We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, April 1. 2021
Let's Celebrate the Federal Government on April Fools' Day
How humans develop larger brains than other apes
Scott Adam's podcast: Did CDC kill people due to fear of fat-shaming?
Update On Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn Litigation
Yankee Go Home
Stay out of politics, Facebook and Twitter
Facebook Removed Video Interview With President Trump Citing His Ban On The Platform As The Reason…
Mostly Peaceful Mayhem - Turning a blind eye to violence in Miami, the New York Times previews its post-Floyd-trial coverage.
Race and False Hate Crime Narratives
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I’m sure if the Feds treated being a fatty or a couch bound toad the same way they do cigarette smoking we would see a major change in US health and life expectancy. However that would hurt feelings especially among a few key (ok only one) voting groups for the D’s so that ain’t gonna happen.
And keep in mind that it's your patriotic duty to your government to be as safe and healthy as possible, a good citizen is one who thinks, as JFK so wisely suggested, of what's good for the collective rather than what's for his own good.
As long as I have to pay taxes from the other side of the world to help fund the medical care for lard ass poor and old people...then yeah I want them to drop a few pounds. Rich young people can do what they want.
I hope I'm not around when all the millions of government-encouraged marijuana smokers start coming down with lung cancer, COPD, emphysema, and the like. Big Tobacco is now Big Marijuana.
In tandem with the article on larger brains in human, linked below is a lecture by Jessica Thompson of the IHO at Arizona State. She offers an interesting hypothesis to the question, what, if anything, jump started increasing brain size in hominids. Brains obviously offer a lot of advantages, but they are also very expensive from an evolutionary point of view.
I have to shake my head at the ignorance of people who criticize wasteful spending by the government. The government simply doesn't have the same incentives and the same goals as the private sector and you can't judge them by the standards of the private sector. "Wasteful" spending to a politician is any spending that doesn't bring them more votes and "wasteful" spending to a bureaucrat is any spending that doesn't increase their budget and the size of the bureaucracy. Otherwise, it's not their money and they have no reason to care whether or not the money is spent wisely, it's not like they're in any danger of paying a price for failure.
Notice for example the bit on infrastructure spending that includes spending for government-managed high speed internet networks - it's presumed that government-managed entities are going to be more efficient than private because they aren't driven by the profit motive. This despite the fact that the profit motive is exactly what drives efficiency, if you're not better at providing a product than your competitor you're out of business and if you find a way to provide a better product, you make a lot of money. If you're the government, why do you care about providing a better product? It's not like it's going to affect you one way or the other.
I think we should call it what it is. Not "wasteful spending" but corrupt spending. They are giving away money to their special interests and friends. They are lying to our face about it and laughing all the way to the bank. We are facing a economic collapse and they are looting the treasury.
It is a union supremacy bill. It will give unions power over non-union workers and a lot of that money will be laundered and put into the DNC coffers.
If you're the government, why do you care about providing a better product?
If you don't like our results, citizen, we will cancel you. Criticism of the government, is double no good wrong think. What are you, a white supremist bigoted hater?
All of us at the government, all levels, work so hard for you citizens. We install the very best, top people, and this is the thanks we get? Get your mask on!
NR's "Yankee Go Home": I stopped reading NROnline in 2015 when it/they went all NEVER TRUMP in 2015. It/they are dead to me now, and stinking to high heaven.
Stay Out of Politics, Facebook and Twitter! I ignore both. Less stomach acid, that way.
Facebook Removed Video Interview With President Trump Citing His Ban On The Platform As The Reason… See comment just above...
Biden’s ‘jobs plan’ is a horrific con job: Is anyone surprised???
Totally agree about NR buuuuuut they make a great point here. What’s being exported from the US now is noxious and sane people want nothing to do with it.
Regarding that horrific hate crime in NY City. Answer me this; If the perp had been Asian it wouldn't be a hate crime. If the victim had been white, it wouldn't be a hate crime. WHY does the connotation "hate crime" deserve greater punishment than the crime itself? Why should someone who did this get off with lesser punishment because we can't stick the appellation "hate crime" to it? Why shouldn't the punishment be equal either way? Especially since we all know the "hate crime" was invented to punish whites. In fact the hate crime law is itself a "hate crime". If there was ever a reason for "equity" this is it. Equity in punishment for the same crime, no politics and racist hate added or subtracted.
Saul: If the perp had been Asian it wouldn't be a hate crime. If the victim had been white, it wouldn't be a hate crime.
That is incorrect. Hate crime victims can be any race, as can the perpetrator.
The victim doesn't even have to belong to the targeted minority; for instance, a Sikh attacked because the perpetrator thought he was a Muslim or Arab.
Saul: WHY does the connotation "hate crime" deserve greater punishment than the crime itself?
