Where is the Rev Al Sharpton when we need him?

Perhaps the Reverend Al Sharpton thinks that his work in Philadelphia is done. After all, in 2012, the percentage of murder victims in Philadelphia who were black dropped from 85.2% to 79.8% of the total from the previous year. Of course, there were still 264 young blacks, the vast majority of whom were younger black males, killed stone cold graveyard dead, each one every bit as dead as Trayvon Martin, and the black percentage of shooting victims remained virtually the same; it’s just that they survived their wounds at a bit better rate.

Why aren’t you in Philadelphia?

Oh, wait, now I see: the percentage of people arrested for those murders and shootings were 82.7 and 90.3% black, respectively. You are very, very, very concerned when a white man, of some Hispanic heritage, shoots and kills a black man, but when young black men in the City of Brotherly Love are killing other young black men, you just don’t give a damn. There’s no story here, move along, folks, nothing to see here, nothing at all.

62 Comments

  1. Sharpton look sick, seriously sick, he’s so thin and frail looking, almost like a walking skeleton. He seems to be wasting away like he might have AIDS or slim as it’s known as in Africa.

  2. A fortnight ago here in South Africa, forty-four people were murdered in various unrelated incidents of violence in an area of the city inhabited by poor black people. At around the same time a white schoolgirl got into a fight with a black schoolmate, during which she’s accused of using a racial slur. Would you be at all shocked to know that their altercation has received far more media attention than the murders? Evidently, a white kid’s use of the word “kaffir” is more newsworthy than black people murdering other black people.

  3. Charlotte, it just proves that you guys, half a world away, are no different from us.

    Not knowing what “kaffir” meant, I looked it up on this internets thingy Al Gore invented:

    The word kaffir was used in the former South Africa to refer to a black person. Now an offensive ethnic slur, it was previously a neutral term for black southern Africans.

    The word is derived from the Arabic term Kafir,which is often used to mean ‘disbeliever’ but actually means ‘one who conceals [the truth]‘.

    Portuguese explorers used the term generally to describe tribes they encountered in southern Africa, probably having misunderstood its etymology from Muslim traders along the coast. European colonists subsequently continued its use.[2] Although it was in wide use between the 16th and 19th centuries, and not generally seen as an offensive term, as racial tensions increased in 20th-century South Africa and the surrounding countries, it became a term of abuse.

    The word was used in English, Dutch and, later, Afrikaans, from the 16th century to the early 20th century as a general term for several different peoples of southern Africa. In Portuguese the equivalent cafre was used.

    In South Africa today, the term is regarded as highly racially offensive, in the same way as “nigger” in other countries. It is seldom used as an isolated insult, but rather is used systematically by openly racist individuals when talking about black people, and as such was very common in the apartheid era. Use of the word has been actionable in South African courts since at least 1976 under the offense of crimen injuria: “the unlawful, intentional and serious violation of the dignity of another”.

    It was that last sentence, which I boldfaced, which makes me so glad I’m an American.

  4. Charlotte says:
    Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 17:08

    A fortnight ago here in South Africa, forty-four people were murdered in various unrelated incidents of violence in an area of the city inhabited by poor black people. At around the same time a white schoolgirl got into a fight with a black schoolmate, during which she’s accused of using a racial slur. Would you be at all shocked to know that their altercation has received far more media attention than the murders? Evidently, a white kid’s use of the word “kaffir” is more newsworthy than black people murdering other black people.

    In 513 Days Between Trayvon Shooting and Zimmerman Verdict, 11,106 Blacks Murdered by OTHER BLACKS

    To be exact, the shameful truth is that 93% of African-American murders are committed by other African-Americans. That is breathtakingly awful when you consider how incensed the African-American community is about the Trayvon tragedy, no matter what you believe about Zimmerman’s guilt.

    Let’s do the gruesome math, not out of morbidity, but because it manifests the incredible self-centered insanity of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

    More:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/65527-in-513-days-between-trayvon-shooting-and-zimmerman-verdict-11106-blacks-murdered-by-other-blacks/

    Looks like SA has selective reporting like we do here. In the News business it’s “If it bleeds, it leads” as the no. 1 story, the other no. 1 is it involves white on black crime.

  5. Why aren’t you [Al Sharpton] in Philadelphia?

    Dana, your cynicism is often breathtaking, your racism is often outrageous, and your assumptions are often without foundation.

    Al Sharpton IS concerned about black on black violence. Here is one example:

    The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling for a high-profile community summit to address black-on-black violence after Harlem was rocked by a wave of shootings over Memorial Day.
    “Last year alone, nearly one black child a day under the age of 17 was shot and killed in New York City. Shot mostly by other black city residents,” Sharpton said.
    “Shootings and violence within our community by one of our own is an outrage and an issue that we must confront as diligently and as passionately as a sensational case of police misconduct or brutality.”

    Why do you despise Al Sharpton, an acknowledged leader by the black community of the black community? I would really like to know. I personally have a lot of respect for him, thinking of his maturing and progression as a leader over the years.

    You simply are insensitive to the history of the black man in America, and the repercussions of which persist to this very day. From an otherwise wise and well educated man, I simply don’t understand. Does it have something to do with your southern roots which you have been unable either intellectually or emotionally unable to get passed?

  6. … he has been nothing but an unapologetic charlatan promoting racial division.

    I disagree!

    Each of your examples could be discussed in detail, giving more understanding of the man, other than your typically black and white views.

    If it were not for the continuing racism in this country, there would be few paying any attention at all to Al Sharpton. A lot of people are paying attention to him, yours truly being one. And some are focusing only on his scabs – that would be you, Dana.

  7. Rebus wrote:

    You simply are insensitive to the history of the black man in America, and the repercussions of which persist to this very day. From an otherwise wise and well educated man, I simply don’t understand. Does it have something to do with your southern roots which you have been unable either intellectually or emotionally unable to get passed?

    Assuming that you are actually Perry, you know a lot about my personal history, and you know that I grew up dirt poor. Yeah, I’m white, but I grew up in a state with a lot of poor whites — Owsley County, Kentucky, is the poorest county in America and it’s 98.5% white, though Owsley County is not where I grew up — and I overcame a poor background by the very simple method available to anyone who isn’t actually handicapped: I worked for a living. My mother, having to do double duty after my father left, kept on working even after she developed COPD.

