The Low

I find my blood pressure spikes every time I read stories of people like Shawn Glans, the bully thug in a police uniform who assaulted & battered a citizen unaware he was being recorded.

Official United States Bully, Shawn Glans

You can imagine how I felt reading yet another similar story, this time from Alabama. A Police Department Training officer named Eric Parker and his trainee came across a supposedly suspicious person whose crime started and ended there. I have yet to see where it is a crime to be a suspicious person in any ordinance or edict in any city or state.

"Found guilty of being a suspicious person, Abraham Lincoln of Springfield Illinois was today sentenced to two months' jail time. He was rigorously reprimanded & the accused promised never to be suspicious in the future."

Eric Parker will end up costing the citizens of his city millions of dollars, but worse, he will solidify the visceral hatred of the police that ordinary citizens continue to harbor. The chief of police stated that Parker did not exhibit the "high standards" of that city's police department. Sure, chief, that's why he's a training officer.

How dare you be a suspicious person!

If you don't know, (now ex-) Officer Eric Parker accosted an Indian grandfather who had been reported as suspicious. The law requires that a crime be currently & actively investigated before an officer may detain a citizen and in this case, that crime was being suspicious, you see. Alas, the frail Indian gentleman did not understand he was committing this crime, and after he added on the veritably hateful inability to speak English, paid for it by having his neck broken in a takedown befitting the felony crime of being suspicious.

As bad as that is, there's something far, far worse at play here, and is the reason these two jerks acted the way they did. I've already touched on this topic in my other post, In Mala Fide. It is characterized by the following statement: someone somewhere once did X therefore everyone is guilty of X until they prove otherwise.

These officers are trained to ensure that every interaction with the citizenry holds within the potential for violence. Because of this, it conditions these simpletons--and I use this term advisedly, because for too many police officers it is unfortunately true--to act as if the citizen is already guilty of the crime of executing a police officer and it is their job today, right now, to stop their own murder from commencing.

They deal with citizens in bad faith, assigning the worst intentions to every person until that guilt person has proven otherwise. This is the same thing the TSA does: everyone is guilty of trying to blow up airliners until they've proved they won't. Someone once tried to blow up an airliner by smuggling a bomb in their shoe therefore everyone thenceforth is guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb and must prove they won't by taking off their shoes for inspection.

Once you think of it like that, everything snaps into focus. The Newtown board set up to Do Something about the shooting there just came out with even more restrictions to be placed on the sale & transfer of not only firearms but cartridges as well. None of this would have prevented Newtown from happening, as even a laudatory ("courageous!") newspaper editorial points out. Nevertheless, proceed full speed ahead, guilty citizens one and all.

Seen through the filter of bad faith, it makes sense why these simpletons would call for further restrictions on erstwhile law-abiding citizens. Let's see how it fits into our bad faith template: Adam Lanza committed a crime with guns therefore every citizen in his state is now guilty of committing a crime with guns and must prove they (i) have not (ii) are not now (iii) will never commit a crime with guns. The burden of proof lies with them.

Aside from the fact that it is in a 180-degree direction from how our system was designed to operate--the presumption of innocence, in case you missed it--it is actually a completely worthless approach to law enforcement & safety. This is likely the reason why our Founders designed the system in that way! Who would've thought. While it is straightforward to prove I have not committed a particular crime, it is quite difficult to prove that I am not currently committing said crime and further, just about impossible to prove I will never commit that crime.

We treat each other with the basest of assumptions, assigning the worst possible to our intent, locking us away in virtual jail cells until we have each proven to one another that we are not guilty. If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you are guilty of trying to murder someone. So you must prove you haven't and aren't currently by undergoing a background check. If not that bad, then you are certainly guilty of negligence. You will leave your weapon unattended and someone will get hurt. You will kill your wife and children with that weapon. You will shoot up the local elementary school.

Some other examples, in passing: men who sit with their legs open in subway cars are guilty of patriarchal oppression and must be shamed & punished. A mother brings in a child to the ER who hurt itself falling off a high chair; she's guilty of Munchausen-by-Proxy until she proves she isn't. That guy who made a joke about Asians is guilty of racism and must be prove to our collective sense of justice that he is not a racist; until then he is to be punished. Eric Eich once gave money to a cause therefore he is guilty of hating homosexuals and must prove his innocence; until then he is punished.

