I'm hardly a globetrotter. I've visited exactly six foreign countries, including Canada, and only about a third of the states in the Union. I know some states very well, others not so much. I like traveling, as long as I avoid tourist traps and crowds. Seeing new places and experiencing new things feeds my curiosity. I really do wish I'd traveled more in my youth. Unfortunately, when my family finally went beyond Wisconsin, which as about the only place we ever traveled when I was younger, I had to work in the summers to put myself through school. Although that sounds harsh, consider that nowadays, there's no way a kid can work during the summer to put him- or herself through college for the upcoming year.
This morning I got to thinking about places I would never visit, places that I have no interest in seeing. That led to places that I'd love to see but am unlikely to ever see. So this is my list of the places I don't want to see and the places I would love to see but won't.
PLACES I NEVER WANT TO SEE
India -- There isn't enough money in the world that can make me want to go there. It's filthy, overcrowded and filled with people unctuously doing jobs outsourced there by U.S. companies. Don't tell me about the Taj Mahal; pictures suffice. I like spicy food, and I would probably like curried food, but I can get that Stateside.
Pakistan: I'm not stupid: I'm an American. Pakis don't like us, which is fine with me. The feeling is reciprocated. There is absolutely nothing worth my time in Pakistan...unless it's to see where Osama bin Laden was killed. But I doubt that's a tourist attraction.
Great Britain: Even if I weren't Irish and American, I don't think there's anything on that wretched island that would entice me to visit. I've promised Karen I'll go to Scotland -- if it's ever safe to fly again -- and Scotland does look beautiful from the pictures I've seen. Until Great Britain gives us back our Six Counties in the North, I'm not going there.
Japan: I don't like the culture. I don't like the food. I don't like the women. I don't like crowds. I don't like that Japan still tries to blame us for World War II. I'm never going there.
Brazil: I know, great bodies abound there. Still, there's nothing there that interests me. I'm not nuts about soccer. I don't speak Portuguese. I don't like Oscar Schmidt. I think Giselle Bundchen isn't all she's cracked up to be. I'll take a pass.
Russia: If I liked museums more, I'd go to St. Petersburg. About the only thing that would attract me to Russia would be to see Stalingrad, one of the defining battles of the Second World War. The food stinks, I have no interest in touring gulags and it gets terribly cold. No thanks.
Asia: Frankly, I could say that there isn't a single country in Asia that interests me. I'd go to Iwo Jima simply because of the battle, but nowhere else there interests me. I don't like the food, the culture, the women -- nada.
PLACES I WANT TO SEE
Australia-New Zealand: Without a doubt, this is the number one place on this list. Given my Irish background, I'm curious to see where my forebears were exiled. Beyond that, the landscape is austere yet beautiful. New Zealand is rapturously beautiful. The people are friendly and the food looks inviting. Heck yeah, sign me up. Given the distance, however, it would have to be a two-fer.
Machu Picchu: The rest of Peru does nothing for me. This place is mystical. The problem is that having had pulmonary embolisms, I think I'm disqualified from going up there.
South Africa: I have no desire to see the rest of Africa, even the pyramids, but the coastline of South Africa is rugged and rustic and dangerous. That alone warrants a trip.
Norway: A pattern is developing. The fjords of Norway have always beckoned me. I love their ruggedness. I'd have to tolerate the rather bland cuisine, but the people are supposed to be nice and the landscape beautiful.
Greece: I love the food. The islands are intriguing. The culture is beyond enticing. The only downsides for me are the pollution and the anti-American sentiment.
Vancouver/Banff: Now that I've finally spent some time in Canada, the only places in that country that I want to see are the picturesque Vancouver and the bucolic Banff. From all the pictures I've seen, these two places are not to be missed.
The trouble with wanting to travel to these places is that air travel nowadays is scarier than ever. Vancouver and Banff I can probably get to safely enough. I'd love to travel there by train. The other places I'll probably never see, but that's all right. There is so much of this country I haven't seen that I can spend the rest of my life visiting it.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 8, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Can the Mainstream Media Steal This Election?
It's no secret that I'm a harsh critic of the MSM. I've violated Godwin's Law so many times that I may as well call myself the Simon Wiesenthal of the MSM. I maintain that the greatest threat to this country isn't ISIS or anything environmental but the MSM because of the way it manipulates the news and presents it to the public. No, it's pretty clear to see where I stand on the issue of the MSM.
So perhaps this blogpost will be merely redundant. O' well. So be it.
Yet, with an open mind, consider what's happened in the wake of the party conventions that took place over the last couple of weeks. The MSM has gone after Mr. Trump with gleeful abandon, pouncing on any of his public statements that lack political correctness as if he were advocating sedition. Whether it be how he treats Cankles, how he comments babies at rallies or how he handles a shady parent of a fallen soldier, everything he does is scrutinized more than a urine sample or an NFL game. It's not that I object to the scrutiny, since he's running for president he deserves to be scrutinized to make sure he's made of presidential timber. Sometimes he's wanting in that department. Other times he's more presidential than the present President himself.
