“Never on a Sunday” just doesn’t apply to the ethics biz.
Historical note: in 1960, the English language version of the title song from the hist Greek comedy “Never on a Sunday” was constantly on the radio. My friends were singing it; the song won the Oscar for Best Song. Nobody seemed to mind, or bothered to tell all the kids singing the cheerful earworm, that the song was about a prostitute who wouldn’t accept payment to be boinked on a Sunday. The translated song’s word “kiss” was a euphemism.
1. That bastion of ethics, California! Senator Kamala Harris has come under fire for pursuing aggressive prosecution policies while California Attorney General, in stark contrast to he campaign rhetoric regarding mass incarceration of minorities. Now the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has removed many of the more controversial arrest records during her term in office. from the Washington Free Beacon:
The department removed public access to a number of reports on incarceration in the state, including when presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D.) was California’s attorney general. Twice a year, the CDCR releases information about the number of new individuals incarcerated in the California prison system as part of its “Offender Data Points” series. These reports provide important information on demographics, sentence length, offense type, and other figures relevant to criminal justice and incarceration.Until recently, these reports were publicly available at the CDCR’s website. A search using archive.org’s Wayback Machine reveals that as of April 25, 2019—the most recent indexed date—ODP reports were available dating back to the spring of 2009. As of August 2019, the same web page now serves only a single ODP report, the one for Spring 2019. The pre-2019 reports have been removed….the reports contain information about Harris’s entire time as state A.G., 2011 to 2017.
As John Travolta memorably says in “Face-Off”: “What a coinky-dink!”
Is this a partisan abuse of power designed to keep information away from the public and the media in support of favored candidate? It is. An ethical recipient of this assistance would condemn it and demand the State records be restored. In this case, however, it would be more in character for Harris to have requested the purge.
2. Another shooting, another misleading stat. Today’s shooting in Dayton, coming right on top of last week’s El Paso Walmart massacre, has revived the “mass shooting a day” trope that was used repeatedly in 2018. Thus USA Today wrote today that there have been 250 “mass shootings” in 216 days this year. That’s deliberately misleading and deceitful.
The trick seems to be based on the non-partisan Mass Shooting Tracker, which uses the definition of “mass shooting” that includes any time four or more individuals are shot, excluding the shooter. Thus the number is inflated with gang shoot-outs, domestic violence, and incidents like this one, from a high-crime section of President Trump’s favorite city, Baltimore, last month:
“Police responded to a triple shooting in Northwest Baltimore late Saturday that left two males with serious injuries. Shortly before 10:30 p.m., police were dispatched to the 2800 block of Boarman Avenue for a shooting. They found three males with gunshot wounds. One victim was shot in the leg, an injury that was not life-threatening.”
Do you think of the Gunfight at the OK Corral as a mass shooting? It was by the USA Today standard, though only three men were killed. Two of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday were shot, so it was a “mass shooting.”
When media outlets and politicians point to a true mass shooting like the one in El Paso, where 20 died and many were wounded by a madman, and say “this is the 250th Mass shooting this year,” that sounds like “we have had 250 shootings like this in 2019.”
And that’s what you are supposed to think. All the better to scare you into giving up your right to personal protection.
3. Teddy Roosevelt and “Mr. Dooley.” In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “The Bully Pulpit,” she tells the story of how Finley Peter Dunne, the social critic, pundit and humorist who wrote in the voice of the fictional Irish barfly, “Mr. Dooley,” wrote a scathing review of then New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt’s account of his exploits in the Spanish American War, “The Rough Riders.” Dunne mocked Teddy as representing the war as a virtual one-man triumph, and suggested that the book would be better titled, “Alone in Cuba.”
Roosevelt wrote him soon after, saying, “I regret to state that my family and intimate friends are delighted with your review of my book. Now I think you owe me one; and I shall expect that when you next come east you pay me a visit. I have long wanted the chance of making your acquaintance.” They eventually met at the Republican Convention in 1900, and Roosevelt handed him a news scoop: he would accept the nomination as President McKinley’s running mate.