Someone suspicious once walked the streets casing houses for later burglary. Therefore the frail Indian gentleman is guilty of both being suspicious and casing houses therefore he must prove to Officer Parker's finely honed sense of justice that he is not guilty of that crime, but in the meantime, will be handled like a guilty criminal until such time as he has proven he's no threat.

Do you see how nefarious this is? Low-trust societies do not survive long yet this is exactly what we're positively encouraging each other to do. It is brutal if you're the person caught in the headlights of the oncoming Guilty Train for the simple reason that it is very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove a negative, to prove something isn't there. Asking me to prove there are no black swans requires an extraordinary amount of work on my part because I must search every corner of the earth for a negative, as you sit there actively punishing me.

Guilty of rara avis!

Bad faith.

Tears on My Pillow

Ran into this gem published by our newspaper of record (I use that term loosely) here in Idaho, The Statesman. I'm going to quote it and intersperse my thoughts.

When a powerful organization called al-Qaida nurtures the violent fantasies of angry and disaffected men and enables them to obtain weapons and kill innocent civilians, we call that terrorism.
When a profit-driven industry lobby called the NRA makes it easy as pie for any angry or even crazy person to get handguns and assault weapons and act out their own violent fantasies against family and community members, does that count as terrorism, too?

Right off, you get the sense this is going to be a well-reasoned, thoughtful and sober reflection on the issues. "al-Qaida" is compared with the National Rifle Association because they both nurture the violent "fantasies of men" (not women?) by enabling them to "obtain weapons and kill innocent civilians."

Yes, those two organizations are different in name, perhaps, but that's where all difference ends. Must I point out the insanity of conflating these two organizations, really? Must I? Oh alright, I suppose I must. The NRA (I mean 'al-Qaida') enables crazy people to get handguns and assault weapons. I'd like to know how it does that exactly. Does it buy them the handguns? Does it encourage the crazy people to commit these atrocities? Does it put the evil in their minds, maybe using some "Inception"-type brainwashing? Does it make them crazy in the first place? I'm not quite clear what this person means by "enabling" because "easy as pie" isn't exactly a methodology.

To purchase a firearm, the NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida') plays no part in the transaction whatsoever. To purchase a firearm, the person has two choices: buy from a dealer or buy from a private citizen. To purchase from a dealer, they must first have money, which isn't exactly easy to come by. So called "assault weapons" (so called because there's no one legal definition for what an assault weapon is) are expensive and the NRA, if anything, takes money not gives it.

At the dealership, the prospective buyer must pass a background check to ensure he or she is not a "prohibited person." Felons cannot purchase firearms, neither can those adjudicated mentally insane. So far, no 'Easy Pie' but it is simple as a concept: if you're not a felon or otherwise prohibited, nothing should come in the way of your obtaining a firearm, which is a right as recognized by the Second Amendment.

So what about private purchases? The first point to make here is an important and philosophical one: a firearm is not a sentient being, capable of making choices on its own. It is a tool, designed for the specific purpose of throwing a projectile in a certain direction, that direction chosen by the wielder of the firearm. It is a piece of property, no more no less. In many ways, it's like a car or a boat. As a private citizen, I ought to be able to sell my own private property, period. If you don't agree with this simply because it is a firearm, you are a tyrant-in-the-making.

That said, there are laws governing such transactions specifically because it is a firearm: the seller must be reasonably certain that the buyer is not a prohibited person. This means that most purchasers who do not know the buyer beforehand will insist on getting a bill of sale filled out, an ID check, and many insist that the buyer have a Concealed Weapons Permit which shows they've already passed an FBI background check. So far, no pie and the NRA (I mean 'al-Qaida') still hasn't made an appearance.

But, you protest, criminals and other prohibited persons get their guns somewhere! That's right: they buy them from other criminals. They do not go into gun stores. They do not buy them from law-abiding private citizens. Read the FBI reports on this and you'll find that criminals get the majority of their guns from strawman purchases (bad boy thug felon sends his baby momma who has no criminal record to buy him a gun) and of course from the streets.

As for crazy people obtaining firearms, until the day we can merely look at a person who has shown no signs of mental illness beforehand and foresee they are about to become insanely violent, we are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt. Mental illness is a terrible thing, but we all should not be guilty of it before clinical diagnosis. As easily as the mentally ill can use a firearm to cause violence, they can use a knife (as happened in China with those poor children) and they can use a car (too many examples of this abound) or something else, usually benign. It is the responsibility of society at large that before we strip someone of their unalienable rights--which include bearing arms--a sober judicial process must occur. We shouldn't be required to prove our sanity before exercising a basic and natural right. On second thought, maybe we ought to require proof of sanity before voting!

Now for "angry" persons obtaining firearms--what a ludicrous idea! Who hasn't been an "angry" person a few times in life? Prohibiting people from obtaining firearms because they're "angry" is insanity itself and pretty much rules out every man, woman, and child on the planet. Which is perhaps his goal, and if so, why doesn't he just say so?

As with most of the stupidity and irrationality in American public life, our friends, neighbors and family members are being killed on a weekly basis nationwide because this is what we have asked for, either by voting for politicians who are stooges of the NRA, or by not voting at all and thus leaving the decision to zealots.

In one breath you call Americans stupid and irrational but your "friends, neighbors and family members" who are killed on a weekly basis aren't stupid and irrational, they're just dead. Are those people not part of the stupid and irrational American public life? The connection he attempts to show between voting for politicians who are NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida') stooges and his "friends and neighbors" being killed is tenuous, at best.

Let's see here: the politicians in Chicago, Democrats almost all, are hardly NRA stooges. In fact, Chicago and the state of Illinois has some of the most stringent gun regulations on the books. Yet it also has some of the highest murder rate committed with handguns (not "assault weapons," mind you which are statistically insignificant) in the nation. In fact, the areas with politicians who write the most stringent gun control measures into law have the highest rates of "gun violence." Interesting, that, no? So it seems where there's no NRA ('al-Qaida'), there's higher rates of "gun violence" which, alas, doesn't help his points.

So tell me again that a nation flooded with guns and plagued with mass murders is somehow freer and safer than nations such as Australia, Canada or England with vastly lower murder rates.
Somehow, I'm not feeling it.

And that's the key, isn't it? This whole letter is composed of "feels." You're not "feeling" it because basically, that's about all you're doing, is feeling. This is an unsteady appeal to emotion. None of the clear-eyed statistics actually supports your contentions so you blast out in a spittle stream of over-emotionality.

Well, I'm sure sorry to tell you this, but your feelings have no weight in overturning Second Amendment rights. As most Americans now agree, based on polling data, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and gun control is nothing more than people control in hiding. The fact that someone, somewhere, will misuse their right to own firearms is not a reason to strip those rights away from everyone else. The fact that someone, somewhere, is sure to drink and drive is no reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol. Unless and until you commit a crime or are adjudicated mentally unstable, your rights are yours, given by the Constitution's 'Creator' and are not subject to your feelings.

As for the spurious claim about our nation flooded with guns is less "freer and safer" than Australia, Canada, or England, well that just does not hold any water! England and Australia have different populations in both numbers and culture than we do. Not only that, but their violence rates are higher per capita than ours. In fact, the United States is number 111 (One hundred and Eleven) in homicide rates worldwide and, if we take out the Democrat-controlled cities, we would fall even lower. We are freer, yes, and come to find out, we're safer, too.

Watch this, if you dare:


As an aside, it's rather interesting that you're calling out Australia and Canada where in the last few months violence with highly-regulated firearms have exploded into the news. France, with its Draconian firearms laws, just saw Islamic terrorists (NRA members?) murder police and journalists with semi-automatic rifles. How do you explain that away, I wonder?

And yes, I've been a gun owner all my adult life, am pro-hunting and attended the police funeral following the previous Moscow mass murders in 2007. Still not feeling it.
Chris Norden, Moscow

Well, Chris, the fact you're a gun owner "all your life" means nothing. It does not grant your opinion any more weight. That you want to limit firearm ownership, while being a firearm owner yourself, means nothing. It's a cheap rhetorical ploy to cover yourself in a mantle of reasonableness. It's sort of like saying that because you're married to a Jew, you are thereby free to be an anti-Semite.

The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with "hunting." Nice try. Go sell your crazy somewhere else, pal. Like Chicago.

I'm not a member of the NRA but this guy has given me all the reason I need to pull the trigger (no pun). Today, I'm joining the NRA (I mean, 'al-Qaida').

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/01/27/3612814_letter-guns.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Victims

I'm always interested—and almost always disgusted, but that's another post—by who is identified as a victim by society and the media. The Petraeus Affair, which could have been the title of a smashing Sherlock Holmes story, is the latest example.

According to everything I've seen written and seen, Mrs. Petraeus is the victim of the whole sordid mess, forgetting Dr. (Mrs) Broadwell is one as well by any definition of the term. Am I being led to believe that husbands who are cheated on are not as important a victim category as long-suffering dowdy wives?

It seems so.

Rape And Truth

Dennis Prager is an astute and eloquent observer of the human condition. In Worse Than Wrong, he dissects Representative Akin’s mindflub. An excerpt:

While he should not have used the term “legitimate rape,” he could have explained later that, given the expanded definitions of rape, not all claims of “rape” are truly rape. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for “Feminist Perspectives on Rape,” for example, states that “we must recognize that, in some cases, ‘yes’ also means no. . . . The man may threaten to sue for custody of their children, to derail her green card application, to evict her, or simply to sulk and make her life miserable for days should she refuse to have sex. Which (if any) such nonviolent coercive pressures should be regarded as rape, either morally or legally, is a matter of some controversy.”

That would have largely ended the issue. And he could have further noted that Republicans generally incline toward harsher penalties for violent crime than do Democrats.

However, as usual there are deeper issues with which to contend and Prager, also as usual, does an outstanding job of revealing those issues and thus why Akin’s candidacy is no longer viable.

Read the rest and be edified (or, if you’re a liberal, angered).

Americans

I love this guy.

“These are my people. Americans.”

God bless you, sir.

Who Needs Runways?

You Can’t Stop The Signal

Bill Whittle has long been my intellectual hero and here, in one of his Afterburner segments, he takes on the narrative and how people like me (non-white, gun-toting conservatives) violate that narrative and thus are anathema to the prevailing liberal culture. Watching, you can tell he gets a bit heated about it, as did I.

Brilliantly, he dissects the history of this narrative, exploring its source beginning with Marx and ending with the Frankfort School’s Critical Theory.

This is worth watching at least twice. [link]

Announcements

I started watching Jon & Kate plus Eight quite a while ago then got turned off the whole phenomenon because I didn’t like the sinister tones the show took, starting when the Gosselins approached then passed the OP, the Oprah Point.

Those early shows were a delightful blend of harried parents and cute little kids (except for Mady Gosselin, I’ve always disliked that twerp) but even back then, I got the sense Jon was a hen-pecked pussy who didn’t want to rock the money boat Kate had shepherded the family on to and was steering with a strident hand on the tiller. The came the OP and enh, I’ve got better things to watch.

For the first time in almost two years, I watched the last episode of JK8 I would ever see in which Pussy Jon and Grumpy Kate announced their separation all the while advertising for (yet another) manufacturer of toy child houses called Topsy-turvy House or some crap. If that’s not the name, it should be.

With the possible exception of Mady who deserves it (I kid, I kid!) what these selfish assholes have done is turn those kids’ lives upside-down. While protesting they only did this (ie. “star” on a reality TV show) for the kids, they were also divorcing “for the kids” as well. Jon tellingly said he had to do what was best for himself.

And the kids.

Definitely all for the kids.

This sent my eye muscles into that oh-so-familiar muscular twirl. Spare me, you fucking pussy. You know what’s best for those kids (borne out by hard data, year-in, year-out)? Stay with the fucking mother of your kids, stop cheating, grow a fucking pair and throw out the fucking television cameras.

He goes on to say that he was “only 32.” More like 10, you sophomoric adulterating shit.

The two of them were spouting the usual BS about doing this all together, but apart. I mean, the irony was thick and heavy. Here they are, explaining that going on the TV show didn’t hasten or otherwise affect their decision to separate when that clearly is the reason for their problems; that they’d pull through this “together” while splitting; that it was and will always be “for the kids” when it’s completely apparent it’s for definitely selfish reasons.

This is from their About page: “I had wanted children right away, but Jon wasn’t ready.” You got that half-right, miss thing. You both weren’t ready.

Liberal Socialism And Hitler

Heston, 1923—2008

Charlton Heston, a great actor and a great man, goes upstairs to see The Boss.  He was 84.

R. I. P.

Voltron

Now comes word that another one of my childhood staples is headed for the movie screen: Voltron, defender of the universe! Loved by good, hated by evil.

Ah, the idyllic weekend hours spent glued to the tube, a hot cup of Ovaltine and buttered bread in hand and mouth:

Modern Dance

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Climate Change

“If you pay close attention, you'll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying "Global Warming" lately. No, nowadays it's "Climate Change." Do you know why?

Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.

Oops. ”

Oops indeed.

Orson Scott Card is a science fiction writer of some repute. In this article (Citizen Watch), Mr. Card tackles The Hockey Stick, empirical data, True Believers, and fraud. In the end, he finds one raw truth:

“All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.”

Three Chick Flicks

Steve Dutch is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. I believe I may have written about him before, especially about his Top Ten No Sympathy Lines but I'm not sure.

This time, he considers Three Chick Flicks and Their Unintended Message and draws some very interesting conclusions.

Global Coldening

“But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone.”

Hehe.

From Fear of a Global Coldening by Tim Blair.

TV

About the only thing I do religiously these days is watch TV. I like the so-called “reality” shows, alas. I have some comments on a few I've been watching lately:

Top Chef (Bravo TV)

Unbeknownst to me, the practice of holding one's fork as if it were a hammer is now de rigueur. This is a deplorable, and ugly development. I would expect it from untrained, uncultured people, but in a fucking Chef? Tom Colicchio is the chief judge of this show on Bravo TV. He eats like a caveman—he wraps his fingers around the fork, tines down, and stabs at the food; or he splays out four fingers on the upper side of the handle with the thumb underneath, then awkwardly twists the arm to bring the food to the mouth.

By the way, the graphic on the left is from a Mormon (Utah, where else?) newspaper article from 2005. The accompanying caption reads: “Riehl shows correct way to hold knife and fork to cut chicken.” What the fork fuck?

Hey Tom (and any other members of the Great Unwashed Masses), the proper way to hold a fork is to balance it between the first knuckle of the middle finger and the tip of the index finger, while using the thumb to support the handle, like a scalpel.

What happened to Padma's arm? There's a long scar down her right bicep; knowing she's Indian, the mind instantly conjures up images of dowries not getting paid and acid attacks.

Och, now I feel bad. Turns out she was in a car accident.

Hey Paula (Bravo TV)

Is a wreck.

Sicko

I've nothing against Elephant seals. In the early morning twilight, heck, those things can be positively beautiful before that first cup of coffee:

And so it pains me to have to compare this resplendent creature with that toad, Michael Moore. Yes, Michael Moore is a human Elephant Seal. My point? None really, he's just a fat, belly-crawling, smelly cunt.

His new propaganda movie is in the best traditions of Goebbels, at once manipulative, unfunny and error-ridden, none of which will deter the brainless masses and libDems (but I repeat myself) who will yet again stuff their money into Moore's pockets. Yes, the ball cap-wearing fat boy from Michigan, High School-dropout again laughs bellows all the way to the horrible, swindling, manipulative, capitalist bank, sacks of money tucked into the folds of arm skin.

An article I read yesterday asked the good question that if Moore's goal is free health care (like Cuba's, donchaknow?) why doesn't he distribute his film for free (“… I made this film because I want the world to change”). Yet another review I've just finished reading (thanks to James H.) is the one here by Tony Medley. It is also brilliant.

Power Of Art

PBS has an astounding series titled Simon Schama's Power of Art. Schama recounts the lives of eight artists and specific works that defined their careers. This series is truly amazing, and should be watched, nay studied, by all and sundry. In order (with the latest—Caravaggio—tonight, Monday, June 25):

* Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) and Wheatfield With Crows,

* Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) and Guernica,

* Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610) and David With the Head of Goliath,

* Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) and The Ecstasy of St. Theresa,

* Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) and The Conspiracy of the Batavians Under Claudius Civilis,

* Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) and The Death of Marat,

* J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851) and Slave Ship (Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Typhoon Coming On),

* Mark Rothko (1903-1970) and the Seagram murals.

A blurb from the PBS site that stuck:

In 1941, during the Nazi occupation of Paris, the Gestapo visited Pablo Picasso's Left Bank flat, where a member of the secret police spied a postcard of the artist's most famous work, Guernica. The giant mural memorialized Germany's 1937 aerial obliteration of a small Basque village. "Was it you who did this?" the Nazi demanded of Picasso, to which he replied, "No. It was you."

DreamzCatcher

Because I was out celebrating Mothers' Day, I wasn't able to watch the finale of the CBS show Survivor: Fiji. Yesterday, the missus and I were able to finally able to see it.

Sometimes to my regret, I have to admit that I am a fan of most reality TV shows, Survivor heading the list. I've seen every single one of the 14(!) they've had. (Here come the rationalizations.) I like Survivor because it's a test of human endurance, mental, and otherwise. I like watching psychology at work as the everyday folks on the show attempt to wade through interesting situations that most of them will never again witness.

It's most enjoyable to watch truly skillful play like this year's winner, Earl Cole. Yau-man Chan, a computer engineer, was another extraordinary player. At 54, who would have given this older Chinese any chance at all? Yet, with guile, tact, and above all, displaying a deep intelligence, he made it to the final four.

In contrast, the other two in the final four were Cassandra and Andria Herd also, or better known as Dreamz. Cassandra is a Civil Engineer Manager (whatever the fuck that means) and was about as useful as an asshole on an elbow. A complete waste of time. Dreamz, on the other hand, is a Cheerleading Coach from North Carolina.

From the first, one gets the idea that Dreamz is uncouth and completely out of his element amongst the mostly educated crowd on Survivor. His only saving grace is his physical ability. At 25, he's already a father to two boys(!) which seems to lend credence to my believe that idiots can do no better in life than procreate and propagate even more idiocy.

And literally, this guy's a fucking idiot. For starters, he wouldn't (or couldn't) shut up. Yap, yap, yap all the time. Telling one and all about his desultory childhood in the projects of Wilmington—sleeping on the streets, eating in soup kitchens, performing in the streets, you name it, he's done it.

As if that wasn't bad enough, he entered into a pact with Yau-man who offered him a $60,000 truck in return for handing over immunity in the final four should Dreamz win it. As it turned out, Dreamz did indeed win the immunity then, to my utter disappointment and shock, refused to hand over the immunity to Yau-man as he had promised.

In the time leading up to the final four tribal council, this jerk-off would not stop talking about how he was a man of his word, a Christian man, a father who would be proud to keep his bond and thus, show his children what a real man does, in spite of the potential of losing a million dollars.

Yap, yap, yap. In the end, like the product of the quintessential black American experience, he chose to break his word and keep the immunity for himself. And he was suitably excoriated for it, as he should.

He has no honor, no pride self. When one enters into a pact of one's own free will, one upholds one's end of the bargain. That's how life works, but alas, the metaphor of modern black American life is apt: dishonor, the pursuit of the impermanent, the quick buck, the shortsighted view. If he had thought things through, the million dollars he stood no chance of winning would have easily been his several times over had he kept his word.

But the seedy product of the modern black American family won over. Imagine for a moment if he had indeed done what he said he would do. The accolades, the tours, and if money was the overriding factor as it seemed to be, the oodles that would have poured in: Here's an honorable man! We want men like these to push our products, a real-life role model, a hero. One million dollars would have been a drop in the well. How ironic!

After breaking his promise, he rightly looked dejected and kept his eyes averted and sometimes even covered, in shame. Afterwards, he apologized to Yau-man and the others. Then, in a feeble attempt to assuage his guilt, he talked about only playing the game, as if the shame he had felt wasn't real. Pathetic, rational lies.

In a lot of ways, as hinted to earlier, this is symptomatic of the black American experience. There is no dignity in suffering and pain if it doesn't strengthen and build, otherwise, it only means you have not learned anything, the unexamined life that isn't worth living.

The mentality that pervades black America is that of a five-year-old. A five-year-old easily swayed and easy to deceive because it has no critical faculties, exhibiting little foresight, no discernment, and thus no integrity and absolutely no honor. And above all else: talk, all-bloviating, all-complaining.

“Me want now!” is the overriding cri de guerre, the all-encompassing, driving need for temporary gain at the expense of long-term fortune. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Which is why Democrats just love black people like Dreamz.

Presentation Zen

Presentation Zen is a blog I've come to really enjoy reading. The latest entry, like all the others, is excellent and talks about the paradox that too much choice can lead to stifled creativity while restrictions and limitations lead to interesting (creative) solutions to problems:

Having grown up in the abundance of the US, I was basically taught that freedom is, among other things, the maximization of choices. The more choices the better. All those choices. All that abundance.157 kinds of breakfast cereal…how to decide? The freedom to choose, at least on things that matter most, is a wonderful gift indeed. Yet, in our daily lives we too often burden ourselves with petty choices, unimportant matters, and frivolous decisions. In today’s world we may have political/social freedom (if we're lucky), but often lack “a freedom of mind,” the very freedom that can matter most when aiming to construct creative solutions to complex problems. Our minds — even our lives in general — have become complicated by clutter.

I especially liked this quote by T. S. Eliot: “When forced to work within a strict framework the imagination is taxed to its utmost – and will produce its richest ideas. Given total freedom the work is likely to sprawl."

Check out Presentation Zen, it's terrific.

*Update April 2, 2007: D'oh! I failed to add a URL link! HERE.