    Slavery in this great country ended 148 years ago; there is no one alive today who was an American slave, and anyone alive today who was the son or daughter of an American slave would have to be nearly 100 years old. We are four, five and six generations away from slavery, and two generations away from the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. At some point, people have to start being responsible for what they do with their lives, regardless of whether their individual circumstances weren’t the greatest.

    I don’t accept excuses, Rebus, I do not listen to people who claim that they can’t work when the truth is that they won’t work, I do not have sympathy for people who, through their own choices, fornicated up their futures by doing drugs or robbing Seven/Elevens or dropping out of school, and I don’t have any sympathy for those who enable their destructive behavior. To me, the greatest racism we have in this country is the attitude that black Americans are somehow incapable to doing just as much as white Americans, that black Americans have to somehow be mollycoddled and protected from themselves and held to different, lower standards; the greatest racism we have is the very subtle attitude by so many of our friends on the left that black Americans are really still children, not quite able to make it on their own, but will always be dependent upon mommy and daddy, in the form of the government.

  8. Dana, your cynicism is often breathtaking, your racism is often outrageous, and your assumptions are often without foundation.

    Says the “man” whose family moved away b/c it was getting “too dark,” and who now lives in a lily-white resort hamlet.

    Why do you despise Al Sharpton, an acknowledged leader by the black community of the black community? I would really like to know. I personally have a lot of respect for him, thinking of his maturing and progression as a leader over the years.

    You personally have a lot of respect for him b/c you’re a complete, blathering idiot. If each of Dana’s rather correct examples of Sharpton’s demagoguery and racism could “be discussed in detail,” then why didn’t you do it? Instead you merely say they can, then attack Dana for thinking in “black and white” terms. I’d especially like to see your “discussion” of how we should “understand” Sharpton regarding the Brawley and Duke lacrosse hoaxes.

  9. Why aren’t you in Philadelphia?

    That’s obvious. Black-on-black crime makes the race hustlers look bad, especially since it is so prevalent it barely makes the news any more. Further, it perpetuates the(accurate) notion that young black males are far more likely to be violent crominals than other groups, thus making Zimmerman’s suspicions appear all the more valid.

  10. Why do you despise Al Sharpton, an acknowledged leader by the black community of the black community? I would really like to know.

    To call Sharpton a fool, a fraud, and a charlatan would be to pay him a compliment. In terms of moral credibility, if Martin Luther king were Einstein, then Sharpton is one of the Three Stooges.

  11. If it were not for the continuing racism in this country

    Yawn. Who cares? There comes a point where screaming this too often just causes a wall of indifference to be erected in reposnse. It’s like the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’. Screaming ‘Racism’ all the time won’t solve any problems, it’s just a way to get people to feel guilty. Well, as a famous author once said – Guilt is a rope that eventually wears thin.

  12. Hoagie/Dana/York/Hube/Eric,et al,

    Check out Perry’s (Perry/Wagonwheel/Gramps2/Observer/Rebus and I may be leaving out a few more) idiotic nonsense at Patterico’s site on the topic he posted 7/14/13 Zimmerman Can Now Pursue His Case Against NBC for Dowdifying the 911 Call.

    He’s now using the moniker Observer, he was calling himself Gramps2 but it got a little too hot in the kitchen so he’s back again with something like his 20th different IP address. He’s one sick puppy and it’s getting worse. He’s in serious need of professional help.

    It’s already a long thread but start with #206 and you’ll see what going on. It’s good for a laugh if it doesn’t make your blood pressure spike.

  13. Ropelight, you are obsessed against me, and now are trying to round up the troops against me in your typically cowardly and hateful fashion, like the schoolyard bullies do.

    Why cannot we all improve and get on with the debates, disregarding all of the mistakes we have all made in the past? Answer: Because that is not what you want, instead, you wish to limit my speech. You should know that is not going to happen, because you do not have the power to do so.

    Coming from you, I disregard any comments about needing professional help, because I know it is not sincere. However, you might want to look into your own obsessive aggressive behavior, seemingly motivated by political differences, carried to an extreme?

    You have never met me, ropelight, therefore don’t really know me. Dana has, on several occasions. Yes, we have vigorous political differences. But the personal vindictives between us have been at a minimum.

    I have no problem debating the issues of the day with you, but the personal character assassination and hatred from you, well that’s simply out of bounds.

  14. I don’t accept excuses, Rebus, I do not listen to people who claim that they can’t work when the truth is that they won’t work, I do not have sympathy for people who, through their own choices, fornicated up their futures by doing drugs or robbing Seven/Elevens or dropping out of school, and I don’t have any sympathy for those who enable their destructive behavior. To me, the greatest racism we have in this country is the attitude that black Americans are somehow incapable to doing just as much as white Americans, that black Americans have to somehow be mollycoddled and protected from themselves and held to different, lower standards; the greatest racism we have is the very subtle attitude by so many of our friends on the left that black Americans are really still children, not quite able to make it on their own, but will always be dependent upon mommy and daddy, in the form of the government.

    Dana, this is just the latest example of assumptions you make without foundation about the poor. You are to be commended for your accomplishments, a compliment you do not seek I’m sure, but in a formerly and still racist nation, you had the right skin color and a strong drive to break out. Saying this, I am not diminishing your accomplishments, but I am standing up for those poor people and people of color who have worked hard but cannot get out of their ghettos.

    This is a complex social and economic problem, the liberation from which many people find themselves unable to break out no matter how much they try, especially in times like these. This is why our system has to continue to search for ways to facilitate the escape to success, much of which involve our corporate and financial and political leaders, many of whom out of their own greed for money and power have left us down miserably. Our poverty problem must be the main focus of every single American.

    It seems to me that the current conservative mindset is to make it even harder for the underclass to break out. On our current track, I see nothing but more severe chaos and and social disorder ahead. Continuing racism and greed are the largest factors in this problem, in my view.