They remained friends and correspondents even though Dunne, as Dooley, continued to lampoon Teddy. Dunne wrote later, “I never knew a man with a keener humor or one who could take a joke on himself with better grace.”
This is the mark of both a secure and a wise leader, as well as one with a sense of humor and proportion. We have had few such leaders, and fewer such Presidents. Imagine how much better off President Trump would be if he had treated critics like Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee the way Teddy treated Dunne. Imagine how much better off we all would be.
4. What? Young female athletes handed off by their parents to adult coaches and into unsupervised interaction with older male athletes are often sexually abused? How could that be? Three-time United States skating champion and Olympic meal winner Ashley Wagner said this week John Coughlin, a male figure skater who commited suicide in January, had sexually assaulted her when she was 17. (Wagner is 28 now.) Writes the Times, “The accusations have further raised concerns that the dynamics of figure skating feed a culture in which young women are all too vulnerable.”
Gee, ya think? It is, has been and will always be irresponsible parenting to send young athletes out of parental oversight into the clutches of strangers because the parents lust for vicarious fame and direct fortune. At best, even if they avoid the molestation that is too common to ignore, they have been deposited into an unhealthy life path. Today’s Times recounts the story of how young Natalie Wood, being showcased to Hollywood studios by her aggressive stage-mother, was raped twice at an audition when she was 16. Her mother never reported it, lest Natalie be blackballed by the many Harvey Weinsteins in the industry. Women’s sports are no different.
As child star activist Paul Petersen wrote in the only guest post ever to appear here,
“In the Common Law, children are the property of their parents who, in law, “are entitled to the custody, income and services” of the child. The presumption is that parents will not willfully take advantage of their child’s vulnerability, and their inability to disobey. Sadly, the reality faced by children in today’s world is at odds with this presumption.”
This is a much a child endangerment problem as a sexual predator problem.
38 thoughts on “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 8/4/2019: Mass Shootings, Teddy’s Grace, Skaters’ Peril, California’s Cheat”
Be prepared for that bit of dishonesty to be followed by all the others (“the NRA doesn’t allow guns at its convention”, “there’s an epidemic rise of gun violence”, etc…). Of course, there will also be calls for more of the same tried, failed, and useless approaches to ameliorating these types of incidents, that mostly involve blaming, and restricting the rights of, the sane and law-abiding.
There may even be a new focus on “white nationalism”, which wouldn’t be surprising, as it could aid in efforts to restrict “unapproved’ speech. One bit of restriction that likely won’t be seriously considered is, rather than plastering information all over the media, that of burying the name and information of the shooters to rob them of the notoriety they seek. I did heat one (conservative) pundit this morning say he refused to mention the criminal’s name or information…good for him!
William Reese writes” There may even be a new focus on “white nationalism”, which wouldn’t be surprising, as it could aid in efforts to restrict “unapproved’ speech. One bit of restriction that likely won’t be seriously considered is, rather than plastering information all over the media, that of burying the name and information of the shooters to rob them of the notoriety they seek. I did hear one (conservative) pundit this morning say he refused to mention the criminal’s name or information…good for him!”
The two events, though concurrent in time, did not arise out of the same motivation. The El Paso massacres were, if the ‘manifesto’ is real, very definitely the work of a white nationalist. You can find that manifesto here. If you go to that website’s main page you can find some information about the Ohio killer. Very different motive (if the info is correct).
In my view — and I locate myself within ‘philosophical distance’ and not within activism (this sort of thing must be stated so there is no confusion and the event can be talked about dispassionately) — what the El Paso event represents is a manifestation of a causal line between ‘consciousness of dispossession’ and, at the same time, the sort of ‘radicalization’ that is spoken about and which entities like Google have tried/are trying to curtail.
Therefore and from that perspective it is likely a sound idea, from the perspective of people who need to hide the truth from themselves about what is going on in the present and who hope that will amount to a solution, not to mention the killer’s name nor of course to publish his manifesto either in part or in whole. However, if you or they or we or anyone actually hopes to deal rationally with the ‘concerns’ of this individual, what that individual is thinking and why he is thinking it had best be understood.
