Dumb Headline Of The Day Regarding #BaltimoreRiots

While I grabbed this at WRAL, the article is an Associated Press article, and the headline is repeated at numerous other news outlets, including Yahoo News, Fox News, and Fresno Bee

Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police response

Do they mean question about how the police treated Freddie Gray, a known criminal (which is no excuse for what happened to him), or as to how the police responded to the riots?

A better question is, do the riots in Baltimore raise questions about the citizens of Baltimore? Some have responded very well, calling for peace and calm. You have the “hero mom delivering the slap heard ’round the world“. Others, not so much.

Read: Dumb Headline Of The Day Regarding #BaltimoreRiots »

As Baltimore Burns, Salon Says Police Morale Can Wait

When you want reasoned, well thought out, rational discourse on a subject, Salon is not where one goes

Police morale can wait: How the Baltimore riots should reshape Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s agenda
As the chaos in Baltimore has shown, it’s far too soon to shift our attention to the grievances of cops

Out of the many invisible and all-powerful forces that govern our universe, the cruelest must be Time. Whether you’re asking it to slow down for selfish reasons or to speed up for someone else, it doesn’t make a difference. Time is relentless and uncaring; it does not listen and it will not stop.

But even though it is ultimately an egalitarian ruler, wreaking havoc on the old, young, good and bad alike, Time seems to hold a special grudge against Loretta Lynch, the woman who, after an unprecedented delay, was finally sworn in on Monday as the 83rd attorney general in the history of the United States.

Of course, Salon’s (very Caucasian) Elias Isquith fails to mention why the nomination was held back (she’s an extremist, as well as Dems having a fit over a bill that would not allow use of the money for abortions). And, of course, Elias had to link the rioting, looting, arson, and general lawlessness to Lynch.

In many ways, the chaos in Baltimore is just the latest iteration of one of America’s saddest and longest-running stories. It is another example of what Martin Luther Kingonce called “the language of the unheard.” King was speaking then of the riots that traumatized much of the country during the summer of 1966. But the social ills he described as kindling for the riot’s fire — poverty, police brutality and malign neglect — are, despite the nearly 49 years that followed, still powerful forces in America today.

For this particular moment, though, it’s Baltimore Police Department’s documented history of lawless violence that’s been identified as the riots’ inspiration. Protestors and rioters — who, it’s worth noting, are usually not the same — cite as their catalyst the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old African-American man and Baltimorean. On April 12, Gray was arrested by officers from the BPD. When police detained Gray and put him in a van for transportation, he was walking; by the time the trip was over, he had a broken neck. He died on April 19th.

In no way should anyone defend the Baltimore PD. The information we’ve seen and the video puts the target for the issue squarely on their backs. Ta-Nehesi Coates notes the numerous violations by the Baltimore PD (as he dinks and dunks around the edges of saying the “protests” are cool). But, let’s consider: Baltimore is a 65% Black city. Of course police will have a heavier presence, simply because of patrol patterns. If they decided to ignore the Black community in favor of mostly patrolling the White and/or Hispanic populations, how would that go?

The city has a Black mayor, police chief, police commissioner, and 43% of the police department is Black. Eight of the fourteen city council members are Black. Not too mention the heavy hand of the Democrat Party in Baltimore. Exactly what have they all done for the Black community? This is much like Detroit, Birmingham, Gary, Indiana, Memphis, and so many other majority Black/Democrat cities with a heavy presence of Blacks/Democrats in government. How are they helping with the “social ills of poverty, police brutality and malign neglect”? They’re running the city!

I’m quite certain that, at least to some extent, Attorney General Lynch would agree. But that’s why it’s so unfortunate that news of her interest in “finding common ground between law enforcement and minority communities” came when it did. Because once the last stone is thrown, the fires are put out, and the state of emergency in Maryland is lifted, what Baltimore and the countless places in the U.S. like it will need is not another conversation. And finding “common ground” won’t be what America needs from its attorney general or its Department of Justice.

Interestingly, Baltimore is a Very Liberal city in a Very Liberal State. Why do these problems with police violence and the riots keep happening mostly in liberal/Democrat areas?

What will be needed, in short, is for the people most apt to use “the language of the unheard” to feel that someone who matters is finally listening. And that those in public office prove with actions that they believe it when they say an African-American life is worth no less than a cop’s. Now is not the time for Lynch to focus on making law enforcement happy. Now is the time for her to promote equal justice. Improving police morale can wait.

Equal justice. Yes. If the officers did wrong, they should be charged. Every looter/rioter caught on tape should be arrested and charged. Every person throwing rocks at the police and assaulting citizens should be arrested and charged. The sad statistic is that Blacks are over-represented within the crime statistics. The only ones making a case that a Black life is worth less than a police officers are those who are looting, rioting, assaulting, and burning property. Liberals/Democrats should take a moment to think why the attitude of Black lives being worth less than police officer lives is so prevalent within Liberal/Democrat cities.