    Al Sharpton these days plays a major role in providing an escape valve for these tensions by using the MLK approach to peaceful demonstrations, while simultaneously trying to communicate to the rest of us the problems of the underclass. Americans have a lot of serious work to do in order to enable folks to escape from poverty, become more productive and more self-sufficient.

    Instead, there are too many people like yourself who try to tearcertain black leaders like Al Sharpton down based on some of his past mistakes. Recall that MLK Jr himself was not looked upon very favorably by most Americans, including the FBI and right wing politicians, during the days of his peaceful marches and demonstrations, to the point where his enemies and antagonists finally got to him. Little did they know then that they could kill MLK Jr, but they could not kill his message. We are a better country for it, but we have a long way to go, as the most recent episode, the Zimmerman-Trayvon incident, has reopened many old wounds all over again.

  15. You have never met me, ropelight, therefore don’t really know me. Dana has, on several occasions.

    Ah, so the truth comes out! We know that Dana has met with Perry, so who else could you be? You could have been honest from the start, but that would go against your character, so you had to post under a phony name, both here and elsewhere.

  16. but I am standing up for those poor people and people of color who have worked hard but cannot get out of their ghettos.

    You’re not standing up for anything. Not here. Not elsewhere. The fact is, you HAVE NO MORAL CREDIBILTY, and never have. Indeed, the fact that you’re a blatant liar is proof. You had to LIE about who you are just to get back on this site. Everyone knows you got kicked out of here (after multiple warnings and two suspensions) for trying to take your fights here in cyberspace out into the Real World and threatening real world consequences to their lives just because they disagreed with you on the Internet. Rational people don’t behave this way, but psychotic bullies DO.

  17. It’s already a long thread but start with #206 and you’ll see what going on. It’s good for a laugh if it doesn’t make your blood pressure spike.

    I must say, having spent MUCH too much time dealing with the likes of Perry and Pho, it just isn’t worth the bother. I think these swine do this shit on purpose, just to get us furious at their slimy tactics and endless lies and slander. When I think of all the times Perry threatened people’s jobs because he was such a coward that’s the only way he knew how to deal with a determined opponent, and how, when confronted on it by Dana, rather than do the decent thing by examining his own behavior and apologizing, he just lied about it some more while making pompous claims that he was only doing it “For the children”, well, the whole thing makes one want to throw up.

  18. Charlotte says:
    Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 17:08

    Would you be at all shocked to know that their altercation has received far more media attention than the murders? Evidently, a white kid’s use of the word “kaffir” is more newsworthy than black people murdering other black people.

    Would we be shocked, not for one millisecond. In the movie Lethal Weapon 2, the word “kaffir” was used many times. I knew from the context it was the same as we refer to as the “N” word. As a kid growing up in Baltimore I heard that word thousands of times in the 50′s going into the 60′s. Then after all the Civil Rights Battles here, it became the word that would start any fight, any where.

    A few years ago when our granddaughter was about three or four years old, my son and daughter in law took her to see my mother. We had her in assisted living (not quite a nursing home) since she had Alzheimer’s Disease. One thing with Alzheimer’s, there is no edit button on what they say. It seems like in Alzheimer’s the patients regress in age to when their memory is when the they were children to their early 20′s. She was in her 80′s. So, my mother starts of with a Children’s sort of nursery rhyme I had heard dozens of times when I was very young. It went

    “Eeny, Meeny, Miney, Moe,
    Catch a Nigger by their toe,
    If they holler let me go……

    Well, we knew what was coming and we’re looking for where the staff (mostly Black) was and trying to interrupt my mother. She said it, They heard it. We talked to them and they said they heard it a lot from the ones in their 70′s and 80′s and knew the times when they grew up and it was part of the culture then. They took no offense to it, but we were like petrified and trying to have her not say it. In the end, we all had a good laugh.

  19. I had two comments on Patterico simply vanish, never appear, as though they had been et by the Spam® queue, and I wondered why. Then I realized that both contained the name “Gramps2″ and I suspect, though I do not know, that Patterico has set his discussion filter to simply trash all mentions of Gramps2.

    I asked him by e-mail, but he has not yet responded; he is a busy man.

  20. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 10:12

    … he has been nothing but an unapologetic charlatan promoting racial division.

    I disagree!”

    Perry,

    Why not say so on the website and bandwidth Dana has provided for you? I just now checked, and you have done nothing at all there for a month and a half.

    And despite your apparent obsession with this case since March and prior of 2012, you have done absolutely nothing to shed light on the Martin-Zimmerman matter, ever.

    Posting an essay on your own site would probably be a better use of your time than the fabrication of new online identities so as to troll websites from which you have been banned previously for unethical behavior.

  21. Perry, I’m not obsessed with you. I do find it rather astonishing that you behave like a blithering idiot, then when you get called down for gross underhanded fraud and vindictive misbehavior you start arrogantly whining and complaining, trying to find a way to blame your self-inflicted woes on others, claiming some sort of special exemption you didn’t earn and don’t have.

    You’re a case study on the mechanics of self-destruction. You’re either a thoroughgoing masochist or the most personally unconscious and malicious individual I’ve ever met, so to speak. After enduring your serial idiocies here for much too long, then to find you spewing the same vile nonsense at Patterico’s site was just too much. So I exposed you for what you so obviously are. Your record of serial deceptions speaks for itself. You earned the opprobrium, now you can live with it. I couldn’t care less, but at the same time I’m not going to fail to expose your incessant frauds, deceptions, and multiple identities when I encounter them. And, if you don’t like it, well that’s just hard cheese.

  22. Why cannot we all improve and get on with the debates, disregarding all of the mistakes we have all made in the past? Answer: Because …

    Because, no matter how many opportunities you have been given to “reform” and to begin acting honorably, telling the truth, and adhering to the canons of decency and reason, you have been incapable of following through on it.

    What then, possible moral obligation could people who are capable of the kind or self-governance and responsibility you seem congenitally incapable of, have relative to you?

    Clearly, you must admit, what with your collectivism, your emotionalism, your values nihilism, and your radical ontological to say nothing of moral relativism, that you, personally, are, existentially speaking, a member of a different moral species? Even if, through “no fault of your own”

    But then although no one blames a rabid dog for being a rabid dog, it remains what it is.