And the only way to understand him — and the thousands and possibly millions who share his views though I hope they would not take such radical steps — is to fully deal with what he says. Because as I have been saying for over 5 years now there is a new, radical and powerful movement that is developing which is confronting the ‘liberal constructs’ and the structures created in the Postwar.
I think I can say with confidence that those who are opinion leaders on the American New Right do not in any sense support nor hope for these sorts of incidents (say Greg Johnson or Jared Taylor as prime examples). They do not work to the advantage of those who are working in conservative social arenas. Yet they do offer an *explanation* of them.
And that explanation is that forced multiculturalism (attempting to create a national model based in the idea of unity), forced ethnic blending and the like is not, in any sense of the word, ‘our strength’ but rather a recipe for social conflict. The conflicts that are manifesting now arise from and are caused by a series of bad choices made by the upper echelons in government and the academia and the régime that has intellectual control in America. All of this was foreseen by right-leaning radical activists back in the 60s and 70s. I say this having made an effort to research the roots of these present events and the ideas standing behind them.
Not mentioning the killer’s name, nor referring rationally to his ideas and concerns, only seems like a good choice. One way or the other these ideas are becoming disseminated in society. It began with HRC as she made her announcement. As the Media Systems have tried to put a damper on it, or spin it as they will, it has only seemed to increase the dissemination.
I read the manifesto you linked to. I have serious questions about the validity of authorship. This screed is far too perfect in both neo nazi talking points and grammar. Further it lacks the usual rambling text typically associated with such treatises.
What I read suggests more of a person believing he is acting in self defense (his belief not mine). The experts who have been paraded across the networks say that these hate crimes occur when perpetrators view targets as sub human. Nothing in this screed suggests he believes his target were sub human but in actuality his statements indicate he feels he is defending something near and dear to him.
The clarity and precision of his alleged messaging speaks to substantial amounts of editorial control.
I forgot to add that writing requires practice to achieve the level of grammatical and rhetorical precision demonstrated in this manifesto. Therefore, there must be other writings known to be associated with the ElPaso assailant that can be compared to the alleged manifesto.
A couple of thoughts . . .
There is nothing that is in any sense Nazi or neo-Nazi in that piece of writing. It is an important point to to distinguish.
Whoever wrote that is voicing a ‘white nationalist’ or ‘ethno-nationalist’ position with some anti-corporate condemnation mixed in. Also a bit of environmental protection rhetoric. Neither was there anything noticeably white supremacist in the manifesto. (Though perhaps other writing will surface).
I can understand and respect your other suspicions.
Point taken on the neo nazi reference. I should have more precise. Your term white nationalism is better in terms of the screed in question.
Nonetheless, the writing suggests an irrational self defense excuse. The author complains that what he considers rightfully is is being taken away. In short he feels he is being marginalized.
Nonetheless, the writing suggests an irrational self defense excuse. The author complains that what he considers rightfully is is being taken away. In short he feels he is being marginalized.
I might suggest that if you wish to understand that perspective you could review The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson. It is this book, read by every marginal and fringe actor, and many who are not, that is in many senses the ideological fuel feeding a reactionary engine.
The notion of the rational and the irrational is very interesting, and certainly when one examines the European Interwar period (my present focus). My argument is that we are in the same swamp or morass of ideological confusion, or put another way an ‘octave’ of the same material.
All religious motives are ‘irrational’. They stem out of metaphysical ideas, and metaphysical ideas include human ideas about life & value that are non-rational. If you have a ‘revelation’ as an internal, psychic event, it is the very essence of the irrational.
It is really the ‘irrational’ that we have to pay attention to. Take for example this lovely bit of Blake:
“This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”
I am not completely sure but Blake could be seen as one of the original fonts of romanticism. And romanticism is irrational. If you only see with the ‘eye’ you see as a machine and believe a lie.
But when you see through the eye … he proposes … one sees truly. What does he mean?
Oh dear, things get difficult from that point on! 🙂
In the Times there is an article: In El Paso Suspect’s An Echo of Trump’s Language. In one part it says:
“But if Mr. Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.”
