WikiLeaks: who gives a shit about your stupid little privacy!

When I wrote about WikiLeaks in the aftermath of that sniveling fuckwit Bradley Manning’s revelations, I showed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange couldn’t be bothered to give less of a crispy rat’s fuck about the collateral damage his leaks produced. What are a few inconsequential Afghan lives compared to the noble mission of exposing government secrets getting international press attention and having frothing loons genuflecting before his greatness, right?

He insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.

Mr Assange said: “No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret – our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of this war.”

Current reporting shows that, despite the fact that WikiLeaks over the years has released some useful, interesting information that the American public should know, Assange and his mangy crew of miscreants still don’t give a crap about anything but publicity. They can’t be bothered with protecting the privacy of ordinary people. They just don’t give a shit, because they believe their mission to expose every secret every government holds outweighs even the most extreme life and death situations their site may expose that could impact ordinary people.

I’m sure rape victims and gays in Saudi Arabia and other theocratic shitholes that put people to death for such transgressions are really grateful to WikiLeaks for revealing information that could cause them to be killed.


In the past year alone, the radical transparency group has published medical files belonging to scores of ordinary citizens while many hundreds more have had sensitive family, financial or identity records posted to the web. In two particularly egregious cases, WikiLeaks named teenage rape victims. In a third case, the site published the name of a Saudi citizen arrested for being gay, an extraordinary move given that homosexuality is punishable by death in the ultraconservative Muslim kingdom.

Can someone explain to me how publishing medical histories of ordinary people is in the public’s interest to know?

Julian Assmange says WikiLeaks steals secrets. No one ever calls him on the fact that stealing is immoral and illegal. It's the taking of something that's not his. That makes him no better than a common thief.

Julian Assmange says WikiLeaks steals secrets. No one ever calls him on the fact that stealing is immoral and illegal. It’s the taking of something that does not belong to him. That makes him no better than a common thief.

What about their contact information, such as phone number and address?

Assmange is still hanging out at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He has guards to protect him should some nutbar enterprising citizen decide to scale the embassy wall and maybe attack him.

The rape victims, those hiding from domestic violence, and gays in Saudi Arabia don’t have that luxury.

And the people whose Social Security WikiLeaks published for every identity thief to steal and sell on the black market can do nothing but buy expensive identity protection programs and keep their fingers crossed that they don’t wind up in a world of shit.

Because Assmange doesn’t care. He’s such an arrogant, attention-seeking shitbag, that he obviously thinks his mission justifies any damage caused to the people on whose necks he steps to expose government secrets portray himself in the media as a hero.

Assmange doesn’t care whom he hurts, and cannot comprehend that the release of personal details and names of ordinary people whose only crime may be being gay in Saudi Arabia or being sexually assaulted there, will not decrease government spying, will not result in more freedom, and will likely increase government surveillance of these individuals.

Three Saudi cables published by the WikiLeaks identified domestic workers who’d been tortured or sexually abused by their employers, giving the women’s full names and passport numbers. One cable named a male teenager who was raped by a man while abroad; a second identified another male teenager who was so violently raped his legs were broken; a third outlined the details of a Saudi man detained for “sexual deviation” — a derogatory term for homosexuality.

Why Ecuador continues to grant this narcissistic ass gobbler asylum is beyond me.

I will also note the hypocrisy of those who screamed loudest about wanting him arrested and prosecuted for revealing sensitive information provided by Manning are now patting him on the back for the release of the DNC emails – and vice versa.

I also wonder why he hasn’t released any dirt on the Russians. Is it because he is actually afraid of Putin, or employed by him like his turd goblin pal Snowden?

Whatever the reason, it’s obvious Assange doesn’t care about anything but perpetuating himself as a hero and warrior of transparency, and he and his band of elitist sphincter jockeys are too lazy to do anything but dump a bunch of documents into cyber space and watch the fireworks.

WikiLeaks files are invested with malware? Meh. Who gives a shit? Can’t be bothered to screen for viruses. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

WikiLeaks exposes personal medical information? Meh. Who gives a shit? There are more important things to do than sanitize private data that could get people killed.

WikiLeaks dumps a bunch of useless junk onto the Internet? So what? There might be gems of information about government secrecy in there! Read through all that shit, you lazy monkeys! Assmange certainly has no time to do it!