  23. ropelight says:
    Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 16:50

    Perry,…

    You’re a case study on the mechanics of self-destruction. You’re either a thoroughgoing masochist or the most personally unconscious and malicious individual I’ve ever met, so to speak. …. Your record of serial deceptions speaks for itself. You earned the opprobrium, now you can live with it. I couldn’t care less, but at the same time I’m not going to fail to expose your incessant frauds, deceptions, and multiple identities when I encounter them. And, if you don’t like it, well that’s just hard cheese.”

    You may have been taking a much needed break from a seemingly endless series of fruitless exchanges we were having with Perry just a short while before both he and “Anna Nova” disappeared “for good”.

    But it was during that long series dreary exchanges that they both finally came out and spoke explicitly rather than insinuatingly, about their views on human life and moral values and meaning and even scientific truth. The upshot? Their operative principles are based on the assumption that man is an organic machine, the brain a meat computer, the mind an illusion, objectivity a delusion, moral values purely arbitrary, and so on and so forth.

    In other words all of those concepts clustered around the ideas of truth and objective meaning, concepts which have historically persuaded men that they ought to behave in particular ways and that some ways of behaving are objectively and in an absolute sense better than others – all these morally informing concepts have been jettisoned.

    All that is conceptually left of the particular people you are trying to communicate with, Perry being one of them, are little bags of emotion driven appetite which view themselves (insofar as they see themselves as a “self”) as elements of an ultimately meaningless swarm. A momentary arrangement of molecules leading to a collective belch in the universal darkness, and then nothing … forever. For some reason though, although they are going nowhere, and purport to be fine with it, they nonetheless insist on taking everyone else with them.

    “a case study on the mechanics of self-destruction”

    One of the dismal joys of those practicing the project of modern liberalism, aka nihilism

    “the most personally unconscious and malicious individual I’ve ever met”

    All they have to do with their time here is to tear at the flesh and psyches of others for being what they cannot or will not be.

  24. DNW wrote to ropelight:

    All that is conceptually left of the particular people you are trying to communicate with, Perry being one of them, are little bags of emotion driven appetite which view themselves (insofar as they see themselves as a “self”) as elements of an ultimately meaningless swarm. A momentary arrangement of molecules leading to a collective belch in the universal darkness, and then nothing … forever. For some reason though, although they are going nowhere, and purport to be fine with it, they nonetheless insist on taking everyone else with them.

    DNW, I’m sick and tired of your garbage. Face it, our ideologies are different and opposed in many aspects. Therefore you, and worse, ropelight, have taken it upon yourselves to tear me down personally, again, as in the quotation you provided of ropelight, and yours above. Good god, man, you have never even personally met me. How can you know? Furthermore, do you approve of what ropelight is doing? Do you even stop to think what you are doing? Never mind answering.

    You should have noticed over and over in my discourse with Dana, that although our ideologies are as different as mine are with yours and ropelight’s, the two of us can still carry on a reasonable discourse, as has been the case for years, without continuously going off at each other with personal attacks, as is the modus operandi with you and ropelight, and Eric and Hube as well.

    I have decided that the best thing for me is not to engage with any of you four. Mr Iowa Liberal reached the same conclusion some time ago, thus I am a little slow.

  25. You should have noticed over and over in my discourse with Dana, that although our ideologies are as different as mine are with yours and ropelight’s, the two of us can still carry on a reasonable discourse, as has been the case for years, without continuously going off at each other with personal attacks, as is the modus operandi with you and ropelight, and Eric and Hube as well.

    I have decided that the best thing for me is not to engage with any of you four. Mr Iowa Liberal reached the same conclusion some time ago, thus I am a little slow.

    In other words, BLAH BLAH BLAH. How many times do you plan to type this ridiculous lie? It’s Dana who is reasonable and refrains from personal attacks … not you. Not even close. You were banned from this site because you’re ridiculously unstable, unable to grasp that everything here is just words. Do you remotely seriously believe that anyone around here buys your quoted garbage above? For real? And you DARE to chastise people for their so-called “garbage” when you personally threatened me and others around here? You DESERVE to be torn down personally. Anyone who does what you did deserves it. All you get, again, are words. You’ve threatened actions.

    Your game was up long ago. You’re beyond played out. Give it up. If Dana wasn’t such a nice guy he’d have cut your new moniker off a while back around here.

    Crawl back under your racist, radical, hateful rock, Perry, and stay there.

  26. Rebus wrote:

    Dana, this is just the latest example of assumptions you make without foundation about the poor. You are to be commended for your accomplishments, a compliment you do not seek I’m sure, but in a formerly and still racist nation, you had the right skin color and a strong drive to break out. Saying this, I am not diminishing your accomplishments, but I am standing up for those poor people and people of color who have worked hard but cannot get out of their ghettos.

    This is a complex social and economic problem, the liberation from which many people find themselves unable to break out no matter how much they try, especially in times like these. This is why our system has to continue to search for ways to facilitate the escape to success, much of which involve our corporate and financial and political leaders, many of whom out of their own greed for money and power have left us down miserably. Our poverty problem must be the main focus of every single American.

    After working all of my adult life — even in college, I had to work to support myself — I have come to the conclusion that success in work boils down to one very simple skill, one that anyone can master, and that’s the ability to get out of bed, and make it to work, on time, every day. Why have I gotten ahead? Because every employer knew that I would be there, at work, every day, and that was one less thing about which they had to worry.

    Being reliable and doing your job are skills which anyone who is not seriously handicapped can do. Alarm clocks work the same for black Americans as white ones, and cars or buses or trains don’t care what color their drivers or passengers are. Maybe if you come from a poor family you can’t go to college and get a law degree, but if you are willing to actually work, you can go to work as a plumber’s helper, and learn plumbing, as an electrician’s helper and learn how to become an electrician. Our public schools offer several types of vocational training . . . but you have to do something realy radical like not drop out of school to take advantage of them.

    No one ever got anywhere by feeling sorry for himself, and other people commiserating with you still doesn’t help; you have to get off your ass and do things yourself to succeed.

    And that is well within the reach of anyone who will actually try. That’s it, that’s the secret to success. Trying is not something that’s somehow harder for blacks.

