Thursday morning links

Noose drawings. I am just not sure that this rises to the level of a crime never mind a hate crime. The things that Black Lives Matter do daily are 100 times worse. But if it is a crime than I can only assume that these two black students will be punished vigorously as would to white students. It is after all the content of their character that is judged be they white, black or polka dotted.

#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-04-28 09:06 (Reply)

"lieber sexuell überaktive Flüchtlinge als Deutsche Rassisten"

This means:

"better sexually-overactive refugees than German racists"

"Rote Antifa-Front" means "Red Anti-Fascism Front".

(The small numbers of politically insignificant neo-Nazi hooligans in Germany being a far greater threat to that country's stability than large numbers of young Islamic male refugees of course.)

As for why in English? Well, that's for greater media coverage.

When I was in the Balkans, the Serbs never quite understood this concept. They'd hold protests waving banners not only just in Serbo-Croat but in the Cyrillic alphabet. Result: unintelligible gobbledygook posters on the BBC News.

The Bosniacs were much cannier. They'd generally always have plenty of posters in English at their demonstrations.

#2 JJM on 2016-04-28 10:39 (Reply)

"Believing In Two Genders Is A 'Hate Crime' Under Police Investigation At Catholic College"

As a language student, "gender" has only one significance for me: a means to classify nouns.

There are two biological sexes. Period. So I ignore all discussions of "gender whatever" largely because, well, I just can't get around the nagging feeling that those consumed with such arguments are mentally ill.

#3 JJM on 2016-04-28 10:56 (Reply)

Outside of a few small colleges, e.g. Wyoming Catholic College and Saint Thomas Aquinas, "Catholic" higher education is dead. When the President of PP gives a speech at Georgetown and receives a standing ovation, you know you've heard the death knell. And when the Cardinal in DC does not strip Georgetown of its "Catholic" identity designation as a result, it makes you wonder if the fix is in.

#3.1 kellym on 2016-04-28 12:10 (Reply)

Re: ‘Racist’ Noose Drawing

QUOTE:

But after realizing it was two black students who drew the picture – which showed the hangman crying, included the N-word with an arrow pointed at the stick figure, as well as the message #whitepower – they decided not to press criminal charges, The Delmarva Daily Times reports.

Why didn't they press charges? This is clearly an attempt to incite racial anger against white people. This is just another example of racism against whites.

But then I answer my own question.

#4 mudbug on 2016-04-28 11:03 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Walter Williams reflects on his 81st birthday

Facile, as only a libertarian can be.

QUOTE:

Theft is when a person’s property is taken from him — through stealth, force, intimidation, threats or coercion — and given to another to whom it does not belong. If a person took your property — even to help another person who is in need — it would be called theft. Suppose three people agreed to that taking. Would it be deemed theft? What if 100,000 or several hundred million people agreed to do so? Would that be deemed theft? Another way to ask these questions is: Does a consensus establish morality?

Which is an argument against taxation of any kind, because taxes always take by force, and redistribute in ways you may not agree with or benefit from. So there would be no government, not even a libertarian government capable of self defence.

QUOTE:

One is the sale of human organs.

So having imagined himself into a desperate society full of desperate people, he wants to legalize the sale of organs for the benefit of the rich who can afford them.

QUOTE:

You might say, “Aha, Williams, we’ve got you there because if you don’t wear a seat belt and you have an accident and turn into a vegetable, society is burdened with taking care of you!” That’s not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism. Nobody should be forced to take care of me for any reason. If government assumes the job of taking care of us, then Congress can control just about every aspect of our lives.

As Williams can't imagine himself desperate, or others for that matter, he can't understand why modern society has organized itself to minimize the worst aspects of the nightmare world he has drawn.

QUOTE:

One day they wrote to her that her little Cosette was entirely naked in that cold weather, that she needed a woollen skirt, and that her mother must send at least ten francs for this.

...