Assmange apparently considers himself a Nietzschean Ubermensch whose very existence justifies anything he does and creates his own version of “morality” that apparently doesn’t include doing no harm to others. His mission is superior and far more important than the little guys he harms.

Here’s wishing that the arrogant bug fucker pisses off someone at the Ecuadorian embassy badly enough to be tossed out on his supercilious, bony ass to be picked up by the police and tossed in PMITA prison for some tender manlove.


Damien Walter’s Ugly Tie

tieThose of you who have kids may remember their gifts to dad early on, which usually consisted of a mangled ashtray they made in art class, which you kept as a sacred treasure because your baby made it (yes, I still have a ceramic hedgehog from one of mine). Sometimes, though, when there was nothing to present from art class, the munchkins would go out and buy a hideous tie for dad’s birthday – a tie he would be embarrassed to wear were it from any source other than the child.

Yeah, that tie.

You don’t want to wear it, because Punkin spent hard-earned allowance money getting you that ugly tie as a present, and you want to honor that gesture by wearing it on a special occasion, so you pat them on the head and hug and kiss them, and they feel so good, because daddy likes their present!

Well, yesterday was Larry Correia’s birthday. Larry – the author of some of my favorite books, and the SJW-proclaimed International Lord of Hate – got a present for his special day from the Guardian’s resident Oozing Vagoo Damien Walter – an article on Dimwit’s Guardian blog critiquing Larry’s novels, as well as some other authors whom I love.

Note also that Dimwit has made his Twitter feed protected, so only the correct sort of readers may follow him and read his 140-character brain droppings. Dimwit doesn’t exactly like criticism. Perhaps THAT’S why he hasn’t managed to shit out a book, even thought the British government has given him other people’s money to do so.

I’m not linking to Dimwit’s ponderous swamp of viscous (no, not vicious – I meant viscous, as in gelatinous or mucusy), mangled pseudo-thought. You can use the Google Machine for his snark-filled, condescending screed “Hugo Awards: Reading the Sad Puppies’ Pets.” It’s also archived here. If there’s one thing clear from Dimwit’s blithering excretion, it’s that even though he claims to have read these authors’ books and found them to be clearly substandard, his idea of “reading” involves skimming a few pages of a single work, skimming a few others – maybe, asserting how awful they are, and then basing his critique attack on other Sad Puppy authors on those limited, half-witted views.

And he claims the Guardian pays him to read books! Perhaps they should ask for their money back, because he’s quite obviously incapable of reading – or at least comprehending – books he claims are oh-so-low class, they’re comparable to straight-to-video Dolph Lundgren films. Those damn proles.

OK, I like Dolph Lundgren. He’s fun – something that Dimwit obviously avoids like a bad case of the herp (which, he likely wouldn’t get anyway, because – really – who the hell would want to fuck that omega male?) – and contrary to what some supercilious twat wads believe, entertainment can not contain haughty, overbearing social or political messages and still be worthwhile.

Also, Dolph Lundgren is much smarter than Dimwit, the self-described “male feminist” who hasn’t been able to birth a book, even though the British government apparently paid him a grant to do so, but who apparently teaches writing, even though he’s apparently incapable of reading an entire book, let alone writing one even with taxpayer money incentives. Maybe Larry’s writing is a bit too complex for Dimwit.

Dolph Lundgren has a degree in chemistry from Washington State University, a degree in chemical engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology, and a Master’s in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney. He also stars in movies people actually see, and is a much more recognizable persona than Dimwit. So Dimwit denigrating Lundgren is as laughable as Dimwit denigrating Larry Correia, who somehow manages to write entertaining stories, makes a great living, has a huge fan base, and unlike Dimwit, can actually write a book – a number of them, in fact – that people love to read.

I also note that aside from a few outliers, Dimwit’s blog averages about as many comments per entry as mine does – UNLESS he is writing about the Sad Puppies, which brings out the pusillanimous Puppy Kickers to pile on and pat one another on the back about how enlightened they are for hating that pulp fiction pablum. This tells me Dimwit simply trots out the Puppies when things get particularly slow on his Guardian blog, because let’s face it, folks – Dimwit needs the hits.