What a curious statement. It is amazing that *they* can say such a thing and believe it. As far as I am able to tell the largest part of the polarizing language has been in the mouths of the Progressive Left. It was HRC who brought into the public conversation precisely what had been ‘fringe’. The ‘Alt-Right’ actually rejoiced.
It is interesting to me that *they* do not wish to see things as they really are. They are advocating for a New America (a further evolution of the America they desire) and this is, even if they do not wish to recognize it, a radical action, a radical plan. That radical plan has deep causal roots as anyone should know who has read their literature. They just happen to feel that *they* have moral right on their side. It is like religious certainty.
If there is a developing nationalist mood, with ethnic undertones, it is only fair to say that it has come about as a defensive posture.
It is true that there have been many precursors who articulated white national ideals. Back in the 60s and 70s for example. It is also true that they were ‘fringe’.
But it is absolutely not correct to say, nor to believe, that Trump has brought all of this out of the woodwork. It is fair to say if anything that he is exploiting it though, and it seems for his own purposes, whatever they are.
However it does seem to be solidly true that the radical activism of the American progressive left has tremendously added to the polarization which is manifesting. It is odd that *they* do not recognize this. I suppose the reason is that they see what they do as being absolutely morally right. Therefore it need not be questioned.
The article further says:
“Democratic presidential candidates wasted little time on Sunday pointing the finger at Mr. Trump, arguing that he had encouraged extremism with what they called hateful language.”
Right. There you have a clear example of their *polarizing*. I can’t think of anything more polarizing. I guess that is how it works: keep accusing the other side of doing what you yourself are doing.
Sorry, the article is titled: In El Paso Suspect’s Manifesto An Echo of Trump’s Language.
“If there is a developing nationalist mood, with ethnic undertones, it is only fair to say that it has come about as a defensive posture.”
I think there you have it, in a nutshell. Very concisely done, for you 😉
I see your point, Ali (tell me if you dislike that address; I think it’s fun), but also worry that there are two conflicting considerations that arise here. One might loosely refer to them as the general vs the specific, and I think you recognize that in what you wrote. e.g.:
“I think I can say with confidence that those who are opinion leaders on the American New Right do not in any sense support nor hope for these sorts of incidents (say Greg Johnson or Jared Taylor as prime examples). They do not work to the advantage of those who are working in conservative social arenas.”
In this case, the specific consideration is that, for a number of reasons, it would be good if these specific types of crimes could be reduced. There appears to be a craving for fame and notoriety that motivates the copycat aspect of these incidents, whatever their issues. Wanting to suppress that infamy and so reduce the incentive for these particular acts is not necessarily the same as wanting to hide from whatever truth there might be as to what other underlying factors may exist.
The general concern is that there are many who, whether or not they think of or call it “white nationalism”, believe, to a greater or lesser degree, that what might be described as a sort of general “traditional northern European ethos” is a superior model for society. The major controlling media, in large part, falls into, or off the end of, the “lesser” part of this spectrum. “One way or the other these ideas are becoming disseminated in society.” …And if it’s mostly “one way”, then this will be a Pyrrhic victory for those who want these ideas rationally considered. So, a conundrum… Yes, there needs to be an understanding of what pushes this person, or others with similar beliefs, to act at all, and whether Greg Johnson or Jared Taylor, et al., have some valid concerns that should be addressed, but it needs to be done in such a way that their ides will actually be heard and considered. Media bias and the influence of the left in other ways already puts them at a disadvantage. If their concerns, valid or not, can be overwhelmingly conflated with the acts of a few mass murderers, don’t expect them to receive the same types of reviews or efforts at understanding that might be granted to, for example, minority activists or Islamic groups.
(I have a feeling I probably haven’t accurately conveyed what I truly wished to express here, so you may see why I typically keep my comments fairly short, or just make some snide quip.)
Willem Reese writes: “Yes, there needs to be an understanding of what pushes this person, or others with similar beliefs, to act at all, and whether Greg Johnson or Jared Taylor, et al., have some valid concerns that should be addressed, but it needs to be done in such a way that their ides will actually be heard and considered. Media bias and the influence of the left in other ways already puts them at a disadvantage. If their concerns, valid or not, can be overwhelmingly conflated with the acts of a few mass murderers, don’t expect them to receive the same types of reviews or efforts at understanding that might be granted to, for example, minority activists or Islamic groups.”
My view — from ‘philosophical distance’ I wish to stress — is that there seems to be no functional way for the ideas of Johnson or Taylor to be ‘heard’ or considered. It seems to me that if there were, say, a university course offered on the topic of the American radical right, and if all the material available were seriously considered, that the core argument of these radicals would gain ground, and this would be unacceptable.
The way I see it is to propose that a ‘new ideology of America’ was devised in the Postwar (I know, I have said this a hundred times) and this is the foundation of simply everything. The new ideology is part of the new economy, new political alliances, a new anthropology and view of man, and these ideas are part of what people are referring to when they speak of ‘globalization’ under the American aegis.
I cannot imagine how this new metaphysics — and it really is metaphysical — could be reversed. Put another way it seems to me that ‘the powers that be’ (those who have standing and determining power within the existing systems) could not allow a movement to arise and gain ground that is founded in ideas so contrary to its own. That is why I tend to see the origin of conflict as being located in *idea*.
I admit to a certain embarrassment in trying to make clear what I perceive as the *root* of these conflicts. That is because it does — it really does — stem from the European Interwar Period. The perceptions I have and the ideas I work with and present become very unsavory in certain ears since I see Americanism as part of the problem, but the New Americanism that was defined in the Postwar. It is an amalgamation of or an incorporation of socialist-communist notions and, as I say, of anthropology. The Progressive Left in America today seems to incline toward a deviant leftist expression becoming more and more radical and outrageous by the day. This is not simple ‘liberalism’ nor is it particularly ‘American liberalism’ of the days-gone-by. It is something else. But how to put a name to it and be fair about it?
So it is this New Left or this new expression of progressive leftism that is asserting itself with tremendous force. They cannot and they will not allow for a counter-conversation to develop. And so they do what they must do, with dubious moral authority but a moral authority that is adamantine, to completely exclude their opponents.
There is a temptation to try to predict where this is going and where it will go. Clearly though, if the Times is taken as an indicator of policy, there is now beginning a paramilitary offensive against those who have views that could be, or are, termed ‘white nationalist’. I am supposing that the ‘political center’ in the country will not oppose this though it will involve Draconian measures that are anti-Constitutional.
I do have the sense that this countering movement will be conducted by the same government structure that has every interest in supporting and maintaining the New America (as Americanopolis) that I criticize. So, as they do take their steps, and these steps are recognized as Left-Progressive machinations, it will then further drive the opponents of that toward more nationalistic and ethno-nationalist positions.
And within all of that those of us who offer our ideas and opinions, from our various ideological perspectives, will ourselves find ourselves in conflict. (Sorry, that did not end very elegantly).
It goes back to What America? What is America? Who does it belong to?
Greg Johnson comments on El Paso
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.
I am suspicious of this rush to judgement that the shooters were adherents to some white supremacy ideology.
I would think it would be necessary to corroberate the allegations. I find it odd that these shooters only have created one manefesto. Like many of us here we comment regularly so why do we not see a litany of their writings? Instead, we learn of a couple of tweets or facebook posts along with this magnum opus created for the evil event.
Is it possible that some crazed social justice warrior creates these memes to advance the cause. Could we be being manipulated such that these screeds are being misinterprete?
After listening to the “experts” discuss the behavior of hate I must conclude that getting to the point you see people as “sub-human” requires a psychological building process that requires continual reinforcement. That means we should be able to develop a forensic analysis of the person. That cannot be done within hours of the shooting. My worry is that one long diatribe on a subject would be sufficient to label someone a white nationalist and prospective shooter.
“Is it possible that some crazed social justice warrior creates these memes to advance the cause. Could we be being manipulated such that these screeds are being misinterprete?”
Not only possible, but probable.
The 2020 election is right around the corner, and who but the left is unabashedly willing to do ANYTHING to acquire and maintain political power?
(tongue only halfway in cheek) Could be a Russian conspiracy.
1. Democracy Dies in Darkness, after all.
2. It’s the same old stuff. Always a rush to judgment before knowing the motive or even the exact weapon used (though Willem is right in that there will be an emphasis on White Nationalism).
3. I read that book last year. Yes, it would be great to have a President who could take criticism well, but, I’m sure the Trump Deranged would just take a graceful humor as evidence of how dumb he is. When his original sin was winning the election, there is nothing he can do that won’t draw criticism.
4. On the old A Minor Consideration website, I read a quote that sums it up, “Parents of child stars are like rabbits on the highway at night…bright lights blind them.”
Some interesting points to consider: email@example.com
Sorry! I apparently still had the “reply to” email address for MoveOn.org on my clipboard after I replied “kindly fuck off, you opportunistic parasites” to one of their gun control petitions I found in my in-box, most likely before the bodies of the victims had a chance to reach room temperature.
Here’s the link I meant to post
I watched the whole presentation in the video (I did speed it up a little toward the end when I felt I understood his presentation). What interests me — sorry for the detached view — is to observe him cobble together a narrative in order to confront or oppose the narrative that has been established or is being established.
That is, of a young man who wrote a ‘manifesto’ of a white nationalist sort and then went berserk on a spree-killing.
If this event was part of some ‘Ops’ then other events might be as well. Then the object is to attempt to discern ‘why’? and ‘who’s behind it?’
The counter-narrative is interesting though: it is predicated on the idea that the US Government and paramilitary Ops set up this event for purposes of mass manipulation. The same thing has been said — I have watched the videos and done some of the research — about The Oklahoma bombing.
But why would the government do such a thing? To what end and to what purpose? He implies that there is an internal war going on at a governmental level . . . and that Donald Trump in some way is a threat to this established system. He says as much.
What interests me here is the problem that we face of ‘interpretation of our world’ when that ‘world’ is enveloped in shadows. We are forced to guess after cobbling together’ various narratives that seem ‘logical’ or ‘necessary’.
I wouldn’t even hazard a guess, as the answers to that are most likely very complex and far above any of our paygrades. What I do know is that our government has been caught, repeatedly, doing far worse, and yet most of us still, almost reflexively, dismiss out-of-turn any and all theories that deviate from officially-sanctioned propaganda as the ravings of “conspiracy theorists”. Most are, but then again, most effective conspiracies have been cloaked in the chaff of more plausible, but untrue, disinformation of a similar kind. There are very, very powerful players with a heavily-vested interest in disarming this country. I’ve got some interesting documents, including over 20 small-font pages of quotes by very high-profile people who have said this in very plain terms. I’ll put it on my file-sharing software, and provide a link.
1. Forget it, Jack. It’s California.
2. Where would we be if the gun opponents in America couldn’t demagogue the issue with convenient “facts.”
What’s that old saying again… “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure?” Sounds about right.
3. Roosevelt and “Mr. Dooley”
Much better, but of course, Colbert and Bee wouldn’t allow it. Unlike Dunne, those worthies would see any sense of humor by Trump as racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia or white supremacy, and the compliant press would join right in.
Maybe some Americans would think better of him, though — there’s nothing quite so disquieting as an insecure thin-skinned leader with a learning curve as flat as Kansas.
4. Parents living vicariously through their children is always unethical. Who could be surprised when such narcissism results in child abuse?
How could even Mother Theresa have a pleasant conversation with say, Charles Blow or Dana Milbank if she was a just a Republican, never mind Trump?
The likes of Colbert and Bee wouldn’t play along with Trump. They would see that as normalizing him. Remember how much heat Jimmy Fallon took simply for giving him equal treatment as he gave Hillary Clinton, the implication being that it is the obligation of all good people to oppose Trump at all times
It is not always a matter of playing along. It requires having a sense of humor, particularly about oneself.
Best example I can think of offhand would be Reagan. He was secure enough to joke about himself. It does not matter if the press plays along with you if you play along with them.
Could Reagan have done that in the face of the sort of vitriol spewed at Trump? That is hard to say.
Obama also showed some glimmer of that, but, even with media that dawned over him, he still appeared a bit thin-skinned at times.
Then there’s the surprise:
So, in Greek, it’s “You can fuck me on a Monday, etc.” Caramba!
Did you know Patti LaBelle, an earnest gospel singer brought up in church, did not know the meaning of the French and was shocked to find out what she’d been saying when singing the lyrics for “Lady Marmalade?”
I wonder how many songs are like that? “The Yellow Rose of Texas” and “Lilly Marlene” extol prostitutes, for example.
And then there’s “I’m Tired.” Funny about The Yellow Rose of Texas. I think the UT band plays that at football games.
The Yellow Rose is credited in Texas folklore with keeping Santa Anna, er… distracted… such that he allowed his army to camp in a very disadvantageous position.
In effect, the little head overrode the big one.
Didn’t a character played by Bernadette Peters do a rendition of “I’m Tired”?
Two seconds after Googling it, I find out it was Madeline Kahn.
Of course! Not only a version, but THE version: the song was written by Mel Brooks, for the movie, and her. My God, man, you are dangerously unfamiliar with Blazing Saddles!
Stripped of metaphor:
Re 2. For the record, Chicago has logged 4 “mass shootings” as of this post with Sunday still running and the “Monday overtime” yet to happen. This is according to HeyJackass.com, and applying the “4 shot rule” .
I wonder why they bother to distinguish mass shootings from criminal homicide in general.
Why not just focus on criminal homicide?
There is a certain irony in the Democratic establishment pushing for “gun safety” laws. Very recently, they have been campaigning against mass incarceration. They have been saying that law enforcement is racist, that there are so many racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
Funny how all these concerns about mass incarceration and white privilege and racial bias in law enforcement and criminal justice suddenly disappear, when these same people call for more “gun safety” laws.
#2: What’s most astonishing is not the gaming of the definition to inflate the number of “mass shootings”, but the need to subsequently ignore that definition when it comes to analyzing the phenomenon. For if we stick with the definition that gives us 250 mass shootings this year, we’re left with the conclusion the perpetrators are disproportionately black and the preferred weapons are handguns. White nationalists and scary black rifles barely make the radar.
The time has now come for a change of heart. We must all stop opposing the march of progressivism and its ideology, and we must be willing to curtain our own irresponsible ‘speech’ as we become able and willing to turn in to the authorities those people — friends, children, parents — who have given themselves over to hate.
As James Comey said so eloquently: “Only fools believe they can ride the gamma rays of hate.” I’m no fool, though some differ, and I have seen the Light!
During the 1960s, when the nation was in crisis and there were threats on every front, our political police took action against the nefarious actors who threatened the tranquility of the Nation with their revolutionary rhetoric and organization. They were neutralized. Neutralizations were appropriately carried out, so too the age-old tactic of using all the resources of the State against political actors so to tie them up in the courts for years & years as well as to drain their resources.
The State must preserve the State, and though all the means at its disposal.
We must not be unwilling to turn our eyes away when, if only for a moment! the authorities, using paramilitary intelligence and all manner of needed Ops, go after those on both political fringes who destabilize the Nation. The Center is where we must all be, singing patriotic songs and enjoying the fruits of freedom that our forefathers fought so hard to provide to us.
Hard though it is to admit those who rule over us and who dedicate their lives to constructing and upholding the system we live in and which gives us our consumer freedoms, and our cherished political freedoms, and our sexual freedoms and choice of hair color and what-have-you, we must agree to allow them to ‘clean house’ of the malefactors who have abused our democracy so stridently. Shut down the Sites of Hate! Demonetize them. Impoverish those who deal in impoverished ideologies.
America can be returned again to its happy former state and we can all go about the business of living and buying again if we agree to tone it down.
Don’t feel bad informing on your neighbor your spouse or your child if you notice anti-American ideas. The NYTs has set up a convenient switch-board where you can make reports anonymously.
NYT ACLU ADL SPLC USA all the way!
When confronting their gamma rays of hatred be sure to wear the lead vest of patriotism .. and walk proud!
As a first step I have informed on 5-6 who write here.
Sorry! but it’s for the best.