"You have beautiful teeth, you girl there, who are laughing; if you want to sell me your palettes, I will give you a gold napoleon apiece for them."

"What are my palettes?" asked Fantine.

"The palettes," replied the dental professor, "are the front teeth, the two upper ones."

"How horrible!" exclaimed Fantine.

"Two napoleons!" grumbled a toothless old woman who was present. "Here's a lucky girl!"

Fantine fled and stopped her ears that she might not hear the hoarse voice of the man shouting to her: "Reflect, my beauty! two napoleons; they may prove of service.

#5 Zachriel on 2016-04-28 11:06 (Reply)

"Which is an argument against taxation of any kind, because taxes always take by force, and redistribute in ways you may not agree with or benefit from. So there would be no government, not even a libertarian government capable of self defence.

I think you misinterpreted Williams here and elsewhere. He's talking about income redistribution, which is truly theft.

#5.1 Otto Maddox on 2016-04-28 12:38 (Reply)

Otto Maddox: I think you misinterpreted Williams here and elsewhere. He's talking about income redistribution, which is truly theft.

All taxes redistribute, such as building a road across town rather than improving the road in front of your business. And they do it by force.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-04-28 17:04 (Reply)

I'm guessing you're a "progressive" - even though you may not realize it. You misuse and abuse language to distort what people say to make what you feel are valid points. They are not. You have sliced and diced Williams' statements to come up with what you feel are clever rebuttals. Again, they are not. I'm sure we could cut and paste words from your comments to argue that you have said you're a green hamster from the second ring of Saturn, but that wouldn't make it so.

Now, you've gone and disingenuously and deliberately misstated Otto's statement about INCOME redistribution and tried to argue that all taxes redistribute (something). since you don't specifically attach an object to your predicate, the implication is that you mean all taxes redistribute income. But you don't specifically say that because at some level you realize that your argument is baseless.

First, Otto specifically said INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. As he was agreeing with Williams, it's obvious that he is talking about the govt taking the income (past or current) from Smith giving it to Jones.

Second, all taxes do NOT redistribute income or wealth. When a city taxes its residents to build a road in the town, all of the residents of the town end up paying for the road. Obviously, they do so in proportion to some formula that they have previously agreed to such as one's property value which is meant to reflect some combination of the benefit one derives from city projects and/or one's ability to contribute to the pot (I disagree with the latter). Cities do this not to redistribute wealth, but to avoid the free rider problem.

Other taxes, such as excise taxes which were the chief source of govt income early in our history, tax people based on their use of certain goods or services. The tax revenues go back into maintaining and upgrading the "infrastructure" that enables these goods or services to be provided or utilized or to pay for their untoward effects.

The legitimate functions of the federal government include (and are generally limited to) providing for defense against foreign threats (military), protecting its citizens from other citizens (justice system), and preventing the free rider problem fir certain public endeavors. It's legitimate functions do NOT include taking money from Smith and giving it to Jones - that's contrary to the role of government.

#5.1.1.1 Mike M on 2016-04-28 18:24 (Reply)

Mike M: Now, you've gone and disingenuously and deliberately misstated Otto's statement about INCOME redistribution and tried to argue that all taxes redistribute (something).

No. We did not misconstrue the statement. He argued that Williams was against income redistribution, but the argument that Williams made was against all taxation because all taxation redistributes wealth or taxes by force.

Mike M: First, Otto specifically said INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. As he was agreeing with Williams, it's obvious that he is talking about the govt taking the income (past or current) from Smith giving it to Jones.

Williams referred to specifically property, which can mean either income or wealth. When you tax for a road, you take it from Smith, give it to Jones the builder to put in a road, to provide access to Brown's storefront. Smith may or may not benefit from the road. That's redistribution.

Mike M: When a city taxes its residents to build a road in the town, all of the residents of the town end up paying for the road.

That's right, even when they don't benefit from the road. There are winners and losers. That's the nature of the politics of government spending.

Mike M: The legitimate functions of the federal government include (and are generally limited to) providing for defense against foreign threats (military), protecting its citizens from other citizens (justice system), and preventing the free rider problem fir certain public endeavors.

Then you agree. It means taking people's wealth by force and using it for purposes for which they may or may not agree. It could mean paying to lock up vagrants, or taking them to a homeless shelter. It could mean paying for an unjust war.

Williams has the same problem as most libertarians. His arguments are simple and pat, and are superficially persuasive, but have little to do with the real world. "Two napoleons for your palettes!"

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-04-28 19:23 (Reply)

My comments weren't meant for you. They were meant for others as it's become clear that while we can explain things to you, we cannot understand them for you.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Mike M on 2016-04-28 22:14 (Reply)

Exactly. Others should heed that tactic as it's the only one to deal with dysfunction.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2016-04-29 07:18 (Reply)

Our comments weren't meant for you. They were meant for others, though we might hope you would be capable of understanding them and responding.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-04-29 09:32 (Reply)

Oh WE understand them and we also understand that responding is a waste of time. Everyone of your responses to a criticism is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?".

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-04-29 21:14 (Reply)

That's actually a perfect summation of you, Zach. Your example of how horrible the cause of the poor is going to be if you relax your obsessive attitude against evil conservatives for even a moment is drawn from fictional events of two centuries ago. You actually do fear bogeys and phantasms. Will you shame us with Little Nell, next? Uncle Tom's Cabin?

I get it. I finally get it.

#5.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-04-28 19:54 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Your example of how horrible the cause of the poor is going to be if you relax your obsessive attitude against evil conservatives for even a moment is drawn from fictional events of two centuries ago. You actually do fear bogeys and phantasms.

Our comment didn't concern conservatism, but facile libertarianism. Conservatism recognizes the necessity of government.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-04-29 09:31 (Reply)

Re: We Know How to Fix Poverty

We knew before Kansas and Maine reformed their food stamp programs. While the debate in the '90s on welfare reform was raging, before it was even passed, the welfare rolls in many states were being drastically reduced because recipients knew the gravy train was ending.

#6 mudbug on 2016-04-28 11:34 (Reply)

Trump will win in the fall. Immigration, loss of jobs - these are winning issues for the majority of Americans. And now with the new numbers out about economic growth (anemic), Hillary will be tied to that or will have to denounce Obama, which won't make her black supporters very happy.

Cruz just ruined his imaginary chances of getting the nomination by adding Carly (pro-H1B visa, pro-amnesty) to his 'ticket.' Immigration and jobs are very very high on the list for voters.

Next Tuesday can't come quickly enough...

#7 MissT on 2016-04-28 12:42 (Reply)

The fact is that the Democrats will lose most of their traditional voting blocs to Trump. Apart from traditional Republicans, Trump will get:

1. White and legal immigrant blue collar voters.

2. Union rank-and-file.

3. Unemployed/underemployed voters.

4. People screwed by Obamacare (that alone is in the millions).

5. Small business owners/workers.

6. The military (although the Democrats always try to block the counting of their votes).

Cruz wouldn't necessarily get a lot of those votes (they would stay home), but Trump will.

Hillary will get:

1. The 1% limousine liberals.

2. The black vote (which is declining in number).

3. Illegals, to the extent they can sneak them into the polls.

4. LGBTQPXYZ and others with sexual issues.

5. Criminals (e.g., Virginia).

6. Pornographers.

7. Some Students and the Young Clueless (although that is iffy, because many of those folks are Sanders supporters, and may just sit out the election if he is not the candidate).

8. Drug dealers and others in the illegal/quasi illegal drug market who know the Democrats will open up new markets for them / continue to destroy the economy so there will be more and more disillusioned people using their products.

Not much of a coalition to win an election on. Fortunately, Obama and the Democrats have totally screwed over most Americans in the past 8 years, and most are royally pissed at this point.

Of course, if Hillary is indicted it's even worse for the Democrats. Hopefully, Trump will pound every day leading up to the general on why Hillary hasn't yet been indicted.

I predict The Donald will take between 40 and 50 states.

#7.1 Jim on 2016-04-28 14:06 (Reply)

I also expect many Bernie types to vote Trump. I have seen relatively positive things about Trump on Huff Post in the comment section. In fact, some democrat voters think it would be hilarious to vote for Trump because they think it would take down the GOP. Go for it, Dems! I love that idea.

Bernie followers see Hillary as hopelessly corrupt. Trump at least is self-funding and is more middle of the road on certain social issues. They will either stay home or see Trump as a decent 2nd option.

I also see a big blowout. I think Trump will win OH, FL (barely won by Obama in 2012, btw), PA (Mitt only lost by 5 points...easily made up), and see MI in play with that state having gone Bernie.

#7.1.1 MissT on 2016-04-28 16:09 (Reply)

I remember seeing similar arguments and categories why Buchanan would sweep to the nomination in 1992.

#7.1.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-04-28 19:27 (Reply)

Photo: Why does this compassionate German gal hold a sign in English?

Because she is a compassionate Canadian gal at a rally in Rally in St. John's Canada on Dec. 13, 2015. And the sign she was holding said "Will trade Racists for Refugees "
It is currently the fifth photo down on this page:
[url] http://theindependent.ca/tag/social-justice/ [/url]

As to whether the current use of a photoshopped version is a real "antifascist" group in agreement with the photoshopped version, or a webpage that parodying "antifascist" groups; I couldn't say.

#8 Douglas2 on 2016-04-28 14:27 (Reply)

Thank you. I am accepting this origin of the photo as correct unless someone shows me compelling reasons otherwise. It had seemed a little too pat for me - though these days, who knows?

It is still a bit irritating, as she is unlikely to be bearing much of the burden of refugees coming to Newfoundland herself. Immigrants tend to be people on the make with some skills, ambition, and energy. Less worthy of charity, perhaps, but better able to adapt and contribute. Refugees are real charity cases, and while that may be good for us and elevate our character, it is more work. As she is so fond of kicking her fellow citizens and calling them racists even though Semitic peoples are her race and that's not the issue, I have to wonder if this is mere culture war in which she wants her white people to win, not those other white people.

#8.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-04-28 19:46 (Reply)

RE: PHOTO (Racists or Rapists)

From another response, it looks like she prefers rapists. What she is REALLY saying is that she prefers immigrants who refuse to assimilate and/or obey her nation's laws to people who believe that immigrants should assimilate and obey the laws of their adopted country.

In reality, these islamic rapists are also racists. That's why they're raping European women.

I would even prefer an actual overt racist to immigrants who behave as these middle eastern trash have. The racism in and of itself offers no real and lasting threat.

#9 Mike M on 2016-04-28 14:30 (Reply)

QUOTE:

"From Fast and Furious through the IRS scandals and Benghazi to the present Hillary e-mail investigations, the Democratic Party's entrenched bureaucrat buddies have spit in the collective eye of the Republican congressional leadership – not quite ignoring them completely, but responding to them with such deliberately disdainful delay and minimal compliance with their demands as to casually convey the Democrats' utter contempt for the supposed equal powers of the legislative branch of federal governance. And how does the Republican congressional leadership react to such disrespect? Well, for example, Republicans supposedly responded to the Obama administration's complete intransigence in the case of Fast and Furious by citing Attorney General Eric Holder for both criminal and civil contempt of the House. And what did that get them except for a pair of big sneering middle fingers on Holder's way out the door more than two years later?"

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/will_a_trump_win_grow_a_spine_in_republican_leaders.html

#10 feeblemind on 2016-04-28 15:03 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, April 28. 2016

Thursday morning links