And that’s pretty much what he’s done in this latest gutless harangue.

For the last few years, the Hugo awards for science fiction have been campaigned against by a group of writers and fans calling themselves the Sad Puppies – mostly male, very white, and overwhelmingly conservative. Unhappy with sci-fi’s growing diversity, the Puppies have deliberately block-voted for certain titles to get them nominated for Hugos at the expense of a wider field. They say it is their goal to “poke the establishment in the eye” by nominating “unabashed pulp action that isn’t heavy-handed message fic”. I say it is to sponsor awful writers.

So Dimwit starts out with a deliberate lie, given that Sad Puppies 4 was run by all women, who are overwhelmingly libertarian, and that those “certain titles” recommended by the Puppies were voted on by anyone who has read a work and liked it, and included such SJW favorites as Ann Leckie.

Never let facts get in the way of your attempts to gain readership at the expense of the people whom you revile, but whose accomplishments you couldn’t hope to match, let alone exceed, Dimwit.

The Puppies have two criteria for what they deem excellence: does it turn a buck? And has the author dared to say anything, ever, that they disagree with? This, paired with their conspiracy theories about some big sci-fi publishers, means that they tend to champion mostly self-published authors. Nothing about quality – though you don’t need an in-depth knowledge of sci-fi to understand that a short story called Space Raptor Butt Invasion (yes, really) has not arrived on the Hugo lists because of its calibre.

Wow, what utter dreck! Fans nominated works they liked using whatever criteria they wanted. The organizers of Sad Puppies 4 spent a lot of time compiling recommendations based on those nominations in a completely open and transparent process. Larry Correia repeatedly and quite openly stated why he started the campaign in the first place – another piece Dimwit is apparently incapable of understanding. And, the Sad Puppies had nothing to do with “Space Raptor Butt Invasion,” no matter how hard Dimwit twists and strains to make that connection.

With this year’s Hugo awards coming on Saturday night in the US, I thought I’d read some of the authors championed by the Puppies. (Don’t ever say I don’t do anything for you.)

If you find meaning in straight-to-video Dolph Lundgren films, then Larry Correia’s novels will be your kind of read. Correia, accountant-turned-author-turned-Sad-Puppies-creator, kicked off his Monster Hunter series with Monster Hunter International, about an accountant whose boss turns into a monster. So he shoots him. In fact, much of the Monster Hunter series relies rather heavily on people the hero doesn’t like turning into monsters … so he can shoot them.

There’s a problem here. Dimwit either engages in seriously sloppy writing, or he read a few pages, saw a reference to a gun, shat himself in utter terror, and couldn’t continue reading.

Yes, the novel’s main character does shoot his boss at first, but since his boss is a werewolf, shooting him does nothing, so Owen Zastava Pitt subsequently kills his werewolf boss by chucking him out of a window, and dropping a desk on him. So by implying that Z kills the monster by shooting it, and then making absolutely false claims about the rest of the series, Dimwit is either a mediocre and careless writer, who hasn’t understood what he read, or he hasn’t actually read anything but the first few pages of Monster Hunter International, saw the passage about the shooting, got scared, hid under his desk for a while until the tremors subsided, predicted he’s read all he needs and that the rest would be much of the same, and proceeded to write about it.

My bet would be on the latter.

Because if it’s the former, then he’s guilty of the kind of writing crimes of which he accuses authors he doesn’t like.

Dimwit goes on to trash popular novelists such as Sarah A. Hoyt and Brad Torgersen, John C. Wright and Dave Freer, and anyone else whom he considers part of the Sad Puppy cisheteropatriarchaloppressors. He doesn’t get into details, other than to claim sentences are “mangled,” whatever that means, and accuses these talented writers of “vomiting onto the page” whatever passes through their heads.

This coming from someone whose claim to fame is proclaiming himself to be a “male feminist” and spewing out such literary feculence as “My Lovesick Zombie Boy Band.” I get this feeling Dimwit is just too stupid to understand words on a page, so he denigrates the authors in hopes of concealing his own inadequacies.

But the Sad Puppies don’t want any of their books to end up on bestseller lists or TV screens. It’s the same frustrating paradigm that British MP Michael Gove hit upon when he said that people were sick of experts, or what Donald Trump plays upon when he rails against “professional politicians”. We’re seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect played out on a mass scale, and the Sad Puppies are just a speck in that wider problem.