No, the problem I have with the scrutiny is the disproportionate level Mr. Trump gets compared to that meted out to Cankles. Considering the actions that are deserving of scrutiny, one would think the would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins would be salivating at the chance to dig into Cankles' misdeeds. It doesn't appear that the MSM has any interest in that because, probably fearful of what people already assume is true, it could sidetrack history in the making on the Inevitability Tour.
Wikileaks has released thousands of emails that show it is more probable than not that the Democratic National Committee did everything it could to hamstring Bernie Sanders. So bad was it that the harpie who used to be head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to resign by no less than the President himself. Shortly thereafter, Cankles hired her in some honorary role in her campaign.
So if I understand this correctly, Cankles hired the person who was in charge of the organization that ran an unfair primary election that resulted in her opponent being defeated and who, upon the revelation of the rigged primary election is forced to resign, and Cankles brings her into her campaign...and the MSM yawns???? Imagine if Mr. Trump had done the equivalent. The knives would be honed to a fine edge and it would be open season on candidates with bad hair.
Then there's the whole email scandal. When asked about it -- finally -- she gave such a bad response that some are calling it Pretzel Logic. She says that James Comey, the head of the FBI, didn't say she'd lied, but in fact that she'd told the American public the truth, or some such pap. In fact, Director Comey only said that what she'd done didn't rise to the level of an actionable offense, but several times said she'd not told the truth. Again, the MSM is giving her a pass on this without digging into the emails, her deflections and lies and the actual content of Director Comey's statements. It's old news, move along.
Mr. Trump would be burned alive at the stake.
Then there's the whole spat about Gold Star Families. Look, I'm as supportive as the next person about the military and especially when it comes to the extraordinary sacrifices they make for our country. And I'm sure Khizr Khan and his wife grieve everyday for their son, who died in defense of this country. But why is their story elevated above those of the four men who lost their lives in Benghazi? What's more, his life was at risk the minute he joined the military, whereas the men in Benghazi were not necessarily going to be in the line of fire. An absolutely galling interview took place on CNN where Charles Woods, the father of one of the former SEAL's killed in Benghazi, was repeatedly asked whether Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan for his comments about Muslim immigration, but when Mr. Woods asked whether Cankles should apologize to him for lying about what got his son killed, the talking head at CNN kept asking about Mr. Trump. In other words, we place value on lives based on which political candidate is in the discussion and how the lives factor into the political equation. Why is there no investigation into Cankles' lies about what prompted the attack on Benghazi? Why is there no examination of where she was and what she was doing when the attack took place? Why must the MSM tie Mr. Trump's position on Muslim immigration to Mr. Khan's loss?
The conflation of Mr. Trump's stance on Muslim immigration with the death of Mr. Khan's son is ridiculous, but it serves to distract from Cankles's misdeeds and put the focus on Mr. Trump as a bigot. Nevermind that Jimmy Carter, once the darling of the Left, advocated shutting down Muslim immigration after the embassy in Tehran was taken by the Iranians. No, Mr. Trump must be a bigot, and let Mr. Khan whip him with the Constitution to prove it.
Meanwhile, Cankles gets away with anything.
Don't think for a minute that the MSM can't steal this election. If not by actual deed, then by controlling the talking points so that the electorate gets the message the MSM wants it to receive.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So perhaps this blogpost will be merely redundant. O' well. So be it.
Yet, with an open mind, consider what's happened in the wake of the party conventions that took place over the last couple of weeks. The MSM has gone after Mr. Trump with gleeful abandon, pouncing on any of his public statements that lack political correctness as if he were advocating sedition. Whether it be how he treats Cankles, how he comments babies at rallies or how he handles a shady parent of a fallen soldier, everything he does is scrutinized more than a urine sample or an NFL game. It's not that I object to the scrutiny, since he's running for president he deserves to be scrutinized to make sure he's made of presidential timber. Sometimes he's wanting in that department. Other times he's more presidential than the present President himself.
No, the problem I have with the scrutiny is the disproportionate level Mr. Trump gets compared to that meted out to Cankles. Considering the actions that are deserving of scrutiny, one would think the would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins would be salivating at the chance to dig into Cankles' misdeeds. It doesn't appear that the MSM has any interest in that because, probably fearful of what people already assume is true, it could sidetrack history in the making on the Inevitability Tour.
Wikileaks has released thousands of emails that show it is more probable than not that the Democratic National Committee did everything it could to hamstring Bernie Sanders. So bad was it that the harpie who used to be head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to resign by no less than the President himself. Shortly thereafter, Cankles hired her in some honorary role in her campaign.
So if I understand this correctly, Cankles hired the person who was in charge of the organization that ran an unfair primary election that resulted in her opponent being defeated and who, upon the revelation of the rigged primary election is forced to resign, and Cankles brings her into her campaign...and the MSM yawns???? Imagine if Mr. Trump had done the equivalent. The knives would be honed to a fine edge and it would be open season on candidates with bad hair.