BTW, Ta-Nehesi Coates observes

Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and “nonviolent.” These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it’s worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?

Gray had a long, long list of arrests for distribution of drugs, ie, he was a known drug dealer. Also for burglary, trespassing, destruction of property, and assault, among others. Of course the police were going to go after him when he ran. That doesn’t excuse what came next. But, Freddie Gray was no saint. The officers were patrolling a high crime area with a high level of drug use and distribution.

As for the “language of the unheard”, what of all the people who now have no jobs thanks to their workplaces being looted, destroyed, and/or burned? How about those who can’t drive to their job because their vehicles have been damaged/burned? How about all those whose property have been damaged, and now have to pay to get it fixed? How about all those who are in fear to simply go to school, the mall, a store, and in their homes? How about those who now have no homes, because they were burned? Where are their voices?

Update: because it’s Salon, here’s more bat guano crazy: Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy. Remember that the next time someone on the right is accused of something.

Read: As Baltimore Burns, Salon Says Police Morale Can Wait »

Score One For Religious Freedom: Judge Finds In Favor Of Printer Who Refused To Make Gay Pride T-shirts

If a straight group went to a gay t-shirt printer and ask for a shirt that read “Vote no to gay marriage” and the printer said “no, not going to do it”, would that be discrimination and worthy of a complaint and possible lawsuit? Is that bigoted towards a viewpoint? Or, is it something else? We find out what one judge has ruled

(Washington Post) The day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a historic same-sex marriage case, a Kentucky court has ruled that a Christian T-shirt company has the right not to print gay pride festival shirts.

Hands on Originals (HOO), a Christian T- shirt company in Lexington, Ky., was asked to print shirts by Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) for a 2012 pride festival. When the company turned down the order, the GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. Though the commission found in favor of the GLSO, Judge James D. Ishmael of the Fayette Circuit Court reversed the ruling.

“This Court does not fault the Commission in its interest in insuring citizens have equal access to services but that is not what this case is all about,” Ishmael wrote.

Ishmael made a distinction between a company choosing not to print a T-shirt because of the sexual orientation of a potential customer and choosing not to print a T-shirt because of its message.

The owners of the company “are Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and that they should strive to live consistently with its teachings,” the opinion read. As the company’s Web site states: “It is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.”

It’s the message, not the person/group. Now, if you’re saying to yourself “the Christians are just haters of gays”, well….

The court noted that HOO had also turned down orders for “a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message” — in other words, shirts that it did not agree with that had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Huh. How about that. Obviously, the GLSO is unhappy

“The GLSO is disappointed at Judge Ishmael’s ruling,” the organization said in a statement posted to its Web site. “We feel that this is a reminder that there are still many out there who feel that their citizenship is worth more than that of members of the LGBTQ+ community.  This is merely another battle on what has been a long road to full equality for the LGBTQ+ community; which, despite this decision, has been trending toward equality for all.”

In other words, that want to create a situation where their rights matter more than the rights of HOO. That’s the only way to read it. They want to use Force Of Government on HOO, forcing their viewpoint.

Government “can’t force citizens to surrender free-speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business, and this decision affirms that,” Jim Campbell, senior legal counsel for the Alliance for Freedom, an Arizona-based nonprofit that appealed the Commission’s ruling, said as the Lexington Herald-Leader reported. “… The court rightly recognized that the law protects [HOO owner Blaine Adamson’s] decision not to print shirts with messages that conflict with his beliefs, and that no sufficient reason exists for the government to coerce Blaine to act against his conscience in this way.”

It’s not the people/groups, it’s the message. If a straight group went to a gay printer and wanted “Straight Pride” and the printer said “no”, would that be acceptable? You bet. There are dozens of places in Lexington which could have made the t-shirts. GLSO could have gone on-line to have them made (and for probably less money), yet, they apparently went to the one place where they would be turned down.

Really, this isn’t just about religious freedom, but about freedom overall.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Score One For Religious Freedom: Judge Finds In Favor Of Printer Who Refused To Make Gay Pride T-shirts »

Warmists: Let’s Rename It “Climate Ruin”

My suggestion would be for Warmists to practice what they preach, showing that they really believe the mule fritters they’re pushing. Silly me

Climate Ruin vs. Climate Change

“I thought I liked that the USA is now number one in oil and gas, but hey, I don’t want to ruin the climate….”

That’s the reaction we will get when we rebrand from “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” to “Climate Ruin.”

“Global Warming” sounds like a nice respite on a cold winter’s evening.