    We have had many racial and ethnic minorities come to this country, starting with the Irish and eastern European immigration of the 19th Century, through the various Asian immigrations of the Chinese, the Koreans, Japanese, Cambodians, Vietnamese and Indians, and every one of those groups has succeeded in America because they brought with them an ethic which demanded work.

    Yet, for black Americans, a too-large subset of them now live in urban cultures which are based on welfare and not work, which are wracked with promiscuity and single-parent births and absent fathers. Those are things which were not plagues in the black community fifty years ago, and that means, to me, that they aren’t some vestige of slavery — which no American black alive today has ever experienced — but something introduced more recently than fifty years ago . . . and that something is the dominant welfare state, a system encouraged by the oh-so-sympathetic left, the people who just want to help black Americans, but who have , unwittingly, introduced a bacillus which has destroyed the American black family and undermined the work ethic.

  27. DNW, … Face it, our ideologies are different and opposed in many aspects”

    They certainly are. As also are our worldviews, our positions on the validity of logic, objectivity, the concept of truth, verbal meanings, the reality of the individual person and his status a moral agent and primary locus of human value, the construct called “society”, and the bases for establishing supposed interpersonal claims.

    In almost every instance wherein we have discussed these concepts you have taken a radically subjective and relativistic stance. The few realities you seem to believe in are “the collective” and the force of your emotions.

    You moral principles therefore are based upon nothing more than affect and your subjective disposition and aim to access the lives of others according to a set of politically imposed rules which you find subjectively congenial.

    The upshot is that there is no reasoning with your kind regarding the status of interpersonal claims, and no possible standard available for judging whether to accommodate or resist you, other than a calculation of relative forces and the respective parties’ willingness to eventually, sooner or later, use them.

    You are in a very real sense Perry, a post-moral man; just another expected product of a question begging, pseudo-scientific, postmodern philosophy of life and meaning.

    I have no doubt of course that you get emotional, that you grunt with satisfaction, grimace with disgust, and feel various urges and impulses and can even calculate how to most effectively satisfy them in some instances.

    What I deny, on the basis of two years of evidence, is that it is possible to reason with you on the rightness or the wrongness of either them or of interpersonal claims you make on behalf of these urges of yours. It’s simply not possible. Nor is it possible to get you to recognize anything like proper limits to the nature or extent of those claims you stake against others.

    You have no intrinsic standard for judging the goodness or badness of what you feel you want. No standard for judging whether these wants can properly be laid off against others. And no standard for calculating or recognizing what limits there might be to these claims.

    This is a very radical and unbridgeable difference in moral stance between yourself and those of us on either the conservative or libertarian side.

    Simply put, you recognize no intrinsic limits, no logically necessary limits if behavior is to be qualified as lawful, to your social engineering-like schemes.

    As the young lady “lawyer” who represented the Martin family said as she dismissed the relevance of the not guilty verdict, her allegiance is to a “higher cause”, i.e., that of, as she said explicitly “social engineering”.

    That is to say, above all else – and law as we have heretofore known it be damned – she is committed to the management and disposition and restructuring of those “social elements” which we used to call people, so that she can realize her vision of what and who should exist and how they should be allowed to exist.

    I don’t need to meet you personally in order to know who you are. You have told me in many hundreds if not thousands of posts. And I have in fact met you before. You are the petty cowardly lefty teacher we knew in grade and junior high school. The conscienceless functionary we read about in the Soviet Union. And the apologist for terrorist murderers like Bill Ayers, right here on this site.

    I know you. You’re the termite-man: the congenital enemy of freedom, of mind, of conscience, of self-governance, and individual responsibility. You are the man who imagines that his neighbors, persons in their own right, are somehow less real than he is, and somehow owe him, simply because some bitch whelped him on the same landmass they happen to inhabit.

    I agree that your birth and the morally questionable family circumstances you say you found yourself in, came about as you are so fond of saying, “through no fault of your own”. But then, neither was it mine.

    If you believed in God, maybe He could help you sort it out.

    But although natural law does not imply God, God would imply natural law, and intrinsic limits to what can be done and still be called right or good.

    As it is, then, believing in neither God nor objective fact, you will no doubt spend the rest of your life trying to victimize others in order to get back from them, what nature and chance shorted you.

  28. Hube, Perry is defending himself and attacking me at Patterico’s site with garbage nonsense similar to what he spouts above (in addition to many of his other and all too familiar phony and arrogant deceptions). So, I’d like your permission to cross post your comment (Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 20:50) at PP on the same relevant thread I mentioned above in my comment of Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 13:58

    Hoagie/Dana/York/Hube/Eric,et al,

    Check out Perry’s (Perry/Wagonwheel/Gramps2/Observer/Rebus and I may be leaving out a few more) idiotic nonsense at Patterico’s site on the topic…posted 7/14/13 Zimmerman Can Now Pursue His Case Against NBC for Dowdifying the 911 Call….

    Or, if you prefer visit the thread yourself and compose your own response. It’s entirely up to you, I won’t crosspost your comment without explicit permission.

  29. Charlotte, are they still making Kaffir Beer in SA or, is still being made and sold but under a different name?

    I once argued the name of the continent Africa could well have been derived from the word kaffir. But, that was back in the mid-70s. And, let’s face it, there exist a plethora of other quite reasonable candidates for that honor.

  30. I wish to assume, for the sake of argument, that George Zimmerman is, deep down, prejudiced against blacks. Further, I wish to assume, again for the sake of argument, that he would not have called the police on a white male behaving in exactly the same manner, at exactly the same time, as was Trayvon Martin. Even taking such an assumption, the proper response should be: so what?

    If a policeman routinely lets white drivers who are speeding go — perhaps stopping them, but giving them warnings instead of tickets — but is very strict about writing tickets for black drivers exceeding the speed limit, such would make him a bad cop, but that doesn’t mean that the black motorists to whom he gave tickets weren’t actually speeding.