No, of course Sad Puppies don’t want their books on bestseller lists! Larry Correia winding up on Entertainment Weekly’s bestseller list and on the New York Times bestseller list must have been an accident! He didn’t want any of that! Totes unintentional!

You know, it’s amusing to see Dimwit flailing – allowing Larry not only to live rent-free in his head, but to flood the toilet, toss around stale pizza boxes, run up the pay-per-view bill, and stain the shag carpet. Larry had nothing to do with the Hugos this year. He declined his nomination last year. He’s ignored poor Dimwit, because Larry is doing what Larry does best – writing entertaining books for his fans and having fun.

And yet, here’s Dimwit, once again trying to get Larry’s attention, like a slow child presenting daddy with that ugly tie for Father’s Day.

Yep, this article is Dimwit’s ugly tie – published right on time for dad’s Larry’s birthday.

Meanwhile, the talented, smart, generous authors beloved by fans and reviled by the SJW Howler Monkeys as melancholy juvenile canines, will continue selling books and thrilling their audiences.

That’s nice, Dimmy. Maybe daddy will wear your tie next time.

Mikey Weinstein – embarrassing atheists since… hell, I don’t know

I’ve blogged about embarrassing atheists before. These are the sniveling, perpetually offended pimples, who are never satisfied just being atheists, but they insist on ensuring that their precious, sensitive corneas are never pointed directly at any kind of religious symbol, and their fragile sensibilities are never exposed to anything remotely having to do with faith, because SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

There’s this Newdow moron, who has declared a personal fatwa on anything that even implies religion. His pathological compulsion to get rid of anything having to do with God has taken him down the road of targeting schools for for allowing students to stand silently, during the Pledge of Allegiance, because it contains a reference to God, and trying to rid money of “In God We Trust.”

For the record, I think it’s a waste of energy. There’s nothing coercive about the Pledge. Students are allowed to sit it out, but are obligated to be respectful of those who don’t. That’s a respect issue. It’s teaching someone to be the type of human being who allows others to do what they do without being rude shitsticks. And having that phrase on money doesn’t bother me either. As an atheist, I just have better things to do than get chafed labia over some words on some currency.

There’s some Special Snowflake who was SHOCKED! at seeing a cross. APPALLED, in fact! As if it burned its odious presence into his soul through his eyeballs APPALLED!

And then there’s this asshole. Mikey Weinstein has declared jihad on Christians. Jonn has blogged on him numerous times. You can read it all here. Weinstein’s latest crusade targets some poor schlub of an Air Force officer who had the unmitigated gall “harboring and encouraging a truly abhorrent example of First Amendment civil rights violations.”

Wow! That sounds really bad. A truly abhorrent example of First Amendment rights violations? What could it have been?

bibleDid Maj. Steve Lewis force his subordinates to attend church?

Did he counsel them on their lack of faith or administer non-judicial punishment based on biblical law?

Did he encourage them to read the Bible?

Nope. Maj. Steve Lewis committed the egregious crime of having an open Bible on his desk.

Mikey Weinstein claims this is egregious and outrageous, because the desk belongs to the US Army, and therefore anything religious that touches said desk will cause burns, which is destruction of government property, and service members are scared… Yikes!

Shit, if they’re scared of a fucking book, I can’t imagine how they’re going to fight ISIS! They’ll just duck and run, I suppose. All ISIS has to do apparently is pelt them with pages from the Koran. What kind of stupid is that? That’s like saying you can’t say “God bless you” to someone after they sneeze in a government space!

The atheist site Patheos picked up on the story with all the zeal of a squirrel hopped up on steroids. Except they’re idiots with an agenda, so let’s fisk them real quick, shall we?

If a lance corporal was said to be out of line for putting unlabeled Bible verses all over her workspace, then surely having an open, highlighted Bible at your desk is even worse.

That’s what Major Steve Lewis at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs has done for the past several years, and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is now trying to put a stop to it.

Except the reason the Lance Corporal in question was out of line is because she was sharing a desk with others and was spreading her religious shit all over it, and then refused to obey a direct order to remove said verses, earning her a bad conduct discharge. It wasn’t about religious freedom, but rather because it wasn’t her personal space to decorate. Lewis had the book in his own office on his own desk. But by all means, let’s compare apples to Vagisil, because it fits our agenda!

It all began with an email from someone who deals with Lewis on a regular basis:

“It certainly gives the appearance of favoritism toward one religion,” says a Peterson military member who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. “I’m a Christian myself, and it’s concerning. I don’t think people should be promoted or given opportunities based on whatever [religion] they are. It should be about your performance.”

Much like reading Monster Hunter International books in my office gives the appearance of favoritism toward one author, right? And because the author is the International Lord of Hate, it must be removed at once! Otherwise, Special Snowflakes will get their tender labia chafed at the thought that someone might like something they don’t, and we just can’t have that!

Other than the anonymous emailer’s quivering lips, is there any evidence that Lewis discriminated against any of his subordinates based on religion? Were there any complaints lodged against him? I’m sure if there were, Weinstein and Patheos would be all over them like Oprah on a baked ham, screeching about how Lewis actually violated others’ rights, instead of quoting an anonymous snowflake’s butthurtery. But since that’s all they got, they’ll beat that drum until their little hands get bloodied raw.

That’s right: A Christian blew the whistle on his also-Christian commanding officer.

Maybe you’re having the thought I had when I first heard about this story: What’s the big deal? As long as he’s not proselytizing, this shouldn’t be an issue, right?

Not exactly. Unlike at civilian jobs where personal religious paraphernalia might go unnoticed or unchallenged, the military is far more strict about anything that might hurt cohesion and suggest religious favoritism.

See, the mere suggestion of religious favoritism (which for them, apparently is anything they find objectionable) vice the actual practice of it is enough to make these snowflakes soil their frilly panties!

Has there been any evidence that whatever Lewis has in his office hurt cohesion? Has he been disciplined, counseled, or even reported for favoring Christians over non-Christians? Has he treated anyone improperly, or even been accused of such acts? No?

From the very Air Force Directive these fuck weasels so carelessly bat about:

2.11. Free Exercise of Religion and Religious Accommodation. Every Airman is free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. Every Airman also has the right to individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs, to AFI1-1 7 AUGUST 2012 19 include conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs, unless those expressions would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment.

2.11.1. Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions and lawful orders; however, you may request religious accommodation. Commanders and supervisors at all levels must fairly consider requests for religious accommodation. Airmen requesting accommodation will continue to comply with directives, instructions and lawful orders from which they are requesting accommodation unless and until the request is approved.

2.11.2. If it is necessary to deny free exercise of religion or an accommodation request, the decision must be based on the facts presented, must directly relate to the compelling government interest of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment, and must be by the least restrictive means necessary to avoid the cited adverse impact.

Weinstein claims the mere presence of the book violates these regulations. Except it doesn’t, and until he proves that it has, it’s just so much petulant whining.

Has Lewis disrespected others’ viewpoints because they differed from his own?

Has he denied accommodation in any way to those with differing beliefs?

Have the personal, religious items in his office adversely impacted “military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment?”

Whose rights were violated? Is there a right not to see a Bible?

No account has shown a “yes” answer to any of the above, as the perpetually offended haven’t mentioned anything but the presence of a book that they find so triggering.

But Patheos presses forward claiming the military officer somehow violated the last part of that regulation.

That last bit is key. Military officers cannot, in any way, promote religion while on the clock. A teacher at a public high school might be able to get away with this (provided no proselytizing was occurring) but a military officer plays by different, stricter rules.

A Supreme Court case from 1974, Parker v. Levy, even said as much:

This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections… The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.

So the case law and precedent are on MRFF’s side, even if their position is bound to be extremely unpopular.

Actually case law and precedent are not. What Weinstein and Patheos haven’t proven is that morale, discipline, health, safety, or mission accomplishment have been in any way impacted by the mere presence of the book. And since the Supreme Court plainly said that members of the military ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE PROTECTION GRANTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, unless discipline and good order are somehow impacted, case law and precedent in this case are clearly on Lewis’ side, and his rights are protected by the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.

It’s an “and” not an “or.” If a member of the military practices his or her religion AND causes damage to military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment by doing so, then yes, they’re in violation of the regulations.

