Racism Part 1: The Law and Justice

Watch these three videos, if you can stomach it - they're pretty brutal...
(trigger warning, etc...)

The PUBLIC EXECUTION / POLICE MURDER of John Crawford III:


The DRIVE UP EXECUTION / POLICE MURDER of Tamir Rice:


The CHOKING THE LIFE OUT OF / POLICE MURDER of Eric Garner:


...And then contrast these to Steve Lohner...

...or the KID GLOVE handling of Joesph Houseman:


Seriously?! This obviously, openly, armed, angry, belligerent, RW asshole yells at the cops for almost 10- minutes strait?! Tamir Rice? John Crawford? The cops gunned them down, on sight, in under ONE SECOND.  And I'm supposed to believe that race doesn't play a factor?  I'm supposed to believe that these cops were acting appropriately?!  And then I'm supposed to believe the cop, and the lone, white, racist witness in the Michael Brown case?! BULLSHIT.  This is not only criminal, it's indefensible. The Grand Jury, in every case, didn't see that way, so fuck them.  The Prosecutors consistently shit-canned their own cases, so FUCK THEM.  Gerlado wants to tell me that BLACK PEOPLE are the problem? FUCK HIM. And if you can't recognize the problem here? THEN FUCK YOU.

And if you're still even thinking of telling what a threat these people were, let's not forget that they somehow made the effort to take THIS GUY alive:

James Holmes, remember him? Killed 12 people, was carrying a Shot Gun, a Semi-Automatic Rifle, a Hand gun and Tear Gas Grenades?  Imagine for a moment the mentality it must take to take the time, effort and risk to take this piece of shit alive, and yet the men above had to be put down like dogs in under a second.

Go ahead. Try to argue with me on this.  It's not a question of whether we have a police-state problem, or a race problem, it's only a question of how many people, black AND white (and every other color) need to DIE before something constructive is done about it.


And if you're still skeptical, how about some crushed testicles?

And before anyone wastes any of my time telling me that these are isolated incidents, here is a list of UNARMED Black Men killed by the police since 1999. (And from my own research for past posts, I can assure you that this is FAR from an exhaustive list.)

Oh, and let's not forget that nearly bottomless scum pit of a prosecutor who thought that an abused woman firing a warning shot at her abusive ex-boyfriend deserved SIXTY YEARS in prison for it.
Yeah. No problem with White Privilege or Male Privilege here, is there?  By all means, let's keep "standing our ground."

And even after all that, if you don't understand why they riot, especially in THEIR OWN neighborhoods? Well, THIS GUY explains it, and gives you different perspective on it.  It's his opinion and perspective, not mine, but the more I see of just how much we have a problem with racism in this country, the less inclined I am to judge ANY of these folks.

(And more on all this in my next post.)

(CORRECTION: In the video, I referred to JOSEPH Houseman as JOHN, and JAMES Holmes also as JOHN.  My apologies.)

(After all, the last time anyone saw JOHN Holmes in a theater, he was armed with something completely different.)

Breaking down the stereotypes

Conservatives love to read Liberals' accusations of racism as the Liberals' inability to answer their arguments.  Well, no, the problem is that their arguments do not reflect reality.  They rail against fictitious programs and legislation that never happened, and then ask us to defend it.  We simply call them racist because we can't imagine why else someone would be willing to tell so many lies about this President.  So... Is it possible to criticize a black man and NOT be a racist? Sure.  I've done it to Tom Sowell, Colin Powell, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas MANY times. Me! An OBAMA voter! And I'll do it again:

HERMAN CAIN IS AN IDIOT.

So there are two stereotypes that are struck down: Liberals won't criticize blacks, AND criticising a black makes you a racist!  And if we wins the primary, I bet you'll see a third one struck down: That black people will vote for ANY black candidate!

Here's another one: Liberals want to raise taxes, Conservatives don't.  Well... the first part is more of a misstatement. Liberals don't WANT to raise taxes... We just the only ones who realize that we HAVE TO.  The second part? Is complete and utter baloney sausage.  Conservative ABSOLUTELY want to raise taxes. They just want to raise them on the poor and middle class - that mythical "47% of American who pays no taxes!"

And this isn't even an issue of raising taxes versus raising revenue - you like that old Laffable Curve suggests?  This 9-9-9 plan of Cain's that everyone "loves" because it's so simple? Is nothing more than a tax increase on the rest of us.

So what... is this class warfare?

I couldn't tell you. Class Warfare seems to be whatever the Right wants it to be.  So let use MATH to call it what it it: A TAX INCREASE.

Well, what's the problem? I though Liberals wanted to raise taxes?! What is it so much better to tax the rich a little more, when you've got people who aren't putting in?

OK... I'm sure I don't have to dignify that question with a response, for any of my regular readers. But if you're new, or Conservative, here's why:

BECAUSE THE RICH CAN AFFORD IT.  Because taxing the rich will have -ZERO- impact on their spending decisions whilst taxing ANYONE ELSE will have direct impact on theirs!  And THAT will destroy the economy! Less spending = Shitty economy. That's not Liberal dogma or academic theory: that's FACT.

Herman Cain's plan is the worst possible thing: Increased taxes on those who can least afford it.

You know... If the only Black people I knew were Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Tom Sowell and Herman Cain?  (IOW - If I were a Republican?) If THAT was the extent of my sample population?

I'd probably be racist too.





(Likewise, if Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Chrstine O'Donnell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc... were the most intelligent and outspoken women I knew? I'd probably be as mysongyinst as they Right is as well!)

If we didn't call it racist, we'd have to debate it?!

I was looking for a picture of a tea-bagger sign that I saw the other day that said "If they didn't call it racist, they'd have to debate it!"


Now... I've made the case before that the racism charge is, at worst, perfectly accurate and, at best, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  You can only see so many "Muslim, Kenyan, communist, socialist, sleeper" signs before you're convinced that these people are in fact racists, if for no other reason than because it is hard to fathom a level sheer stupidity high enough to otherwise motivate and rationalize these signs.  Racist is an explanation I can accept. Stupidity is as well, but... that much stupidity?  Purely on stupidity alone?  I almost have a hard time believing that.  Anyway, I couldn't find the sign I was looking for (after sifting through literally hundreds of signs that ranged between the unintentionally hilarious and the outright offensive.) But I did find this one:

And it pretty much makes the same point.


And as well-designed as this one is... seriously: Is this how these people "think?"  We're "losing" the debate?  Perhaps, but only because 60% of America is too stupid to recognize the difference between something that is GOOD for them and something that is BAD for them. Seriously. And there was a perfect exampleof this in today's MSN article about the tightening Congressional races:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818378/ns/politics-decision_2010


As far as the article goes? OK, yeah, whatever, we'll see in a few weeks.  Good news, I guess, but I'm still going to stand of the street corner with my sandwich warning people of the end of days, thankyouverymuch.   But there was one section that just drove me crazy:

Pennsylvania Republicans say the intense former Navy admiral is too liberal for this centrist state. They note that Sestak, a two-term House member, wanted a public insurance option in the new health care law, a larger stimulus package than the $814 billion plan Congress approved, and a tougher cap-and-trade energy bill than the House passed.

OK... now "Cap-and-trade" we can discuss that.  That's certainly debatable. Liberals are smart enough to realize SOMETHING has to be done, but obviously there IS a cost, and in all reality? It probably won't accomplish all that much. (It was originally a Conservtaive's idea, as well.  Just like everything else these idiots are blaomign OBAMA for!)   But let's put that aside for the moment and look at the other two.  (Because we really do like to list things in threes, don't we?  One thing alone isn't enough to win is it? You need THREE to make case, right?)


He's "too liberal," which is conserva-speak for "bad," because he wanted a public health care option and more stimulus.  In other words: He wanted to get people CHEAPER HEALTH CARE and MORE JOBS.  Can someone please exp-lain to how any individual person, anywhere, can possibly see either of those as a bad thing?!


Public Option: If you can do better, do so.  If it's cheaper, THEN WHY NOT?!  What is wrong with these people?  How can you possibly argue (unless you own an insurance company!) that this can be a bad thing?!  Seriously.  Who can honestly believe this?!  How do you reach that conclusion?! "Socialism," maybe?  But if "Socialism" was really going to give it to you for less, then why the hell would you NOT be a Socialist?  It makes no damned sense at all!


Same goes for the stimulus.  Which is another word for JOBS.  Campaigning against the stimulus is campaigning against JOBS!  Who does that?! Can you imagine what it would sound like if the Republicans were even half-way honest and the average American wasn't completely, mind-numbingly stupid? He be saying: I want to put more of you out of work, and then vote against unemployment for any of you!  Who the heck would vote for THAT guy?


But yeah.  "All" we're doing is shouting "racist."  (No: what we're doing is looking for a REASON behind all the blatant STUPIDITY!)  But apparently "if we don't call it racist, we'll lose the debate.  Well of COURSE we will!  If we're arguing with someone who thinks paying MORE for health and having LESS jobs is a GOOD thing!  How on earth would you debate with someone who has so clearly lost their freaking mind?!


See... it's not us who shout "racist" to squelch debate.


As I've said before, twice now, in fact, it they who say "liberal" and not only squelch debate, but then happily go and campaign for, and vote for, their own royal screwing.


Racist?  That's us being optimistic.  It's a compliment, compared to what we'd say otherwise, assuming there is even a word in the English language for this level of ignorance, gullibility, irrationality and stupidity.