Then there's the whole email scandal. When asked about it -- finally -- she gave such a bad response that some are calling it Pretzel Logic. She says that James Comey, the head of the FBI, didn't say she'd lied, but in fact that she'd told the American public the truth, or some such pap. In fact, Director Comey only said that what she'd done didn't rise to the level of an actionable offense, but several times said she'd not told the truth. Again, the MSM is giving her a pass on this without digging into the emails, her deflections and lies and the actual content of Director Comey's statements. It's old news, move along.
Mr. Trump would be burned alive at the stake.
Then there's the whole spat about Gold Star Families. Look, I'm as supportive as the next person about the military and especially when it comes to the extraordinary sacrifices they make for our country. And I'm sure Khizr Khan and his wife grieve everyday for their son, who died in defense of this country. But why is their story elevated above those of the four men who lost their lives in Benghazi? What's more, his life was at risk the minute he joined the military, whereas the men in Benghazi were not necessarily going to be in the line of fire. An absolutely galling interview took place on CNN where Charles Woods, the father of one of the former SEAL's killed in Benghazi, was repeatedly asked whether Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan for his comments about Muslim immigration, but when Mr. Woods asked whether Cankles should apologize to him for lying about what got his son killed, the talking head at CNN kept asking about Mr. Trump. In other words, we place value on lives based on which political candidate is in the discussion and how the lives factor into the political equation. Why is there no investigation into Cankles' lies about what prompted the attack on Benghazi? Why is there no examination of where she was and what she was doing when the attack took place? Why must the MSM tie Mr. Trump's position on Muslim immigration to Mr. Khan's loss?
The conflation of Mr. Trump's stance on Muslim immigration with the death of Mr. Khan's son is ridiculous, but it serves to distract from Cankles's misdeeds and put the focus on Mr. Trump as a bigot. Nevermind that Jimmy Carter, once the darling of the Left, advocated shutting down Muslim immigration after the embassy in Tehran was taken by the Iranians. No, Mr. Trump must be a bigot, and let Mr. Khan whip him with the Constitution to prove it.
Meanwhile, Cankles gets away with anything.
Don't think for a minute that the MSM can't steal this election. If not by actual deed, then by controlling the talking points so that the electorate gets the message the MSM wants it to receive.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Baltimore
The verdicts are in. Well, mostly they are. The ones that count the most, the judicial verdicts, are in. But public opinion's verdict still remains.
Three of the indicted policemen have been acquitted by a judge in the death of Freddie Gray, who died after being put in a police van. A fourth policeman's trial resulted in a mistrial. Two trials remain. Should those trials even go forward.
Legal observers who've paid close attention say that the prosecution has exhausted all its possible theories. To try to the remaining defendants would be a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, it might expose the City of Baltimore, which has already paid the family of Freddie Gray $6.4M to settle any wrongful death cause of action, to further suits for wrongful prosecution, not to mention claims for back pay and attorneys' fees.
No one can ever know how Freddie Gray died. There are those who want to believe that Mr. Gray's death was a result of negligent and reckless police behavior. Others believe it was the result of a pre-existing condition.
The trouble I have with the prosecutions is how they were fast-tracked, politically. Much like the infamous Duke lacrosse team prosecution, it appears that the prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, was trying to make a name for herself by pandering to the public. Calls are being made for an investigation of Ms. Mosby, given that reports indicate that she didn't provide a grand jury with the correct information when she sought an indictment for second degree murder against the driver of the police van in which Mr. Gray was transported and in which he died.
Ms. Mosby started off on the wrong foot, declaring that she heard your call -- our time is now. What investigation of a potential crime has to do with some group's time being now escapes me. That she ultimately failed to obtain a single guilty verdict indicates that at best, she jumped the gun with the indictments and, at worst, knowingly prosecuted men she knew to be innocent simply to ingratiate herself with the public.
Much like the rush to judgment in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, where even the Department of Justice set up a task force long before the autopsies were in, the Freddie Gray incident was used for political gain. It also helped fuel the summer of assaults on policemen across the nation. Certainly, other incidents stoked the flames, and certain of those incidents deserve greater scrutiny and punishment for the police involved. Yet now, anytime a black man dies at the hands of the police, it's presumed that it was a wrongful death and justice must be obtained.
Prosecutors serve the people -- all the people -- and must strive to prove the truth. They're not supposed to have an agenda and mold the facts and the law to support that agenda. That's what Ms. Mosby appears to have done in the Freddie Gray case. For as unfortunate and senseless Mr. Gray's death is, it's equally unfortunate and senseless that a prosecutor used the case to further her career at the expense of public servants and, in the end, accomplished nothing for the public or Mr. Gray's family.
Ms. Mosby should be referred to the state bar of Maryland to account for her actions. In the future, prosecuting attorneys would do well to remember the names of Michael Nifong and Marilyn Mosby before they decide to get justice for someone who died in questionable circumstances and before they have all the evidence.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Three of the indicted policemen have been acquitted by a judge in the death of Freddie Gray, who died after being put in a police van. A fourth policeman's trial resulted in a mistrial. Two trials remain. Should those trials even go forward.
Legal observers who've paid close attention say that the prosecution has exhausted all its possible theories. To try to the remaining defendants would be a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, it might expose the City of Baltimore, which has already paid the family of Freddie Gray $6.4M to settle any wrongful death cause of action, to further suits for wrongful prosecution, not to mention claims for back pay and attorneys' fees.
No one can ever know how Freddie Gray died. There are those who want to believe that Mr. Gray's death was a result of negligent and reckless police behavior. Others believe it was the result of a pre-existing condition.
The trouble I have with the prosecutions is how they were fast-tracked, politically. Much like the infamous Duke lacrosse team prosecution, it appears that the prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, was trying to make a name for herself by pandering to the public. Calls are being made for an investigation of Ms. Mosby, given that reports indicate that she didn't provide a grand jury with the correct information when she sought an indictment for second degree murder against the driver of the police van in which Mr. Gray was transported and in which he died.
Ms. Mosby started off on the wrong foot, declaring that she heard your call -- our time is now. What investigation of a potential crime has to do with some group's time being now escapes me. That she ultimately failed to obtain a single guilty verdict indicates that at best, she jumped the gun with the indictments and, at worst, knowingly prosecuted men she knew to be innocent simply to ingratiate herself with the public.
Much like the rush to judgment in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, where even the Department of Justice set up a task force long before the autopsies were in, the Freddie Gray incident was used for political gain. It also helped fuel the summer of assaults on policemen across the nation. Certainly, other incidents stoked the flames, and certain of those incidents deserve greater scrutiny and punishment for the police involved. Yet now, anytime a black man dies at the hands of the police, it's presumed that it was a wrongful death and justice must be obtained.
Prosecutors serve the people -- all the people -- and must strive to prove the truth. They're not supposed to have an agenda and mold the facts and the law to support that agenda. That's what Ms. Mosby appears to have done in the Freddie Gray case. For as unfortunate and senseless Mr. Gray's death is, it's equally unfortunate and senseless that a prosecutor used the case to further her career at the expense of public servants and, in the end, accomplished nothing for the public or Mr. Gray's family.
Ms. Mosby should be referred to the state bar of Maryland to account for her actions. In the future, prosecuting attorneys would do well to remember the names of Michael Nifong and Marilyn Mosby before they decide to get justice for someone who died in questionable circumstances and before they have all the evidence.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, July 29, 2016
Why Would Anyone Want To Be A Democrat?
Let's get one thing straight: I'm an independent. Technically, I'm a Marxist: I would never join a club that would have me as a member. So I'm not registered or affiliated with any political party, nor will I ever be.
I don't particularly like the Republican Party, either, if for no other reason than its arrogance. I'll get to them in another blogpost. Today, however, is for examining the Democratic Party.
I'll readily admit that the kind of person attracted to the Democrats is not the kind of person I'd invite to dinner. Overly unrealistic, altruistic to the point where it intrudes on reality and intolerant of opposing views, I can't find any common ground with such a person. Add to that a tendency to revise history to fit one's agenda, and that person and I obviously won't get along.
The angry, aggravating rhetoric that is launched as truth is enervating. The carelessness with the truth simply to fire up the base is reprehensible. That there's earnestness behind the rhetoric doesn't detract from the fact that it's still lying.
The Democratic Party has somehow convinced blacks that it supports them, when in fact it's done precious little for them and it was Republicans who made the major advances for blacks in history. The Democrats use blacks for votes, pander to their demands and then give them virtually nothing in exchange for their support.
Latinos, likewise, are used by the Democrats. Their quality of life is no better under Democratic administrations than it would be under Republican administrations. The platforms are one thing; the reality is quite another.
At the convention, speaker after speaker urged the base to rally against a rigged system, which would be hilarious were it not so sad. The juicy irony was lost on them, or ignored by them, while reports of a rigged primary were airing simultaneously with the speeches.
It's the Obama administration, however, that has shown the true Democratic principles. Never before has a party governed and acted with such mal- and misfeasance as it has during President Obama's tenure. It's not, of course, all his fault, but he does set the tone and the Party follows his lead. He seems to have given it carte blanche to attack anything not labeled Democratic.
Yet, even if one is willing to accept this underwhelming history of performance, after this week, how can anyone still want to be a member of the Democratic Party?
Bernie Sanders ran his presidential campaign under the Party's umbrella. Despite this, recently released emails and voice mails show that the Party was opposed to his campaign to the point that it sabotaged it at every turn. The released emails also suggest that not only did the Party fail to support Mr. Sanders, it worked against him while supporting Cankles at every turn. Add to that the racist tone of some of the emails and its a wonder anyone supports the Party at all.
Look, the Republicans are hardly choirboys. But so far, no similar information has been released showing them to be as cretinous as the Democrats.
On top of this, it was reported today that IRS officials knew as far back as 2011 that conservative groups were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny. That means that the government, led by a Democrat, was using as an instrument the IRS to punish groups opposed to it. This is incomprehensible. When tricky Dick Nixon broke into the Democratic offices at the Watergate Hotel, he was forced to resign. So far, there are no calls -- at least in the MSM -- for President Obama to do the same. What's more, he avers that there was nothing going on at the IRS. Now documents prove that to be a lie. More problematic is that the administration's Justice Department appears to be unwilling to levy any charges on people responsible for this chicanery. Who controls the Justice Department?
How is it that a party that shares democracy as its root can be so undemocratic? Which then leads to the original question:
Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I don't particularly like the Republican Party, either, if for no other reason than its arrogance. I'll get to them in another blogpost. Today, however, is for examining the Democratic Party.
I'll readily admit that the kind of person attracted to the Democrats is not the kind of person I'd invite to dinner. Overly unrealistic, altruistic to the point where it intrudes on reality and intolerant of opposing views, I can't find any common ground with such a person. Add to that a tendency to revise history to fit one's agenda, and that person and I obviously won't get along.
The angry, aggravating rhetoric that is launched as truth is enervating. The carelessness with the truth simply to fire up the base is reprehensible. That there's earnestness behind the rhetoric doesn't detract from the fact that it's still lying.
The Democratic Party has somehow convinced blacks that it supports them, when in fact it's done precious little for them and it was Republicans who made the major advances for blacks in history. The Democrats use blacks for votes, pander to their demands and then give them virtually nothing in exchange for their support.
Latinos, likewise, are used by the Democrats. Their quality of life is no better under Democratic administrations than it would be under Republican administrations. The platforms are one thing; the reality is quite another.
At the convention, speaker after speaker urged the base to rally against a rigged system, which would be hilarious were it not so sad. The juicy irony was lost on them, or ignored by them, while reports of a rigged primary were airing simultaneously with the speeches.
It's the Obama administration, however, that has shown the true Democratic principles. Never before has a party governed and acted with such mal- and misfeasance as it has during President Obama's tenure. It's not, of course, all his fault, but he does set the tone and the Party follows his lead. He seems to have given it carte blanche to attack anything not labeled Democratic.
Yet, even if one is willing to accept this underwhelming history of performance, after this week, how can anyone still want to be a member of the Democratic Party?
Bernie Sanders ran his presidential campaign under the Party's umbrella. Despite this, recently released emails and voice mails show that the Party was opposed to his campaign to the point that it sabotaged it at every turn. The released emails also suggest that not only did the Party fail to support Mr. Sanders, it worked against him while supporting Cankles at every turn. Add to that the racist tone of some of the emails and its a wonder anyone supports the Party at all.
Look, the Republicans are hardly choirboys. But so far, no similar information has been released showing them to be as cretinous as the Democrats.
On top of this, it was reported today that IRS officials knew as far back as 2011 that conservative groups were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny. That means that the government, led by a Democrat, was using as an instrument the IRS to punish groups opposed to it. This is incomprehensible. When tricky Dick Nixon broke into the Democratic offices at the Watergate Hotel, he was forced to resign. So far, there are no calls -- at least in the MSM -- for President Obama to do the same. What's more, he avers that there was nothing going on at the IRS. Now documents prove that to be a lie. More problematic is that the administration's Justice Department appears to be unwilling to levy any charges on people responsible for this chicanery. Who controls the Justice Department?
How is it that a party that shares democracy as its root can be so undemocratic? Which then leads to the original question:
Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Police Shootings
The Black Lives Matter movement is a well-intentioned idea that's been largely highjacked by extremists who use it as a Trojan horse to cause mischief not anticipated by its founders. Or perhaps they considered it but rejected it. I find it hard to believe that a group having the words lives matter in its title wopld espouse such violent means to accomplish its goals.
That being said, there are elements of truth -- some would say more than a few -- in the underlying motivation for the creation of the group. There has been a rash of police shootings of black men that are hard to justify, hard to explain. Although I'm not in the club that says the Michael Brown shooting was murder -- I think it was a righteous shoot -- there are far too many extreme examples of shootings (and in the case of Eric Garner, suffocation by strangulation) by police of black men to justify them on any grounds. The South Carolina shooting, the Chicago shooting, the St. Paul shooting, and now, in Florida, the shooting of a man lying on the ground with his hands raised. Fortunately, the last example did not result in death. What in heavens name possessed the cops to shoot these people.
Some will notice I didn't include every example of recent memory. For one, the Baton Rouge shooting that preceded the St. Paul shooting by a couple of days may in fact turn out to be legally justified. The death of the Baltimore man in the back of the police van is proving to be an unfortunate accident or a result of pre-existing injuries. I'll be blogging on Baltimore in the days to come.
Still, those exclusions in no way justify the shootings I did cite. The man in South Carolina was running away from the police; he was shot eight times in the back. The kid in Chicago was shot sixteen times as he backed -- skipped -- away from the police cruisers. The St. Paul shooting was equally unjustified, and the shooting today in Florida is mind-boggling.
I do not think most police are racists. I'm sure that within the ranks there are some racists, and I think that having to deal with the public had coarsened some police so badly that they see justification where there is none. In some instances, the training was insufficient or non-existent, or the cop just didn't pass muster. Whatever the reason, the ranks of the police, as with any other profession, include people who are just bad or incompetent.
A larger problem is the closing of ranks. That may sound callous and indifferent, but when good police allow bad police to operate under cover of the shield and refuse to turn them in or voice their concerns to superiors, the public trust is violated. Sure, people lose their lives as well. But we as citizens can no longer rely on the notion of serve and protect. This is no surprise to blacks in this country, who suffer indignities ranging from being pulled over for driving while black to being shot in the back. But for all citizens irrespective of race or gender, this is a burgeoning problem.
I spoke with someone who theorized that it's because the police have veterans who, having returned from the wars, suffer from PTSD. Perhaps. And although there are therapists available for all police, I question how many police avail themselves of the benefit; it's probably not seen as virile.
But we as citizens have a right to feel protected by the people whom we're paying to protect us. We also have a right to expect that they will do the right thing and report those fellow officers whom they suspect of harboring racist or murderous tendencies. The police are to serve and protect us -- not just from criminals not wearing a badge, but from those who do, as well. It's a sad truth but it's something that needs to be said: Within the ranks of the police there are criminals or criminals waiting for their opportunity.
Blacks should have the same expectation of justice that whites or any other races do. They shouldn't have to worry about being gunned down for no good reason. The police need to weed out the bad cops and not worry about being labeled as turncoats. Most police are excellent and do a great job, handling stresses we can't comprehend. They shouldn't allow the closing of ranks to tarnish this reputation. That doesn't mean it should be open season on cops. But the cops need to do a better job of policing not only in the communities in which they serve, but also the precinct stations in which they work. Closing ranks does no one any good.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
That being said, there are elements of truth -- some would say more than a few -- in the underlying motivation for the creation of the group. There has been a rash of police shootings of black men that are hard to justify, hard to explain. Although I'm not in the club that says the Michael Brown shooting was murder -- I think it was a righteous shoot -- there are far too many extreme examples of shootings (and in the case of Eric Garner, suffocation by strangulation) by police of black men to justify them on any grounds. The South Carolina shooting, the Chicago shooting, the St. Paul shooting, and now, in Florida, the shooting of a man lying on the ground with his hands raised. Fortunately, the last example did not result in death. What in heavens name possessed the cops to shoot these people.
Some will notice I didn't include every example of recent memory. For one, the Baton Rouge shooting that preceded the St. Paul shooting by a couple of days may in fact turn out to be legally justified. The death of the Baltimore man in the back of the police van is proving to be an unfortunate accident or a result of pre-existing injuries. I'll be blogging on Baltimore in the days to come.
Still, those exclusions in no way justify the shootings I did cite. The man in South Carolina was running away from the police; he was shot eight times in the back. The kid in Chicago was shot sixteen times as he backed -- skipped -- away from the police cruisers. The St. Paul shooting was equally unjustified, and the shooting today in Florida is mind-boggling.
I do not think most police are racists. I'm sure that within the ranks there are some racists, and I think that having to deal with the public had coarsened some police so badly that they see justification where there is none. In some instances, the training was insufficient or non-existent, or the cop just didn't pass muster. Whatever the reason, the ranks of the police, as with any other profession, include people who are just bad or incompetent.
A larger problem is the closing of ranks. That may sound callous and indifferent, but when good police allow bad police to operate under cover of the shield and refuse to turn them in or voice their concerns to superiors, the public trust is violated. Sure, people lose their lives as well. But we as citizens can no longer rely on the notion of serve and protect. This is no surprise to blacks in this country, who suffer indignities ranging from being pulled over for driving while black to being shot in the back. But for all citizens irrespective of race or gender, this is a burgeoning problem.
I spoke with someone who theorized that it's because the police have veterans who, having returned from the wars, suffer from PTSD. Perhaps. And although there are therapists available for all police, I question how many police avail themselves of the benefit; it's probably not seen as virile.
But we as citizens have a right to feel protected by the people whom we're paying to protect us. We also have a right to expect that they will do the right thing and report those fellow officers whom they suspect of harboring racist or murderous tendencies. The police are to serve and protect us -- not just from criminals not wearing a badge, but from those who do, as well. It's a sad truth but it's something that needs to be said: Within the ranks of the police there are criminals or criminals waiting for their opportunity.
Blacks should have the same expectation of justice that whites or any other races do. They shouldn't have to worry about being gunned down for no good reason. The police need to weed out the bad cops and not worry about being labeled as turncoats. Most police are excellent and do a great job, handling stresses we can't comprehend. They shouldn't allow the closing of ranks to tarnish this reputation. That doesn't mean it should be open season on cops. But the cops need to do a better job of policing not only in the communities in which they serve, but also the precinct stations in which they work. Closing ranks does no one any good.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Ponderables
One particular question sparked this, so one can try to figure out which one it is. In the meantime, other questions have cropped up, basically writing this blogpost for me:
-- Carmelo Anthony, the basketball player, is encouraging other athletes to stand up and become more civically involved. Forgive my cynicism, but his idea of activism, no matter how hard he tries to gussy it up as something praiseworthy and noble, rings just a little bit hollow. Why? Am I the only one who remembers that Anthony was in a video called Stop Snitching? Wasn't the person who produced that video sentenced to twenty years in jail? Is Anthony going to publicly repudiate his involvement -- allegedly he already has, but if so, I missed it -- and tell black youth that they have a duty to cooperate with police? Has hell frozen over yet?
-- If Karen and I host a dinner party and invite vegan or vegetarian guests, it's expected that we'll serve something to accommodate their tastes. If vegan or vegetarian hosts invite omnivores to their houses, will they do the same and have meat on the menu?
-- If the state is going to have construction efforts going on at night, and drivers are required to drive no more than 45 MPH in construction zones, why does it have the work going on right by the lane dividers while there's a six inch drop off on the right side of the lane?
-- Why does anyone suggest that blondes have more fun when redheads are more fun?
-- Who greenlights commercials for products on television? I mean, some of these ads are moronic in the extreme. Does the advertiser have final say or is there a term in these contracts that gives them refunds for horribly devised and executed advertisements?
-- The chatter today is whether Melania Trump's speech last night plagiarized Michelle Obama's from eight years ago. Interesting. Did anyone in the MSM raise the fact that Jesse Jackson's patchwork quilt speech was lifted from an earlier speech?
-- Why is it that churches are always the First Presbyterian this, the First Methodist that? Why is there never a Seventeeth Unitarian Church, or a One Hundred and Second Congregational House of Worship? Everyone can't possibly be first, can they?
-- Blue ink or black ink?
-- If we expect moderate Muslims to turn on the so-called radicalized Islamists who are doing their best to make a mockery of their religion, why don't we expect police to turn on bad cops who are indiscriminately gunning down (largely) innocent black men and then trying to claim that they had no other option?
-- With a record such as the one Cankles brandishes, who in his right mind would vote for that person, history or not?
-- That being said, who really wants to vote for Mr. Celebrity Apprentice? Isn't that like taking a spoonful of castor oil because no matter how bad it tastes, it's supposedly good?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- Carmelo Anthony, the basketball player, is encouraging other athletes to stand up and become more civically involved. Forgive my cynicism, but his idea of activism, no matter how hard he tries to gussy it up as something praiseworthy and noble, rings just a little bit hollow. Why? Am I the only one who remembers that Anthony was in a video called Stop Snitching? Wasn't the person who produced that video sentenced to twenty years in jail? Is Anthony going to publicly repudiate his involvement -- allegedly he already has, but if so, I missed it -- and tell black youth that they have a duty to cooperate with police? Has hell frozen over yet?
-- If Karen and I host a dinner party and invite vegan or vegetarian guests, it's expected that we'll serve something to accommodate their tastes. If vegan or vegetarian hosts invite omnivores to their houses, will they do the same and have meat on the menu?
-- If the state is going to have construction efforts going on at night, and drivers are required to drive no more than 45 MPH in construction zones, why does it have the work going on right by the lane dividers while there's a six inch drop off on the right side of the lane?
-- Why does anyone suggest that blondes have more fun when redheads are more fun?
-- Who greenlights commercials for products on television? I mean, some of these ads are moronic in the extreme. Does the advertiser have final say or is there a term in these contracts that gives them refunds for horribly devised and executed advertisements?
-- The chatter today is whether Melania Trump's speech last night plagiarized Michelle Obama's from eight years ago. Interesting. Did anyone in the MSM raise the fact that Jesse Jackson's patchwork quilt speech was lifted from an earlier speech?
-- Why is it that churches are always the First Presbyterian this, the First Methodist that? Why is there never a Seventeeth Unitarian Church, or a One Hundred and Second Congregational House of Worship? Everyone can't possibly be first, can they?
-- Blue ink or black ink?
-- If we expect moderate Muslims to turn on the so-called radicalized Islamists who are doing their best to make a mockery of their religion, why don't we expect police to turn on bad cops who are indiscriminately gunning down (largely) innocent black men and then trying to claim that they had no other option?
-- With a record such as the one Cankles brandishes, who in his right mind would vote for that person, history or not?
-- That being said, who really wants to vote for Mr. Celebrity Apprentice? Isn't that like taking a spoonful of castor oil because no matter how bad it tastes, it's supposedly good?
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, July 15, 2016
Microaggressions
As an Irishman, I know how to hold a grudge. Just ask the Limeys. There are also a couple of attorneys I'm gunning for who won't know what hit them when I get done with them, and their misdeeds were committed years ago. In short, if anyone knows how to hold a grudge, it's me.
That being said, I don't believe I'm unreasonable. My grudges are for acts that were beyond the pale, not perceived slights that to an ordinary person would be laughable. Just because someone looks at me sideways, or acts gruffly, or doesn't acknowledge me, is not a reason to go to war or even stage a protest. Apparently, however, there are people who are aggrieved for slights that very few people would recognize.
Recently, students at a school not in California -- it's a surprise that the school's not in California -- but in Ohio, Oberlin College, have complained that the unsuccessful attempt to make authentic Asian food was a microaggression in that it was a cultural appropriation. That is, for trying to provide an authentic Asian dish but failing, the students suffered a microaggression and have a grievance. Rather than looking at it as an attempt to acknowledge, honor and include elements of a foreign culture into the American melting pot, the failure to authentically complete the dish is an insult worthy of protest.
The term microaggression arose in the 1970's when a professor at Harvard University named Chester M. Pierce developed the theory. Whether it's been hijacked I can't say; I think most of psychology is just common sense with labels. But it's spawned a cottage industry that allows it to be extended to women, other minority groups and people in categories that didn't even exist when Professor Pierce coined his new word.
What this really is is victimhood. People with an axe to grind -- real or imagined -- can elevate their nonsense by using this pseudo-science and making it sound that much more important. It's gotten to the point that virtually an act taken by one person can cause a claim of microaggression by another person. Or, to flip an old saying, one man's free speech is another person's microaggression.
Not surprisingly, Lena Dunham, the highly liberal darling of the Left, is a leader in claiming microaggressions or in standing with the unwashed masses, graduated from Oberlin. It would appear that Oberlin is in the business of producing people highly trained at perceiving microaggressions and calling them out. A professor, Joy Karega, claimed this past spring that ISIS was, in actuality, a joint CIA-Mossad creation and that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. It's positively amazing how Oberlin people can see things other people can't even imagine.
This blog, then, must be a constant source of aggression for Oberlin graduates. I'd like to think, however, that instead of being a mere microaggression, it's a macroaggression, because I don't give a rip about these people's feelings. If they're offended by something I post, I applaud their perception, because I'm not about to apologize for expressing my beliefs and if they're insulted or offended, they probably deserve to be.
Molon labe.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
That being said, I don't believe I'm unreasonable. My grudges are for acts that were beyond the pale, not perceived slights that to an ordinary person would be laughable. Just because someone looks at me sideways, or acts gruffly, or doesn't acknowledge me, is not a reason to go to war or even stage a protest. Apparently, however, there are people who are aggrieved for slights that very few people would recognize.
Recently, students at a school not in California -- it's a surprise that the school's not in California -- but in Ohio, Oberlin College, have complained that the unsuccessful attempt to make authentic Asian food was a microaggression in that it was a cultural appropriation. That is, for trying to provide an authentic Asian dish but failing, the students suffered a microaggression and have a grievance. Rather than looking at it as an attempt to acknowledge, honor and include elements of a foreign culture into the American melting pot, the failure to authentically complete the dish is an insult worthy of protest.
The term microaggression arose in the 1970's when a professor at Harvard University named Chester M. Pierce developed the theory. Whether it's been hijacked I can't say; I think most of psychology is just common sense with labels. But it's spawned a cottage industry that allows it to be extended to women, other minority groups and people in categories that didn't even exist when Professor Pierce coined his new word.
What this really is is victimhood. People with an axe to grind -- real or imagined -- can elevate their nonsense by using this pseudo-science and making it sound that much more important. It's gotten to the point that virtually an act taken by one person can cause a claim of microaggression by another person. Or, to flip an old saying, one man's free speech is another person's microaggression.
Not surprisingly, Lena Dunham, the highly liberal darling of the Left, is a leader in claiming microaggressions or in standing with the unwashed masses, graduated from Oberlin. It would appear that Oberlin is in the business of producing people highly trained at perceiving microaggressions and calling them out. A professor, Joy Karega, claimed this past spring that ISIS was, in actuality, a joint CIA-Mossad creation and that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. It's positively amazing how Oberlin people can see things other people can't even imagine.
This blog, then, must be a constant source of aggression for Oberlin graduates. I'd like to think, however, that instead of being a mere microaggression, it's a macroaggression, because I don't give a rip about these people's feelings. If they're offended by something I post, I applaud their perception, because I'm not about to apologize for expressing my beliefs and if they're insulted or offended, they probably deserve to be.
Molon labe.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)