Once again, I've taken way too long to put up a post of this type. But sooner or later, various events have gotten me to think, or muse, you might say.
****
I recently ran across a story about a black man who was handcuffed by a policeman while moving things out of a rented van into his newly-bought home in Tonganoxie, Kansas last August. The cop claimed that the area had recently seen a lot of burglaries. After the cop and his backup determined that the man was indeed the owner of the house, they uncuffed him and drove away. Setting aside the (very legitimate in this case, IMHO) question about police racism, two other questions arise. First, since Tonganoxie has a population that is 95 percent white, wouldn't it be likely that its criminals, including burglars, are most likely to be white? But more obviously, wouldn't a burglar be taking things out of a house instead of moving things into one?
During the past three years or so, during which President Trump and his campaign have been accused of collusion with Russia, I have come up with some questions for those who believe that some sort of wrongdoing was done. First, what specific behavior amounted to collusion? What specific law(s) was/were violated and how does the behavior constitute those violations? And finally, who were the individuals involved? I'm hoping that the Mueller report might give some answers to those questions. Even so, I'm pretty sure that no matter what the report says, some of the president's critics will cling to their belief that some sort of collusion happened. You might metaphorically say that these clingers are the new flat-earthers.
When someone wants to change his or her gender, we are told that we must approve and support his or her decision, or else we are "transphobic". The same side of the aisle who say that also appear to be absolutely horrified by the idea of a homosexual undergoing therapy to become straight. There appears to be a certain selectivity about supporting someone's decision to make a transition.
After the charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped, I came up with a thought experiment. Let's say that a white man falsely accuses two non-whites of attacking him, and then lies to the police about the alleged incident. Then let's say that he is charged for those lies, but later on all the charges are dropped in exchange for bail money and community service. What would the reaction be? How quickly would there be accusations of racism against whoever dropped the charges? And what about all the suspects in Chicago who are facing slates of charges less serious than those previously faced by Smollett? Will they be given a chance to avoid multiple felony counts if they forfeit bail money and participate in community service?
Smollett's community service has turned out to be 18 hours of stuffing envelops for an organization run by Jesse Jackson. If a right-winger such as myself were to serve a left-wing entity in such a manner as part of a sentence, I think that it truly would be a form of punishment.
The Smollett story reminds of Susan Smith, who falsely accused an imaginary black man of stealing her car with her two young sons inside. In reality, she drove her car into a body of water and left it there while her kids drowned. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Smollett's actions are as bad as Smith's, only that both falsely claimed to have been accosted by people who didn't really exist.
Let me expand on something I said in my last "Random Musings" post. If what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky while he held the office of president was a private matter, then anything that Donald Trump did, a decade or more before becoming president, with Stormy Daniels or whomever, is even more private.
When some of us on the right point out that the name of the Nazi party in Germany included the word "socialist", some on the left will invoke the full name of North Korea, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", to argue that the Nazi use of "socialist" shouldn't be taken seriously. The same side, however, will call Hitler a nationalist and liken modern nationalists to "Nazis", thus taking at face value the word "nationalist" in the Nazis party's name. Why, then, should one word be taken literally and the other with a grain of salt?
If the southern border wall ever gets built, I'd like to have it include electronic message boards, similar to the scoreboards in sports stadiums. One possible message would be, "The nearest port of entry is that way" with an arrow indicating direction, along with the number of miles. Another would be, "You can obtain a device that allows you to go through this wall. It's called a 'passport'."
Congresscritter Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has accused politicians of supporting Israel because they've been bought off. Yet, President Trump supports Israel, even though he's too rich to be bought off.
The recent idea floated by President Trump, to transport illegal aliens into sanctuary cities, has been met with some opposition by the same crowd who supports their presence in this country, and who also support sanctuary policies. Not only is this NIMBYism, but is also shows that this crowd is not really interested in showing any alleged compassion to illegal aliens, but in forcing others to do so.
Every once in a while, someone invokes the poem "First They Came....", based on a speech by German pastor Martin Niemöller. If it ever happens here, who will the people in charge come for? The climate skeptics? The Christian bakers? The pro-lifers? I'm sure that the left have their own ideas. Hopefully, no matter who's in charge, we'll never get to find out.
Years ago, I heard of a brand of condom named Ramses. Later, I learned about its namesake, the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II. This would mean that a product intended to prevent reproduction is named after a guy who reproduced over 100 times.
No comments:
Post a Comment