The mere presence of a book doesn’t constitute said damage.

As it stands, the Bible has been removed from Lewis’ desk as an investigation into the matter takes place.

Lewis has not yet been punished for his actions. It’s unclear if he will be.

You can almost see the writer of this piece rubbing his grubby little paws together hoping for a bit of discipline for this officer, whose only “crime” appears to have been keeping a religious symbol on his desk. It doesn’t appear as if that will happen, though. Commander of the 310th Space Wing Col. Damon Feltman says the incident is being reviewed, and confirms what I said above.

“As long as he’s not doing something excessive, the existence of a Bible or the Koran or the Torah or some other religious article is not prohibited,” Col. Feltman said. “It’s what you do with it when you have it.”

As to the precious little Snowflake who was so outrageously outraged at the existence of what atheists essentially believe is a book of fairy tales, perhaps the military is not the place for them. After all, if this chafed ass cheek is so traumatized by a book on someone’s desk, can you imagine it on deployment?

These sniveling, piss-swizzling dick flakes make me ashamed to have anything in common with them!

On dying

I’ve been thinking about dying lately. No, I’m not terminally ill or anything, but still… with reports about California’s assisted suicide law having gone in to effect, my mind has gone into overdrive.

A few days ago, the Daily Mail ran this story about a woman who, at 41, became one of the first Californians to take advantage of the state’s new doctor-assisted suicide law. I’m not sure if “take advantage” is the correct term for this. As someone who loves life, it’s hard for me to imagine making the choice that Betsy Davis did.

In early July, Betsy Davis emailed her closest friends and relatives to invite them to a two-day party, telling them: ‘These circumstances are unlike any party you have attended before, requiring emotional stamina, centeredness and openness.’

And just one rule: No crying in front of her.

The 41-year-old artist with ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, held the gathering to say goodbye before becoming one of the first Californians to take a lethal dose of drugs under the state’s new doctor-assisted suicide law for the terminally ill.

als2After the party, Davis took a cocktail of drugs and peacefully slipped away with her loved ones and her doctor and massage therapist at her side.

To me, a healthy person reading this account, it’s unthinkable. I cannot imagine the kind of pain you have to be suffering all the time in order to want to end your life!  I wuss out and cry when my leg hurts for a few hours. The thought of suffering interminable torture 24/7 is horrifying!

But maybe that’s why Davis’ story resonates with me to such a degree. I cannot imagine the type of hell she’s been living in, unable to brush her teeth or even scratch an itch, and in constant pain, and I cannot imagine passing judgment on another person’s suffering, or how much of that anguish a person can tolerate. It boggles my mind that California had to pass a law to allow doctors to alleviate their patients’ suffering! I would have thought that this would be common sense.

That’s why I also don’t understand people who are so fucking selfish that they would pressure a loved one to prolong their agony, so that they could feel better about having them around!

Wesley J. Smith writes in a National Review Online article, “Would Davis have hesitated–delayed or changed her mind, perhaps–if enough of her friends and loved ones had said, ‘No, I won’t attend a party as prelude to your suicide, but I promise I will be with you until your natural end and do everything I can to make that a worthwhile time?‘”

How dare you! How dare you suggest that somehow Davis’ physical agony should take a backseat to “friends and loved ones'” desire to keep her around? How dare you advocate that people encourage their loved ones to continue suffering on their behalf? Unless you’re a wizard who can remove her pain, I doubt there’s anything you can do to make that “a worthwhile time,” you dick nozzle! Pressuring individuals living in perpetual pain, with no hope of survival, and only a long, painful road to death remaining when they have made a decision to go on their terms, only benefits those who will miss the afflicted individual once they are gone. How disgusting that some would want to pressure suffering people to stick around a few months, merely because they aren’t ready to let them go yet!

This woman went peacefully to sleep, watching the sunset, after celebrating her life with her friends and loved ones. She went on her own terms. She made the choice not to live in the hell that was her body any longer. She went with grace and dignity, not screaming in agony and unable to draw breath. Her doctor helped release her from her pain.

And jerks such as Smith have the unmitigated gall to claim every one of her friends who attended the party to say goodbye to someone they cared about and to support her in her choice to end her pain is held morally responsible for her death? What a repulsive attitude!

The illness is responsible for her death.

The illness robbed her of her body, trapping her in pain, and bringing untold suffering.

The illness is the evil here – not the people who supported their beloved friend in what must have been an agonizing decision!

And this Smith asshole has the balls to claim they should have pressured her to suffer longer?

What the fuck kind of people do that?

Don’t attend the party if you don’t feel comfortable, or if you’re too devastated at the loss of your friend. It’s understandable. Celebrate her life instead – in your own way, if you need to.

It’s your choice and your right, just as it is her choice and her right to decide when she’s had enough pain and suffering. Respect that.

But ferfuckssake, don’t be so callous as to try and force her to prolong her agony just because you’re too selfish to let her go!

Manufacturing Outrage

If there’s anything I’ve learned in my years on the Interwebz, it’s that the Internet loves outrage! Outrage goes beyond the old media adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Outrage gives people purpose, notoriety, and attention. It’s virtue signalling that provides the veneer of caring for the victim, or helps paint the outraged themselves into a victim. Outrage is everywhere, because it sounds more urgent and interesting than plain anger.

Witness the Trigglypuff phenomenon. That’s what outrage gets you nowadays, no matter how ludicrous. Worldwide attention, some sympathy, and notoriety.

During the past year, we’ve seen outrage at cops. Riots. Black Lives Matter protests against police officers. And yes, even murders. The perpetually outraged have denied police officers service in restaurants and stores, tainted their food, and treated them like pariahs.

Are there bad cops? Yeah. There are criminal cops. There are negligent cops. There are cops who don’t give a shit. There are cops who are paranoid and incompetent. There are cops who are racist as well – just like in any other profession.

There are also police officers who have dedicated their lives to protecting and serving and to working to make their cities and neighborhoods safe for peaceable citizens. They put on a uniform, leave families behind every single day, and go to work knowing full well that they may not return. They kiss their loved ones “goodbye,” with the full understanding that it may be the last time they do so. They could be your neighbors. They could be your friends. They could be your family members.

Many times there is more than one side to one story, and opportunistic swine who seek to manufacture outrage to draw attention to themselves or their causes tend to take advantage of their bully pulpit, their access to social media, their microphones – real and metaphorical – to foment contempt, to pit the populace against police, to arouse rage and foster animosity between the “victims” and those they perceive to be in power.

This sounds like one of those cases.

Dad Pens Harrowing Facebook Post After Cop Points Gun at His 7-year-old!

Yes, it certainly does sound harrowing and outrageous. How could a police officer threaten to shoot a father and his child who were guilty of nothing more than traveling home on vacation! The father details the frightening tale in a lengthy Facebook post in which he recounts how this “particularly aggressive” officer tapped on the rear passenger side window with his pistol, scaring his child, how he wouldn’t listen when the concerned dad tried to explain they were in a rental car and were just coming back from vacation, how he “leered at me down the barrel of his pistol” and pointed his pistol at the child threatening to shoot her, how he threatened to “murder” him.

And of course, there’s the usual “I love you all. I’m thinking of suing.” conclusion.

It certainly does sound like the police officer overreacted, but I did want to see what the other side had to say. It’s only fair to objectively take a look at both sides of the story.

It does appear correct that the officer stopped the vehicle. The license plate on the vehicle had been reported as stolen, and the car rental company had not replaced the vehicle plates when the front plate was reported stolen.

The officer also reports that the dad – identified as Kenneth Walton – “was not responding to officer’s commands while seated in his vehicle so the trooper moved up the passenger-side window and got the occupant’s attention by tapping on the window with his hand. It was at this time the trooper realized there was a child in the car as she sat up into view. Mr. Walton was ordered out of the car and detained in handcuffs while the trooper conducted his investigation.”

I can see why he ordered Walton out of the car. Last thing you want is for anything to escalate in close quarters when there’s a child in the back seat. It made sense to immobilize the potential criminal while you figure out what the hell is going on.

Especially during a high risk stop, in a high-trafficked area!

Yes, it does appear the officer was being risk-averse until he concluded his investigation of the situation, and he probably was aggressive and more than a bit frightened, given that it was night time, and the stop took place on a road known for drug trafficking and other shit. That said, once he concluded that the vehicle wasn’t stolen, that the rental company simply forgot to replace the plates, he released Walton, who by all accounts was cooperative.