Because a hate crime is an attack on the entire community of the targeted minority. For a historical example, lynching Blacks in the U.S. was meant to set an example and to strike fear into the Black community.
You are either lying or clueless. Everyone knows that it is just about impossible to make it a hate crime when a POC attacks a white. To lie about this in the face of what is obvious is foolish and makes you look foolish.
As for your stupid logic about why a hate crime should be punished more; You do understand that for the exact same crime you allow the perp to go free or get very little punishment. THAT is just one of the problems with hate crime laws that it allows and even encourages not punishing when the victim is the wrong race and the perp is the right race.
Saul: Everyone knows that it is just about impossible to make it a hate crime when a POC attacks a white.
There were hundreds of anti-White bias crimes reported by the FBI in 2019.
Saul: You do understand that for the exact same crime you allow the perp to go free or get very little punishment.
That would depend on the severity of the crime.
Saul: not punishing when the victim is the wrong race and the perp is the right race.
The race of the victim and perpetrator are irrelevant under hate crime statutes unless race was the reason why the underlying crime was committed.
Far more white people have been targeted and killed by blacks than the number of black people ever lynched by the Democrat KKK .
Because a hate crime is an attack on the entire community of the targeted minority.
That is correct, but for one very large issue. Although it is possible for a white person to be the victim of a hate crime, it is a very rare occurrence unless done to one of the most protected of all citizen groups: LGBTQ+PGHILMNOP. IF a LGBTQ+PGHILMNOP, is white, and a crime is committed against xhem, it is more than likely a hate crime. However, it would just be silly to consider a crime committed against an everyday, basket of deplorable, irredeemable white christen (even if they were all gathered at their house of worship), by a man of middle eastern descent, yelling allahu akbar, to be a hate crime against everyone in the basket of deplorable, irredeemable white community. I mean, come on. Let's keep it real. As you, so succinctly point out, it must be a minority. Not the race that is single handedly the cause of so much suffering and strife in this world. Don't even get me started on their support of that, that...Orange Man! I impeached him twice, and I'll do it again.
N. Palosi: Although it is possible for a white person to be the victim of a hate crime, it is a very rare occurrence unless done to one of the most protected of all citizen groups
As noted above, hundreds of anti-White hate crimes have been reported by the FBI. Crimes against someone because of the sexual orientation or gender identification are classified separately.
Why should the motive matter? If a mugger takes me out and grabs my purse, it's not going to matter why I was chosen. And this ridiculous situation these days where "hate crimes" can only happen if the perpetrator is white is going to add to more cynicism among all racial groups except - perhaps - the one which is given a "Get out of jail free" card.
Frances: Why should the motive matter?
If someone beats up a Jewish person because of they are a Jew, then it is not an isolated crime, but an attack on all Jews.
This is NOT a hate crime. It is merely a mob of "teens" that chases down and beats some random guy. Nothing to see here. Move along.
OneGuy: This is NOT a hate crime.
There's no way to determine that without additional evidence. If the man was targeted because of his race, then it would a hate crime.
The George Floyd trial (as it is called but really the Derek Chauvin trial) is problematic. I recognize that the video can be interpreted in a very negative way but it is 100% wrong.
First the method to subdue a violent and strong prisoner by placing a knee on their neck was standard policy taught to the police as a less harmful restraint. It does not choke you. Floyd did not get choked to death by Chauvin's knee no matter how many times you watch the video.
Second, simply saying I can't breathe proves that you aren't being choked. But saying I can't breathe while undergoing a cardio-pulmonary event says that there is something wrong with you medically. Floyd clearly stated this before being placed on the ground. He was in fact dying in the back of the police car and was voicing his symptoms; "I can't breathe". What could Officer Chauvin done at that point to prevent his death? Answer; give him a shot of naloxone. I have never heard anyone ask or say if Officer Chauvin had a shot of naloxone with him. But other than that there was no way to save Floyd.
Should Chauvin have taken him out of the back seat of the police car? Again, standard police practice when the perp is becoming violent in the back seat is to take them out and immoblize them. Floyd was a big guy and even two officers would be hard pressed to simply hang on to him. He had to be immobilzed using the preferred practice of lying face down with a knee against the back of his neck. What other choice did Chauvin have? None!
It is clear from the autopsy and the video that Floyd died from a drug overdose. It "looks" like the police should have done more, but what? In retrospect the wisest thing Chauvin could have done is allowed Floyd to pass away in the backseat. If he had, he probably would have lost his job for not following procedures which mandate that you pull him out and put him on the ground with a knee to the back of his neck. But then it would have been obvious to the mentally incompetent that Floyd did indeed die fronm a drug overdose.
"waste and partisan spending"...just more borrowed money to subsidize corrupted politicians and their sponsors and supporters.