“Climate Change” is the lukewarm term that rightwing spin maestro Frank Luntz understood would water down concerns about the warming of the planet, as first exposed by Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian,  and Luntz succeeded in making it stick.

What needs to be done?

The terms “Climate Change” or “Global Warming,” or even “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Disruption” do not conjure the urgency to get up and go do something about it.

The term “Climate Ruin” is much closer to the truth, and much more effective.

If it’s so urgent, why do Cult of Climastrology members refuse to change their own lives?

It is sad but true that continuing on our current path with business conducted as usual will ruin the lives of your kids because their climate will be ruined. That message has the kind of impact we need to win this fight.

The term “Climate Ruin” delivers that message. Let’s rebrand now.

Warmists are realizing that their cult is dying. And are unable to actually provide verifiable, replicatable science.

Read: Warmists: Let’s Rename It “Climate Ruin” »

If All You See…

…are wonderful locally grown fruits, which helps stop climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on GWB unloading on Obama.

(this photo is a bit more risque than I would usually use when linking to a female blogger, a respect thing.)

Read: If All You See… »

“Climate change is a moral failure”

It is a moral failure, because Cult of Climastrology members refuse to live their lives in accord with their supposed beliefs. However, that’s not what Warmist Paul Andersen means

(Aspen Times) It took a Quaker Friends meeting in Aspen to clarify why climate change is a moral issue and that we’re failing it as a nation.

Were I not allergic to structured religion, I would become a Quaker and further their missions to end war, ensure equality and advocate for “Earth restored.” Climate change factors in on all three issues.

The intersection of organized religion with an organized cult.

The Quakers’ biggest challenge is to convince voters and legislators that climate change is being accelerated by human agency. Only then can climate become a moral issue by showing that our actions are harming other people and future generations who will bear the costs of changes to natural resources and degradation to the global environment.

They could start by providing rock hard evidence. And practicing what they preach

Accepting personal culpability for climate change is routinely denied because to do so would impose the grievous discipline of tempering our excessive lifestyles. Most Americans prefer to live by the Bush Sr. doctrine so recklessly stated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1992, where the president said, “The American lifestyle is not negotiable.”

Most Warmists prefer to force Other People to live the Warmist belief set, not themselves.

Since climate change is a moral issue, it becomes immoral to wantonly spew carbon into the atmosphere. No longer can overconsumption be seen as a birthright. No longer can we dismiss the moral implications of multiple-home ownership, private jets, mega-trucks, SUVs and a litany of gluttonous habits.

Huh. I guess most Warmists are immoral.

Hit that link and ask if Mr. Andersen and the Aspen Times will be “moral”.

Read: “Climate change is a moral failure” »

We Should Totally Think Of Illegals As Parents, Not Problems Or Something

Here we have Roberto Suro (a professor) and Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco (a dean), both at California schools of higher education, making a different case

Think of Undocumented Immigrants as Parents, Not Problems

SOMETHING happened while the immigration system in the United States got broken, something that should change the way we talk about fixing it. Years went by, and nature took its course. More than 11 million unauthorized immigrants settled into our communities; many formed families and had children. Now at least one of every 15 children living in the United States has an unauthorized parent, and nearly all of those children are native-born United States citizens.

Think of that statistic, one in 15, the next time you drive by a school or a playground. Think of those children living with the knowledge that the federal government can take their parents away. Common sense tells you that the threat of a parent’s deportation will exact a terrible price.

Of course, every year parents are sent to jail, separating them from their children. Oh, and speaking of jail, California’s prison system is swamped with violent and dangerous criminals who also happen to be illegal aliens. Emergency rooms in California hospitals have been forced to close due to being swamped by illegals. That exacts a “terrible price” on those here legally. The illegals exact a “terrible price” on the education system, welfare, other social safety net programs, as well as helping deflate actual wages.

By one estimate, more than six million children are paying the price of having an unauthorized immigrant parent, and more than five million of them were born here.

Who’s fault would that be? That’s right, the parents.

Once you take this evidence into consideration, the challenges change. The nation has an interest in regulating immigration, yet it also has a stake in its children. Current policies do not succeed in regulating immigration, but they do force these children into life-stifling insecurity.

On this, they are mostly correct. We have immigration laws, yet those laws are very often ignored. The Democrats pander heavily to illegals, and many in the Republican party do the same. Rather than enforcing law and order, controlling the border, doing their job for those who overstay their visas, they’ve created a situation where illegals stream into the country, as well as overstay their visas, with a feeling that there will be few consequences. And they know if they have one or more kids, they will have people treating them with kid gloves.

But the American sense of fairness and system of justice have long embraced the notion that the “sins of the father” should not be visited on the children. Reasonable minds can debate whether there is blame to attach to the parents. There is no reasonable case to be made for punishing their children, who are citizens of the United States. Yet they are punished every day.

