Journalists brave hail of earplugs in Ferguson

Courageous journalists on the front lines of Ferguson brave hail of earplugs to get their story, says Michelle Malkin:

The J.V.'s have been hailed for their "courage" on the "front lines" -- like veritable 21st-century versions of Audie Murphy and Ernie Pyle! Of course, Audie Murphy and Ernie Pyle would know real bullets when they saw them. But Reilly revealed his abject cluelessness this week when he hysterically tweeted a photo of what he thought were "rubber bullets." They turned out to be high-capacity... ear plugs.

Read more here.

Ferguson: When enforcing the law is "bad optics"

An example of "good optics"

Protesters in Ferguson, Missouri have experienced another night filled with a lack of sympathy for their irresponsible hooliganism and unjustified criticism for their violent and hysterical reaction to a questionable police shooting.

Many Americans apparently think the problem in Ferguson is out-of-control violence and threats to the safety of the local law-abiding population, when, in fact, the problem is a widespread lack of understanding for the needs of looters and bomb throwers.

Thankfully, more and more commentators on television news and talk radio are beginning to stand up to the larger public and are pointing out the inordinate attachment most people seem to have for safety and order.

Protesters in Ferguson (most of whom admittedly have no connection whatsoever with the alleged victim) are clearly upset about the shooting and have a need to express their feelings by throwing Molotov cocktails and stealing from convenience stores. Surely we can find it within ourselves to understand how they feel. Let's be honest: Think of all the times we have looted a store when we were were down or thrown a gasoline bomb at the local police when we woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

It is astounding how little understanding now only we, but the authorities in Ferguson are willing to give these protesters and how little of their pain the local police are willing to feel.

To make things worse, state and local law enforcement officials seem to think the problem is, well, the problem, when, in fact, the solution is the problem. As the defenders of the protests have argued, the reason for these protests has little to do with the fact that there are a bunch of hoodlums using the shooting as an excuse to destroy things and endanger other people's lives and a whole lot more to do with how prepared the police seem to be to deal with it.

Just what do the police in Ferguson think they are doing with riot gear and tear gas? When would they ever have to use that?

As Newsweek magazine has pointed out, the real problem is the "militarization of the police force." As it turns out the police in Ferguson have weapons. Real guns. As many liberal commentators have observed, it is a basic principle of law enforcement that crime is directly related to a police force's ability to deal with it should it happen.

In short, the better prepared you are to deal with crime, the likelier it is to happen.

Seen from this perspective, crime is a justified response to the preparations police have made to respond to it. It just so happens there is a theory called the "Elaborated Social Identity Model." It even has an acronym, ESIM―proof that it is scientific. ESIM, says Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald , "is the leading scientific theory on managing a boisterous horde of people."

And what more accurate description than "boisterous" is there for is a bunch of fire bomb-throwing hoodlums?

Here's the idea, says this Eichenwald person:

What the ESIM shows is that an angry crowd can be driven to riot if they believe they are being treated unfairly—for example, by being confronted by cops decked out with military weaponry. When police treat a crowd justly and humanely, the chance of an uproar decreases and participants trust law enforcement more, the research shows.

If the police in Ferguson were only up-to-date on their knowledge of modern law enforcement theory, they would know that the equipment police need to deal with violence is not a response to violence but that, instead, violence is a response to the possession by police of the equipment they need to deal with it.

It's science.

Not only that but, as has been pointed out by liberal commentators, the police force's resort to tear gas and dogs doesn't look very good on camera. It's not nearly as great viewing as, say, watching some guy on a security cam walking out of a store with an armful of goods he hasn't paid for.

As it turns out, actually enforcing the law is "bad optics."

If we're going to use tear gas and rubber bullets, they ought to be used on the complacent civilian population that does not care about the rights of violent protesters who clearly need to be brought into line.

One more thing...

Did I mention that Mark Juergensmeyer's labeling of Wade Michael Page's act as "Christian terrorism" was ludicrous?

Make that BALD Terrorism

After having thought about this for, oh, about 3 seconds, I have now decided that sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer is wrong for a different reason. Juergensmeyer calls Wade Michael Page's act of killing Sikhs "Christian terrorism." I pointed out this was clearly rock terrorism, since Page was in a rock band and sung racist songs.

But I was wrong.

No, this is clearly Bald Terrorism. Just look at the picture and you can see. Page was bald. Skinheads have been implicated in violence all around the world. Most noticably in Europe. 

What will it take to convince people that hairlessness should be viewed with suspicion?

Rock Terrorism

Mark Juergensmeyer, who purports to be a sociologist at my own alma mater, calls the Sikh killings perpetrated by Wade Michael Page "Christian terrorism."

Though there is no evidence that Page was a pious Christian, that is true of many religious terrorists. If the hard-talking, swaggering al Qaeda militants can be called Muslim terrorists, certainly Page can be called a Christian terrorist.

But what he doesn't take into account is the fact that Page was a "rock singer." This was clearly Rock Terrorism. Just go look at the lyrics of his songs from his band End Apathy.

Rock music was unquestionably implicated in this heinous crime. Down with rock 'n roll.

Liberal Media: YOU shot Gabrial Giffords

I have not killed anyone this week, and that fact is rather amazing. You see, I did something very, very bad last Sunday in church. I lifted my voice and sang, "Onward Christian Soldiers" with the rest of the congregation.

If you look at this song, you will see very quickly that it uses military metaphors, and military metaphors appeal to violence. And, as we all now know, violent metaphors lead to actual violence. So the question arises why I have remained so incredibly calm and docile in the wake of the singing of this dangerous song, rather than, say, going out and beating someone over the head--with the Cross of Jesus going on before, of course.

You see, the recent shooting of Congressman Gabriel Giffords is the fault specifically of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, and of Republicans in general, because they have created an atmosphere of violence because of their rhetoric. And who is leading us out against this foe? MSNBC's Keith Olberman.

In fact, Olberman is so excited about the extreme rhetoric, he's marching as to war:

If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bulls-eye targets on 20 representatives, including Gabby Giffords does not repudiate her own part - however tangential in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics - she must be dismissed from politics. She must be repudiated by the members of her own party. And if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling.

Yes, Olberman wants to raise a might army until Satan's host doth flee. And although Olberman is one of those who is leading this mighty army against the conservative foe, he is far from the only one raising his voice: many have joined this happy throng, blaming Palin and other conservatives for the shooting.

“People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that," said Clarence Dupnik, sheriff of Pima County, Arizona. "That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences.”

"Right now, the conduct of politics and political campaigns too easily slides from lively debate to destructive competition in ways large and small," says Dan Balz of the Washington post, in a column blaming "inflammatory rhetoric" for the shooting.

And then there is E. J. Dionne, his voice blending with the song of the other liberal soldiers: "[I]t is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing 'tyranny.'"

These are people who attribute every problem, not to individuals, where it belongs, but to some structural inadequacy in society. There is no sin, remember. Sin is individual. But there is evil, although evil is always corporate. This is why Olberman could not just blame Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is an individual. He had to expand the blame to include the Tea Party and the Republicans.

But this is still not enough for some liberals. "The reality is everyone bears some responsibility," says Balz, "from politicians to political operatives to the media to ordinary Americans."

It takes a village to explain why bad things happen.

This is why every time someone walks into the school with a gun, we have to suffer the indignity of liberal journalists asking, "How could this have happened?" And then we have to endure pious sermons about the how we need more security in schools and how we need better gun laws.

For liberals, evil is not a human problem it's a policy question.

In fact, the interesting thing about these kinds of responses is that they seldom have much to do with what actually caused the crime. They simply become another excuse to lecture us on the fact that we need bigger, more intrusive government to keep us safe.

It isn't the guy who shot Giffords who is to blame: it's society.

When Jared Loughner goes before a judge, what is he going to say? "Your honor, I am not guilty. I shot her, but society is guilty of this crime, not me"?

If he does, don't blame him for it. Blame the silly secular liberals who said the exact same thing on the pages of newspapers across the country. Not individually of course. We'll blame them as a group.

Family group criticizes Gov. Beshear for giving partial pardon to convicted pedophile

For Immediate Release
August 29, 2008

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

"We don't remember seeing 'voting rights for convicted pedophiles' among Steve Beshear's campaign promises last fall," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation in response to yesterday's news that the Governor had given a partial pardon to former head of the Micro City Government, youth director Ron Berry.

Gov. Beshear restored the right to vote and the right to run for office to Ron Berry, who was convicted of 12 counts of sodomy with underage boys in the 1970s and 80s (and was accused of many more) while he was running the Micro City program. Critics at the time charged that four Democratic administrations had covered up Berry's activities .

"Before, it was local officials turning a blind eye to Berry's abuse of children. Now he's getting favorable treatment from state government," said Cothran.

The Governor's Office responded to objections to the partial pardon by saying that it is their policy is to automatically restore civil rights when applicants "have served their sentence, paid restitution and have no outstanding warrants."

"Maybe the Governor's Office could inform the families who were affected by Berry's depredations how he has paid restitution," said Cothran. "Quite frankly, this is just a strange argument."

"Basically what the Governor's Office is saying is that we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that he has given a partial pardon to one convicted pedophile who serves a little time because his policy is to give it to all of them."

"The other argument coming out of the Governor's Office is that this partial pardon is okay because no one objected. Maybe we missed it, but we don't remember Beshear asking about this at any of his town meetings."

Bobby Jindal for Emporer

Okay, if he keeps doing things like this, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is going to end up as the new conservative hero. At a time when the most daring thing conservative politicians seem to want to do is to stick a wet finger in the air, Jindal once again proves he's not scared of doing what he thinks is right.

Looks like Jindal has the very things he thinks rapists shouldn't.