Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Why mention it at all? Why is it relevant?
Hideki Matsuyama claims Masters title, first Japanese golfer to win major championship
Either you’re a good golfer or you’re not; race should have nothing to do with it. Provide a picture and let use figure it out for ourselves if we’re interested.
We’re either color blind or we’re not – and continually reporting race will not guide us towards a future where race is irrelevant.
Teacher goes postal (my apologies to postal workers everywhere):
Just look at what the “liberal agenda” is doing to our students: it sets students against one another; allows a “cancel culture” mentality to invade the classroom; and encourages the segregation of students along racial lines, pitting them against each other. If anything, this agenda is increasing racial tension by telling one side that the other is to blame for all their woes, while telling the other that they are evil and oppressive.
How about we get back to teaching in general, rather than indoctrination? How about we teach the students critical thinking skills so they can make decisions on their own, instead of relying on the latest Twitter hash tag? How about we teach students to judge each other not on the color of their skin or political party, but instead by their actions and character?
Oh – and how about we fire this teacher?
Duante Wright, a 20 year old black man, was shot to death by police in Brooklyn Center, MN last Sunday. As noted in the article cited below, while executing an arrest a police officer is alleged to have accidentally deployed their service firearm rather than their taser as intended. This resulted in Mr. Wright suffering a fatal gunshot wound as he tried to drive away from the police encounter.
Who is Daunte Wright, the 20-year-old Black man killed in officer-involved shooting in Minnesota?
This tragedy could have been prevented if the officer had more training in high-stress encounters, where this kind of mistake can be fatal. But it also could have been prevented if Duante Wright had not been driving a car with expired registration; if Duante Wright did not have a warrant from a failure to appear before the court for a previous firearm-related arrest; if Duante Wright had heeded the lawful orders of the police officer as he was being placed under arrest; if Duante Wright had not jumped back in the car and attempted to drive away. But you’ll hear none of this in defense of the officer; you’ll only hear that another young black man was needlessly shot by police.
In fact, support of any kind for the officer – even support for allowing the justice system to proceed before passing judgement – will result in an immediate attack by the far-left cancel culture squad. It’s already happened; Curt Boganey, the city manager of Brooklyn Center MN, was fired for the following statement regarding whether or not the officer involved should be immediately fired:
The city manager did not condone the officer’s actions; he did not blame the victim. He only requested due process – something we all expect from the law. And for this statement he became collateral damage of this tragic incident.
I agree that shooting Mr. Wright with a firearm under the conditions noted was an inappropriate use of force. A taser would have acceptable, but mistakes happen in tense situations – and this officer will pay for that mistake for the rest of their life. But the high-stress situation from which the mistake arose was solely the responsibility of Mr. Wright. We should not forget this fact when condemning the officer.
Cancel away; I’m ready.
PS: Can someone explain how looting local retailers serves as a suitable protest against police use of excessive force? I just don’t get it…
Yeah, right.
Portland ICE building set on fire during Saturday night protest: reports
Shit on a senator’s desk in protest and you’re a right-wing terrorist (well, at least a rather disgusting person!). But burn down a federal building – that’s just a peaceful gathering of like-minded friends…
I wonder how many times Congress can create a state this way? This is simply a power grab, as it grants a clearly left-leaning population their own pair of seats in the Senate as well as a complement of Representatives in the House:
With Stronger Democratic Support, D.C. Statehood Fight Returns To Capitol Hill
The argument is that the 700,000 people living in the district do not have representation in Congress, something that would be rectified by statehood. The plan is to reduce the area of the federal district, which must remain independent, and take the rest of what is now Washington D.C. and make it a state.
But this is an absurd way to fix the problem of representation. The only reason these people don’t have representation is because the land forming the District was originally annexed from Virginia and Maryland, effectively stripping the inhabitants of the representation they had when the land was still part of these two states. The correct solution is not to take this annexed land and turn it into its own state; the correct solution is to return the land to its original status as part of Maryland and Virginia, and in so doing restore the original representation that these people enjoyed. In fact, this has already happen with the territory annexed from Virginia, which was retroceded in 1847.
If we allow the partisan politicians of Washington DC to create states from annexed land, where will it end? What’s to stop the next administration from re-annexing the former Virginia portion of D.C., then forming it into another state complete with two more Senators and an appropriate compliment of Representatives?
If the District wants to reduce its size then the land to be released should be retroceded back to Maryland, which will restore representation originally held by its people. There is no reason to use this land to create a new state – except as a political power grab.
…the press turns a blind eye. It’s getting much more obvious that the left-leaning media simply don’t care – so long as the lies support their world liberal view. Case in point, a statement by Biden regarding the past assault weapons ban:
Only that’s not true. Studies have shown that the assault weapons ban between 1994 and 2004 did not have any significant impact on crime or shootings. Why not? Because you are far more likely to be beaten to death than you are to be killed by a rifle of any kind, let alone an assault rifle. Really.
So where are the “pants on fire” declarations by the “fact-checking” media sites, you say? Crickets. If Trump had said the same thing there would be rioting in the streets by now…
If a group of companies agreed to fix prices to prevent consumers from shopping for the best value, they’d be brought up on antitrust charges. But what about countries fixing their tax rates, specifically to prevent companies from seeking out the best value in countries (the most efficient government)? That’s OK, right?
Janet Yellen Proposes Bold Idea: The Same Minimum Corporate Tax Around The World
Sounds good, no? Then those evil capitalist companies wouldn’t be able to build inexpensive products in foreign lands, where the government overhead is lower and the workforce more productive. But how do you think this will affect your low-priced, foreign-sourced goods? That’s right – you’ll have to pay more for them. How does Yellen’s plan sound now?
Competition – between companies, cities, states, and even countries – is good; it drives resources and capital to where it can provide the most benefit. But lack of competition results in a monopoly, and the most dangerous kind of monopoly is one run by the state.
Be careful what you wish for; you might get exactly what you deserve.
As long as the Democrats keep looking for ways not to compromise, I’m afraid that bipartisanship, concern for the minority and the development of consensus for legislation is doomed:
Ruling By Senate Parliamentarian Opens Up Potential Pathway For Democrats
Why not pass what can be agreed upon while debating the rest, instead of looking for ways to bypass the rules? Frankly, I don’t think they have support for a lot of what they propose; it might be that the only way the can push through their agenda is by attaching it to critical infrastructure legislation.
So much for the promise of an administration “…for all Americans…”; I guess they meant “…all Americans that agree with us…”
Trying to erase the public’s knowledge of someone with whom you disagree is simply wrong. It smacks of an overseer, holier-than-thou mentality (“…we know best what you should hear/see/feel…”). It is also a harbinger of the totalitarian government that frequently follows such efforts:
Social media has become the de facto platform for speech. Should we be concerned then when these platforms use their power to suppress, rather than promote, speech? Particularly political speech? When they use their power to figuratively erase the existence of a political foe?
The answer is yes, you moron…
I am deeply concerned when the press states that it is their function to determine the truth – and ours simply to accept. NBC anchor Lester Holt appears to take this position with surprising ease, in stark contrast with some of his noteworthy predecessors. From a recent statement by Holt:
“I think it’s become clearer that fairness is overrated,” Holt said Tuesday as he accepted the Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism. “Before you run off and tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention.”
I’d like to remind Mr. Holt that only a few thousand years ago most people took it as fact that the earth was flat. They were wrong, but using Holt’s argument we’d all still be living in the dark ages and holding the same belief.
It is not the purpose of the press to act as arbiters of the truth – that is the role of the people, as ill-prepared as they are for this function. The purpose of the press is to report without bias; we the people can take it from there.