    The facts of this case are mostly not in dispute. Mr Zimmerman spotted Mr Martin, and thought he was behaving suspiciously, probably “casing the joint” for planning a burglary. He may have been wrong in that assessment, but it is not illegal to think that someone else’s actions are suspicious. Mr Zimmerman called the police about this, which is neither illegal nor unwise. Mr Zimmerman then chose to follow Mr Martin, to keep his location known, while waiting for the police to arrive. This, too, was not illegal, though, given the dispatcher’s suggestion, may have been unwise.

    At some point, Mr Martin noticed Mr Zimmerman tailing him. After a couple of minutes conversation with the beautiful and svelte Rachel Jeantel on his cell phone, Mr Martin decided that the better course of action was to turn around, close the distance and confront Mr Zimmerman. None of this is under any dispute. It is also true that, through this point, neither Mr Zimmerman nor Mr Martin has committed an actual crime.

    Once the distance had been closed, there may or may not have been a brief verbal argument; there were no (known) third party witnesses. As long as no blows had been thrown, there was still no violation of the law.

    The first actual crime to be committed was when the first punch was thrown. The state contended that Mr Zimmerman attacked Mr Martin, while the defense stated that it was Mr Martin who threw the first punch. There were no (known) outside witnesses, and thus there is no way to either prove or disprove Mr Zimmerman’s story. At this point, a crime had been committed, but there was no way to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

    Who knows; perhaps Mr Zimmerman said, “What are you doing in my neighborhood, your f(ornicating) kaffir,” and that led to Mr Martin attacking him. It might seem unjust, but even if that was what happened, it would have been Mr Martin who committed the first crime, not Mr Zimmerman.

  31. Charlotte, are they still making Kaffir Beer in SA or, is still being made and sold but under a different name?

    Ropelight, indeed it’s available in certain stores here, and is known as Millet or Sorghum beer. In the US, Bard’s beer makes sorghum beer

  32. At some point, Mr Martin noticed Mr Zimmerman tailing him. After a couple of minutes conversation with the beautiful and svelte Rachel Jeantel on his cell phone, Mr Martin decided that the better course of action was to turn around, close the distance and confront Mr Zimmerman. None of this is under any dispute. It is also true that, through this point, neither Mr Zimmerman nor Mr Martin has committed an actual crime.

    Once the distance had been closed, there may or may not have been a brief verbal argument; there were no (known) third party witnesses. As long as no blows had been thrown, there was still no violation of the law.

    The first actual crime to be committed was when the first punch was thrown. The state contended that Mr Zimmerman attacked Mr Martin, while the defense stated that it was Mr Martin who threw the first punch. There were no (known) outside witnesses, and thus there is no way to either prove or disprove Mr Zimmerman’s story. At this point, a crime had been committed, but there was no way to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.”

    Rachel Jerantel is now on record in a nonlegal setting:

    Question: “Who hits who first, in your mind?”

    Rachel Jeantel: In my mind? I believe Trayvon. It was Trayvon.

    Later, after a somewhat confusing elaboration about the headset, which actually seems to contradict her court testimony regarding the way it went off, and seems to suggest Trayvon shut it off in order to “handle something”, she further says,

    “Trayvon had not said nothing to me, the only thing is, ‘Ok I’m at the back, I’m almost at my Daddy fiancee house’ …”

    1. Trayvon was “home free”, if indeed he ever thought he was being pursued with ill intent.

    2. If Jeantel is telling the truth, Trayvon had to have returned in search of Zimmerman in order for Trayvon to be shot and die where he did.

    3. Jeantel says she assumes Trayvon hit first.

    4 In another remark she says that she thinks that Trayvon hit Zimmerman because he was provoked at Zimmerman’s being a wannabe cop acting as if he wished to presumptuously track or detain Trayvon in what she appears to define as a Black neighborhood. Zimmerman didn’t know his place and had it coming, in other words.

    5. The Interviewer helpfully suggests through interjection that Zimmerman may have laid a restraining hand on Zimmerman. She did not say it on her own.

    The interview segment ends with the promise that the next section will explain how Jeantel feels Zimmerman should have taken his whuppin. Just like the lefty commentor suggested during the interview I referenced on John’s site.

    This attitude is an expected consequence, and expression of, leftist ideology.

    Ultimately one cannot live and thrive associating with people who have no ethical standards and recognize no personal boundaries; and personal boundaries and law are what the left and other expressions of barbarism have always been at war with.

  33. Who knows; perhaps Mr Zimmerman said, “What are you doing in my neighborhood, your f(ornicating) kaffir,” and that led to Mr Martin attacking him. It might seem unjust, but even if that was what happened, it would have been Mr Martin who committed the first crime, not Mr Zimmerman.

    With all due respect WHO GIVES A FUCK? The case is over, let’s just forget about it and move on.

  34. DNW, I’m sick and tired of your garbage.

    Then LEAVE, you piece of shit! No one invited you here, indeed, it is now obvious you are Perry posting under a new name, the same Perry who was warned repeatedly not to engage in certain forms of egregious behavior, warnings which went ignored and which then led to two suspensions, which also went ignored, and then finally a permanent ban.

    Given Dana’s patience with you all during this time, you have some kind of gall to show up again, then piss and moan that you are not welcomed with open arms.

  35. Face it, our ideologies are different and opposed in many aspects.

    Your ideology is utterly alien to anything that concerns actual human beings.

    Therefore you, and worse, ropelight, have taken it upon yourselves to tear me down personally, again

    Oh boo hoo! Why don’t you throw a Pity Party for yourself, complete with whine and cheeze? For one, like I said above, if you don’t like the tone around here, then LEAVE! And don’t let the doorknob hit you on the butt. And, for two, someone who used to routinely call us terrorists, traitors, racists, etc., has no business moaning about other people calling him names.

  36. Posting an essay on your own site would probably be a better use of your time than the fabrication of new online identities so as to troll websites from which you have been banned previously for unethical behavior.

    My guess is that, since Perry’s site (much like Pho’s old site) gets almost no traffic, Perry sees no point in posting there. For an attention whore like Perry, to post where no one goes is like a terrorist blowing up an empty airliner. Where’s the satisfaction in that?

  37. “Mr Iowa Liberal reached the same conclusion some time ago, thus I am a little slow.”

    Hilarious …

    “Mr. Iowa Liberal” aka Mike Ganzeveld eventually decamped from Dana’s site once he found that shouting gay slogans while dancing in stiletto heels on the image and likeness of “Jebus” wasn’t having the devastating effect he intended; and that obsessively stalking some of us in an attempt to find where we live, wasn’t doing him much good either.

    No doubt he realized that if he were ever to get and keep a job other than behind a bait and tackle counter, he’d have to clean up his image by leaving fewer examples of his mental and emotional instability behind in the public record.

    Unfortunately for him, what happens on the Internet, stays on the Internet … for a very long time.

    His partner in moral crime, Jeromy Brown, simply got a paying job, finally. Or so it has been reported.

    Quite a pair, your “Mr. Iowa Liberal”.

  38. “My guess is that, since Perry’s site (much like Pho’s old site) gets almost no traffic, Perry sees no point in posting there. ”

    I just checked a bit ago and still nothing since May. I would have figured that one of the Soros funded organs of which he is probably a member, would have e-mailed some kind of canned hash on the Zimmerman trial aimed at advancing the propaganda effort. You know something Perry only needed to reheat and dish out again. Like usual.

    If so, maybe it was so bad that even Perry couldn’t swallow it.

  39. Hube, comment #377 on PP’s thread mentioned in my comment above might be of some interest to you. Perry has been relegated to moderation till he admits he was wrong to threaten to inform to your employer.
    Thanks and Best Regards, ropelighthe

  40. Hube, comment #377 on PP’s thread mentioned in my comment above might be of some interest to you. Perry has been relegated to moderation till he admits he was wrong to threaten to inform to your employer.
    Thanks and Best Regards, ropelight

    Indeed. Thank you. But I posted a couple comments to make it clear that no contact w/my employer was ever made (at least I have no evidence of such). Comment #377 seems to indicate Per has to admit he did just that, but, again, I have no proof he ever did such.

    Just be clear and in the interests of fairness.

  41. Here’s a comment I posted at Patterico’s site this morning. It begins with debunking Perry’s recent attempts to blame his serial deceptions on others, and it ends with a psychological description of pathological liars as specifically related to Perry’s misbehavior.

    Perry’s completely dishonest comment at #484 is so transparently at odds with clearly established and widely known facts as to be a parody of itself and a pretty clear indication we’re dealing with a pathological liar. (And, I’m using that term in the clinical sense.)

    Perry knew exactly why his comments wouldn’t immediately post, he was placed in moderation and had been notified by Patterico via personal email, yet Perry continues to pretend he emailed Patterico twice for an explanation. He did not reply, so I figured something unintended happened, so experimented with a new name, which worked.

    The verifiable truth is that Patterico did notify Perry, but unwilling to accept moderation he violated the consistent name and proxy IP address rules by assuming a new identity and commenting from a different IP address.

    Perry’s next lie is that the same thing happened to ropelight and a few other regulars. Which is simply not true, Perry attempts to conflate his devious circumvention of the rules with my comments getting filtered for about 90 minutes because my comment mentioned his moderated name (Gramps2). Stash and JD identified the problem, fixed it, and my comments quickly posted normally.

    Lastly, Perry claims he was not trying to change names to be deceptive. No, he was deceptively changing names to circumvent moderation, and to defy Patterico’s decision.

    Let’s examine Perry’s reaction to being caught in a lie. (For a pathological liar, to be flat-out busted is one of the worst things that can happen.) They become extremely defensive and fall back on a string of tactics designed to shift blame or redefine the situation. First Perry attempts to pin the blame on Patterico for failing to notify him, or on me for exposing him, or on JD for identifying his multiple screen names, or on Hube for provoking his threats.

    Next he quickly fabricates additional lies to cover up the original lie, attempting to keep what he regards as his good reputation intact. However, as the lies become ever more obviously self-serving and further and further divorced from the known facts they expand and multiply becoming ever more transparent.

    The next stage in the pathological liar’s bag of tricks involves rage and anger at being outed. Vindictive outbursts bordering on outright threats of retaliation and revenge, possibly alternating with bouts of remorse complete with crocodile tears and pleas for forgiveness are not unknown. Pathological liars have even been known to stage emotional meltdowns where they attempt to bond with their accusers as the only ones who actually care about them, it’s always about them.

  42. Dana;

    I’m sorry if my above comments sounded a bit harsh. It’s just that I think there’s a certain point where we declare this case over and leave it at that.

    Just this morning I caught about 5 minutes of the Mike Gallagher show. And what did he want to talk about? Zimmerman, and, more specifically, did Zimmerman engage in profiling? It short, nearly a week after the verdict, he wants to keep re-litigating the case, which just drives me nuts! All it does is do what the left wingers and race hustlers WANT to see done, namely, to keep this case in the public eye day after day so they can spread their noxious venom.

  43. “Eric says:
    Friday, 19 July 2013 at 11:47

    Dana;

    I’m sorry if my above comments sounded a bit harsh. It’s just that I think there’s a certain point where we declare this case over and leave it at that.

    Just this morning I caught about 5 minutes of the Mike Gallagher show. And …

    May I say something about Mike Gallagher? I’m not a regular talk-radio listener, but I have listened to enough to be able to make some comparative judgments as to the competency and quality an number of hosts.

    Gallagher who seems to fill a morning time slot on one of the end band AM radio stations around here, is obviously an astounding incompetent.

    Halting, broken delivery, inchoate recitations, constant self-references informing what should be an uncaring public about his internal state of mind and emotional reactions. “I gotta tell you when I … I felt … blah blah blah”

    You are right to hold him in intellectual contempt, if you do.

    Listening to the hesitating fractured self-referential jabber of this nobody for 5 minutes, is punishment equal to listening to Sean Hannity on radio for 20.

  44. But although natural law does not imply God, God would imply natural law, and intrinsic limits to what can be done and still be called right or good.

    As it is, then, believing in neither God nor objective fact, you will no doubt spend the rest of your life trying to victimize others in order to get back from them, what nature and chance shorted you.

    No, DNW, your screed is your continuing attempt to victimize me.

    Let’s talk about objective fact and God. The existence of God is an individual choice, based not on objective fact, but based on faith. I feel no compunction to make the same choice which you have made, nor do I attempt to compel you to make any of my choices. However, there is a live and let live aspect to all this which you have chosen to ignore, instead to be combative and partake in character assassination against me.

    And worse, you have decided to play God, against me. Yes, you have chosen to impersonate your God in order to judge me, a person you truly do not even know.

    You have taken some comments I have made over time, and extrapolated them to become who you wish to envision as me, then castigate this person you imagine me to be. How foolish of you, DNW.

    You have no license to do that in terms of thinking you have arrived at some broad understanding of who I am. But you take it upon yourself to do that anyway, because I do not measure up to your standards, and because you have evil intent, when actually this is all about ideological and political differences.

    Throughout the ages there have been self-proclaimed Christians (and other religious folk), who decided that they possess the Truth, thus demanding that others adhere to said Truth, if not there would be violent consequences. Consider the Islamic/Christian/Jewish clashes through the centuries. These people are/were evil, thus, in a similar manner, you are behaving in an evil manner as well, based on ideological and political differences then extrapolated into a personal vendetta against me. You should refrain from your vendetta, instead debate the issues.

    There really is nothing else to say to you, DNW, except to reiterate that the diatribes of yours against me demonstrate just how evil your behavior has been toward me on this blog. Perhaps if I were to meet you, my judgment of you would be quite different. Next time you are in the DC or Philadelphia area, notify me and we can meet for lunch.

    The desirable behavior on blogs of this nature is to debate and discuss the issues. For some reason, too often these debates deteriorate into personal attacks, of which there is plenty here in this very thread.

  45. Where is the Rev Al Sharpton when we need him? is the thread title.

    That takes the assumption we need him. He needs an audience, to be allegedly relevant, more than an audience needs him.

  46. Perhaps if I were to meet you, my judgment of you would be quite different. Next time you are in the DC or Philadelphia area, notify me and we can meet for lunch.

    Yeah, THAT’LL change things, alright! LMAO …

    The desirable behavior on blogs of this nature is to debate and discuss the issues. For some reason, too often these debates deteriorate into personal attacks, of which there is plenty here in this very thread.

    And for some reason, these debates deteriorate into actual threats, for which some people refuse to accept responsibility for …

  47. The existence of God is an individual choice, based not on objective fact, but based on faith.

    That’s like saying the existence of gravity is a personal choice, based on faith.

    Try holding a brick over your bare foot. Tell yourself “Belief in gravity is an individual choice”. Then let go.

  48. This is beyond strange. Perry, continually refers to the false supposition, or claim, that I am interested in converting him to a belief in God.

    I want no such thing, though a Catholic, say, who believes in the objective unity of the human kind, and in the eternal fate of an immortal soul, might insist that I should.

    I wish to assure Perry however, that if God exists, I would not care in the least concerning either his belief in such a being, nor in the ultimate fate of Perry personally, if he did not believe.

    As I see it, if God exists, Perry is an apostate and enemy of truth. If God does not exist, and neither do natural kinds, then Perry is just a thing sui generis that presumptuously wants, without right or justification; and an enemy of the concept of truth, all the same.

    Thus I do not care if Perry dies and goes to hell, lives in a hell upon this earth, or dwells in a hilltop palace of sensual pleasure until he finally expires pleasantly and ends up as food for the worms, and nothing more.

    It is all ok by me, as long as that libertarian grant is the predicate for my not being dragged into the hell here and now which he creates around him with his incessant demands on and neurotic attempts to control others for his benefit.

    As far as I am concerned, let Perry have his figurative 40 acres and a mule, let his property be secure, and let the chips then fall where they may.

    But the left is never satisfied with that state of affairs. They will never rest until their festering carcasses are parked in your life, and you are forced to wear them and their miserable existences around your neck like some rotting albatross strapped to a sinner in a morality play, until you finally really really “feel their pain”.

    Unfit as members of a sustainable voluntary community, they must gain coercive power over others in order to ensure that those others don’t simply turn their backs on them and their perverse enjoyments of their autogenic disorders, and leave them to their fate.

    I mentioned natural law and it’s entailments in the post above, specifically to note that the concept could in fact be decoupled from the notion of, or dependence upon, a creator. What it, i.e., natural law and rights, cannot be decoupled from, is the idea of an objective underlying reality.

    It is this reality, be it physical, or logical (as in the case of natural law deductions) that Perry has consistently, and explicitly denied.

    The modern-left in general denies that reality is more than the sum of names which we are culturally conditioned to apply to … well to something, one supposes. Though what this something might be, and how it might be said to be, since it is per the postmodern hypothesis not an objective thing and cannot therefore act as the substrate for those projections they say we impose on it, is anyone’s guess.

    But then logical rigor, like reason, or thoughtful and deliberate consideration is of little interest to the morally deconstructed appetite entities we are in the habit of referring to as members of “the left”.

    They want, they insist on, attaching to and having from us, that which we neither require, nor want, nor seek to get from them.

    It is clear what that makes them then …

  49. Hi DNW;

    Gallagher is definitely not one of my favorite talk show hosts. I can’t put my finger on why, exactly, though you have probably come close to nailing it. I suppose the difference between him and guys like Limbaugh and Hannity is that the latter have a sense of toughness about them, a sense of CONVICTION. If the left wingers were to force them off the air, and maybe even throw them in prison, they would still hold firm to their principles. For guys like Gallagher, tho, it seems like they view their radio career as just another form of show business.

  50. PS: The only thing I’ll give Gallagher (and this is more a credit to his guest than himself) is that, every Friday he has on Chris Wallace of FOX News. Wallace is a real media pro, and unlike many of his fellow anchors, he is witty and charming and, best of all, doesn’t take himself too seriously. Because he is so good on air, he brings out the best in Gallagher, such that ge sounds less like a chump (or chimp) than usual.

  51. DNW, another brilliant piece vis a vis your response to Perry. Although I suspect about 90% of it went right over his head. You might as well try teaching algebra to your dog. He has his 2 or 3 pet nostrums, and that’s about it as far as his critical thinking goes. About all he can do is barge into conservative sites where he is not wanted, make a pest of himself, then whine that other people are “Mean” to him. It apparently never occurs to him to simply leave.

Comments are closed.