They can take their kids with them. But, hey, I’ll tell you what, let’s compromise. The parents will be allowed to stay in the country till the children turn 18, legal adults. During that time period, the parents must wear tracking units. They will be ineligible for any taxpayer funded government programs. They must show that they have broken no laws other than being here illegally. They are welcome to apply for citizenship, but, otherwise, after they leave the country when the children become legal adults, they are not allowed back in.

Read: We Should Totally Think Of Illegals As Parents, Not Problems Or Something »

Gay Businessman Who Hosted Ted Cruz Even Forced To Grovel At The Feet Of Gay Mafia

Run afoul of a small minority of the nation’s residents? You won’t like the results

(NY Times) Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, apologized to the gay community for showing “poor judgment.”

Mr. Reisner put the apology on Facebook, where a page calling for a boycott of his properties, the gay-friendly OUT NYC hotel and his Fire Island Pines holdings, had gotten more than 8,200 “likes” by Sunday evening.

“I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Mr. Reisner.

The New York Times first reported on the event, a dinner and on April 20, at the duplex Mr. Reisner and his business partner Mati Weiderpass co-own on Central Park South in Manhattan. The event was a “fireside chat” for about a dozen people, but was not a fund-raiser.

His Facebook groveling apology reads in full

I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake. I was ignorant, naive and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights. I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’ statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgement. Again, I am deeply sorry.

In other words, the typical nastiness, vile language, threats, etc, which emanate from the Left caused a meltdown. Just remember this whenever a Leftist yammers on about how tolerant they are. The comments for that post are littered with intolerance, such as

  • Apology NOT accepted!! You knew EXACTLY what you were doing and with whom you were doing it, Monsieur!
  • Your apology will never be accepted. You are just afraid of a boycott. Accept the consequences of your actions.
  • This shows how white cis gendered gay men who have money feel about our movement. Cruz will not help our LGBT homeless youth or our transgender community who are the movement targeted groups in the community. Apology NOT accepted

He’s apparently been deleting the more virulent comments. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Back to NY Times

Mr. Reisner’s apology came before a scheduled protest march tomorrow evening in front of OUT NYC.

In addition to the boycott calls, Broadway Cares, a charity that focuses on curing AIDS, canceled an annual event at a nightclub the two men own.

Erik Erickson refers to this as the “totalitarianism of the gay rights movement“. Realistically, this is simply the totalitarianism of the political Left. Lefties deride President George W Bush for proclaiming “you’re either with us or with them” regarding Islamic terrorism, yet, the totalitarian Left puts President Bush’s attacks on Islamic terrorism to shame with their attacks on anyone who either strays from the Liberal plantation or was never on it. As Erickson notes “It’s that they ruthlessly try to destroy anyone who dissents and now anyone who agrees with their agenda, but who dares to allow dissenters into their homes on unrelated business.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Gay Businessman Who Hosted Ted Cruz Even Forced To Grovel At The Feet Of Gay Mafia »

Latest Cult Of Climastrology Excuse: The Pause Is Just A Distraction

And doom is coming in 2040

Climate Change Scientist says Global Warming Slowdown is Just a Minor Distraction and will Peak in 2040

The latest rise of the world wide average air temperature will not matter compared to how much the planet will heat up by the year 2100, says the latest study in Nature Climate Change. The study compared climate models that reflect the present slowdown in warming to those that don’t. These latest findings show that long-term warming predictions remained unchanged between the four groups of models; since it was not a factor in the global warming slowdown, averaging models won’t change the minds of critics.

“This much hyped global warming slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand,” lead author and Chief Investigator with the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate System Science, Prof Matthew England said. “This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections – it is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation.”

Got that? The actual data showing a Pause is inconsequential, it’s the computer models that really matter.

Oh, and then there’s that little bit about natural variability. If NV can cause a Pause, why can’t it be mostly/solely responsible for the current warm periods?

To split the long-term temperature results from short–term variability, researchers took 200 climate models and recalculated them to 2100 then compared models that matched the current slowdown to those that didn’t. The models were examined by utilizing one of two IPCC carbon emission projections. The first was a situation where greenhouse gas concentrations went on rising uninterrupted through the 21st century. The other assumes emissions are minimized to simulate global warming peaking by 2040, before being reduced drastically.

There is literally nothing that can dissuade the CoC adherents from their beliefs based on computer models over actual data.

Read: Latest Cult Of Climastrology Excuse: The Pause Is Just A Distraction »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful salad, which reduces obesity which is bad for climate change, BUT IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, DAMMIT!!!!!!!!, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with the Sunday Funnies.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove