “hoods” youth, demanding that we put the youth in cell blocks I might be willing to take the risk of investing in those communities and create a few jobs. Until that happens I’ll invest elsewhere.

      There you have it my honest conversation about how I feel.

      • No to all of the above. Never. I believe it’s impossible, and not just because of politics or cultural momentum. It’s Christmas day, and there’s no way that I could find the time right now to tell you why I think so. My reasons primarily have to do with the 4 year stint in state prison I recently admitted on this site to doing. They are substantial and, I think, compelling, but it will take some doing to articulate them without being summarily dismissed as a racist (I’m definitely not).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.