“AZ DPS understands and sympathizes with the concerns the family has regarding this situation,” says Captain Ezekiel Zesiger, Flagstaff District Commander. “Anytime a police contact is made for a possibly stolen vehicle our troopers are trained to take all necessary precautions. In this instance, the vehicle’s license plate was reported as stolen. Troopers must adhere to their training in regards to conducting a high risk traffic stop in these types of situations. Training and protocols are in place for the safety of the Trooper as well as the safety of citizens. Fortunately, the subject in this case was compliant with the trooper and the situation ended peacefully with no one being harmed.”

walton postIt was a tense situation for all involved. Both the officer and Walton, I’m sure, were nervous – both with good reason. Other officers were at the scene, and by Walton’s own admission, were comforting his daughter while the investigation was going on. Of course, she was nervous! There were bright lights and a bunch of nervous police officers. It was dark, and her father was nervous.

But all’s well that ends well. Walton got the name and badge number of the officer, as well as the name of his supervisor. He admits the entire ordeal lasted only a few minutes until the mystery of the stolen license plate was solved. And once released, he was on his way to the rest of his vacation.

Shitty situation, to be sure, but ultimately resolved peaceably.

But Walton is apparently one of those opportunists who can’t let a situation go without using it to advance his cause.

The first thing he does is screech that his story NEEDS TO BE SHARED! SHARE IT! NOW!

Second, he recounts the story, and inserts a bit of his own editorializing – assessments that have no basis in fact.

He was in the back of the car, detained and immobilized, and he personally heard the dispatcher tell the police officer that the man he had in the back of his vehicle was not a suspect. He was released after that revelation.

And yet, he claims to know the state of mind of the officer, whom he assesses to have been out of control.

He admits in another post that he “relied on my daughter’s recollection of the officer knocking on the window with his weapon. If it was his wedding ring, it was very loud. It caught me by surprise and I turned to see the gun just inches from her window, so it appeared he’d used it to rap on the window, but my daughter’s recollection could be wrong. I’m not sure if this part really matters.”

So the claim that the officer “pointed the gun” at his child was based on the recollection of a terrified 7-year-old, and he believed it, because the officer knocked really loudly! Got it.

He also claims that the only reason he’s still alive is because he’s a white guy.

I realized it was very possible that the only reason I was alive was because I am a scrawny 48-year-old white man wearing a Micky Mouse t-shirt and cargo shorts and hiking boots. The officer that arrested me was so pumped up on adrenaline and eager to get a “bad guy” that he could barely control himself, and if I’d looked just a little bit more threatening to him – because I was black, or young, or long-haired, or tattooed, or didn’t speak English – I believe he might have pulled the trigger.

I guess Walton is a mind reader? A psychiatrist?

No. Definitely not a shrink or a psychic. But he is a criminal and a thief, who apparently is looking to cash in on the outrage he manufactured.

On April 28, 2000 he posted an auction on eBay for an oil painting that attracted a closing bid of US$135,805 and which bidders speculated might be a work by Richard Diebenkorn due to its resemblance to the artist’s work, the existence of the monogram “RD52” on the canvas, and the fact that the seller claimed to have found it at a garage sale in Berkeley, California, where Diebenkorn had lived. In the description accompanying the auction, Walton seemed to have no knowledge of art and claimed to have no idea of the painting’s value. The auction generated international headlines and, after a series of investigative reports by Judith H. Dobrzynski in the New York Times revealed that Walton was in fact an experienced art seller who had sold several forged paintings and worked with other sellers who bid on each other’s items, Walton was banned from eBay, and the FBI launched an investigation into his trading activities.

He’s already asking people on social media to help him research the disposition of a civil rights violation case.

He’s got thousands of BLM supporters egging him on in the original post, propping up their own agenda with hackneyed BLM shibboleths. After all, if you don’t wallow in your own white privilege, you won’t get nearly as much support, now will you?


Let’s hope the justice system gives Walton the finger for manufacturing outrage, using his daughter’s fear, and the BLM movement agitprop and stirring shit up in an environment where relations between the races and between the police and citizens are already wrought with tension.

%d bloggers like this: