I’ve got some stuff going on, so don’t be surprised if I don’t write for a while.
So while I’m taking a hiatus of sorts, please enjoy today’s Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams.
You know, there are political views, there are social views, there are advocates for social justice, and then there are twisted, noxious, misanthropic cunts who should be relegated to licking toilets clean, rather than be allowed into a classroom to corrupt young minds. Katherine Dettwyler – an anthropology professor at the University of Delaware is one of the latter. Dettwyler is a repulsive hag, who describes herself on her Facebook page (which has now been deleted) as a “Far left wing radical liberal.”
What she really is is a cancer on the prostate of humanity.
Why? Why is she such an oozing colostomy bag? Why did she suddenly delete her Facebook page? Because of this.
This noxious, sub-human cuntasaurus literally took a massive shit on the barely cold corpse of a kid – a kid murdered by a tyrannical, repressive regime for ostensibly stealing a poster, because like many radical prognazis, she fellates tyrannical regimes like their pasty goo is going out of style.
Dettwyler justified her foul remarks about the murder of a young man by claiming some nebulous entity doesn’t pay enough attention to others in North Korea who are suffering under its repressive regime. So Otto Warmbier deserved to die, because we don’t pay enough attention to the suffering of North Koreans? We shouldn’t care about the murder of an American citizen, because others are suffering in North Korea as well? We shouldn’t feel bad for him, dying a slow death on behalf of those North Korean savages, and his family who lost someone they loved, because PRIVILEGE? Is that how that works, you heartless, abhorrent bag of excreted corn kernels?
She claims Otto is “typical of the mindset” of young, white, rich, clueless, blah blah blah… She didn’t know Otto Warmbier. None of us did. But the malignant wart decided that since he was white and male, he was necessarily entitled. And for that, he apparently deserved to be murdered.
People who took her class wouldn’t be surprised at her level of venomous noxiousness. Her RateMyProfessors page is littered with words and phrases such as “rude,” “horrible,” “destructive person,” “belittles students when they ask questions without her preferred terminology,” “Easily the rudest professor I have had at UD,” “unprofessional,” “hates America,” “obnoxious,” “annoying,” “tedious,” “insufferable,” “crazy,” “pompous,” “cites herself in her own textbook,” “Literally avoid her like the plague.” One instructive description says:
Class isn’t too difficult if you just stick you reading the textbook. That being said this woman created the textbook and almost everything in it is ridiculous. As the election between trump went on she became crazier and crazier to the point of asking “are all trump supports against freedom” and only having true as an option on the test.
The vast majority of these ratings, by the way, were prior to this latest outburst of inhuman fuckery, and only five of those ratings occurred today after her name hit the news, so it ought to tell you something – that students aren’t just reacting to her latest public eruption, but rather to her habitual repugnant, racist bigotry.
To be fair, Dettwyler isn’t the only one. A number of leftist swine have taken shit on this young man’s corpse and his family’s grief.
Comedy Central’s Larry Wilmore was one of the chief offenders, launching one of his shows with an eight-minute festival of mockery that accepted the North Korean regime’s version of events, mocked Warmbier’s anguished tears, and even posted a graphic calling him an “ass” — based on the initials of a fictional fraternity. The message? Let’s mock frat bros when they go where Daddy can’t protect them.
They don’t care if the “confession” was coerced.
They don’t care if he was innocent.
They don’t care that he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for a crime he likely didn’t even commit, considering how flimsy the “evidence” was against him, which included an alleged video of “him” ripping a propaganda poster off a wall, but in which you couldn’t tell who was actually engaged in this act.
They don’t care about justice.
They don’t care about his family’s grief.
They’re happy… ecstatic… celebratory that an American kid was murdered by a tyrannical regime, because he was male and white, and because his alleged “white privilege” didn’t protect him this time, so he knows how the other side feels.
Well, he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know because he’s dead, you disgusting, racist, oozing rectums!
I’m a mother, and I cannot imagine the loss and agony Warmbier’s family must be feeling!
I’m floored that a mother and grandmother like Dettwyler would be so publicly callous toward the murder of someone’s son. I can’t imagine what kind of foul fuck trophies this noxious bag of fetid dick cheese raised, and I would hope her spawn would be at the very least embarrassed by her behavior, and revolted by it. But given that the sow raised them, you just never know.
On the heels of my “Left Becomes Right” article, Ben Shapiro wrote a piece with which I heartily agree.
But, as it turns out, many of those who mock “muh principles” have no actual principles other than empty tribal victory. Never was that clearer than this week when several of the self-appointed members of the Trump-ardent defense squad went full social justice warrior, invading a Shakespeare in the Park performance of “Julius Caesar” that depicts President Trump as Caesar. Screaming “Liberal hate kills!” they stormed the stage, called audience members Joseph Goebbels and held up the production. Those who objected to this obtuse behavior were simply being hamstrung by “muh principles,” they then proclaimed.
Except that there were no principles at stake here. What was the supposed principle? Perhaps it was that artists shouldn’t make art that invokes images of violence inflicted on a president. Then why weren’t they upset about a rodeo clown dressed up as President Obama in 2013? Perhaps it was that radical rhetoric leads to violence. Then why weren’t they upset when candidate Trump urged his followers to clock protesters? Perhaps it was that shutting down others’ free speech is bad — a sort of ironic lesson for the left. Then why didn’t they say so, rather than claiming that the content of the play justified their activity? And why would this be a good strategy, given that the self-immolating hard left’s free speech shutdowns have backfired so dramatically that even Obama and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been forced to condemn them?
Principles aren’t fluid things. They aren’t to be discarded in order for us to defend them. So to mock principled behavior, as many on the right have in recent weeks after two screeching douche crackers rushed the stage during a production of Julius Caesar, is counterproductive, as well as contradictory.
Here’s the thing, folks. Those of you claiming we’re at war are missing a crucial piece of effective warfare – something I’ve discussed previously when I talked about Russia’s information operations. We are not fighting a war with guns and grenades. We’re fighting a war for the very heart of America. We are fighting a war FOR our principles, and we can’t drop kick them in the nuts in order to protect them. We can’t take a dump on the First Amendment – exactly like the left is doing – to protect the First Amendment. If we want to win, we need numbers. We need numbers at the voting booth and on the ground promoting the same principles certain people like Loomer and her pal want to shit on in retaliation for the left doing so, and we’re not going to get numbers using retarded leftist antics, because those to the right of center are just not that dumb.
Yeah, you’re going to make rabid Trumpanzees screech with utter joy when you use the leftists’ antics against them, but those aren’t the people you want to win over. They’re already in your camp.
All that said, I present my friend James Schardt.
Remind me never to follow Col. Kurt Schlichter into combat.
In his latest Townhall column, Schlichter shoots back at Ben Shapiro’s article pointing out that if we don’t keep hold of our principles, we are no better than the Left. Schlichter says points out if you don’t win, your principles don’t matter, because they will be ignored by others.
If he fights like he argues, he’ll get me killed for no good reason.
To quote Sergeant Harper from the book Sharpe’s Rifles, “There are two kinds of officers, sir: killin’ officers and murderin’ officers. Killin’ officers are poor old buggers that get you killed by mistake. Murderin’ officers are mad, bad, old buggers that get you killed on purpose.”
Schlichter falls into the second category. He wants to use the Left’s tactics against them. But he forgot to assess the battlefield. He forgot to determine whether the Left’s tactics are actually effective. Culturally, the left is in a position of dominance, so their tactics have to work, right?
Let’s not forget that the left lost big this last election. Let’s not forget they just lost a special election in Georgia where Pajama Boy lookalike Jon Ossoff just lost to Republican Karen Handel.
So not quite.
Obviously, comedy, mockery, making your opponent look absurd then presenting your own side as an alternative works. Telling a story with an example of your opponent as the villain works. Showing how your ideas will benefit an individual or group and/or showing how your opponent’s ideas have hurt them works.
Making an ass out of yourself in public does not.
What Schlichter is advocating roughly the equivalent of: “after fending off a full frontal assault over half a mile of kill zone causing 75 percent casualties to the enemy, let’s do a suicidal charge for our side.”
I don’t want to follow that guy.
We are in a fight for the hearts and minds of America. Most people don’t pay attention to politics. They don’t care. All they want is for tomorrow to be just a little better than today. They see politics as snippets and sound bites. The Left understood this for the longest time. They worked to win the hearts and minds of the general public, and Democrats were viewed as the ones with hearts, because there were very few alternatives to their information so they did not need to do much to keep people convinced their beliefs were correct.
Then, the Internet came about. The Left couldn’t stop alternative information from getting to the masses. People could share ideas without the Left as a filter, and suddenly the Left needed cheerleaders to keep their own people in line. They needed to show their own people that they were doing something to fight back against the “wrong” ideas of the right. Disrupting speeches, getting conservative or libertarian TV shows canceled, blocking highways.
Were these actions effective?
They only worked for those already convinced and engaged. For the people who wanted to hear what the other side had to say, who just wanted to watch a TV show, to go to work in the morning, they looked like a bunch of braying jackasses.
People don’t listen to braying jackasses.
But Schlichter wants us to behave like jackasses, because he already knows we’re right. The tactics he is advocating are a Pyrrhic victory, if they are any sort of victory at all.
We’ve seen it on our side before with open carry. Guys walking around with rifles because they could. “If you don’t exercise your rights they aren’t rights at all!” The actual effect was to alarm the public, annoy the police who had to investigate and figure out if the armed person was psycho or just stupid, and invigorate gun control advocates who now had an opportunity to paint the gun rights crowd as a bunch of buffoons. They also prompted several establishments that were more than happy to quietly follow state law regarding open carry and simply serve coffee or food to their customers without drama, to publicly ask their customers to leave their guns out of their stores.
Congratulations, jackass! You just delayed removing those Texas State laws you were protesting by two years. WINNING!
If you want to be politically active, remember most people are not. Cheerleading only works on people who already agree with you. Baseball fans generally do not care about the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Convince people your ideas are correct. That leads to victory at the voting booth. Disrupting a play or speech only makes you look like a jerk. It makes you look like even you don’t think your ideas are good enough to convince anyone.
Before you adopt a tactic used by the Left, make sure it is productive, that it works. Think before you act. Fighting the Left isn’t enough. What Schlichter is pushing isn’t winning, it’s just fighting, and fighting poorly at that.
I’ll fight all day long, but I want to win. Go ahead and pull ideas from the Left’s playbook, but think before you use them.
I hadn’t seen the dashcam video of the incident in which St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez shot and killed Philando Castile during a traffic stop until tonight.
After having watched it several times, I can understand why there was reasonable doubt brought on chiefly (I’m guessing) by the lack of credibility of the prosecution’s star witness Diamond Reynolds.
I’m going to note several things here.
1 – Castile did inform the officer that he was armed after he had given the officer his registration. It is possible he was reaching in his pocket for his wallet, where he ostensibly kept his license, but he also knew that his license was suspended. Nonetheless, Yanez seemed pretty calm – even after being told Castile was armed. He casually said “OK, don’t reach for it, then.” There was no tension or panic in his voice.
But then things changed drastically within a couple of seconds.
Yanez casually said “Don’t pull it out.” He said it twice – the second time with more panic in his voice before pulling out his gun and firing several shots into Castile.
2 – No, Castile doesn’t appear to have been complying with Yanez’s instructions to not pull it out (although you cannot see from the video what he was trying to pull out or where he was reaching). But at the same time, this all literally happened within maybe five seconds, and I think Yanez panicked. An expert in the use of force testified the use of deadly force was “objectively unreasonable.” He escalated very quickly and put seven rounds in Castile. At 1:38 Yanez very calmly says “OK, don’t reach for it, then.” At 1:43 he’s fired his second shot into Castile I realize law enforcement officers are under a lot of stress, and Castile apparently resembled a robbery suspect, so the situation was tense. I also understand that I only am seeing the dashcam video, which leaves me with some knowledge gaps about what the officer was actually seeing.
3 – Reynolds was not a credible witness. This one is a biggie. She is facing felony assault charges in an unrelated case after she allegedly attacked someone with a hammer. While lawyers did not appear to mention said charges in court, they’re public and covered in the media. They’re not difficult to look up. She lied when she claimed police didn’t provide first aid to Castile. The video clearly shows two-three officers worked on the man for at least three minutes continuously, giving chest compressions and trying to revive him until the ambulance showed up at the very end of the video. This in and of itself probably was enough to bring reasonable doubt into the picture.
She also admitted she and Castile regularly used marijuana, and she claims she smoked that day, but he did not. That was another lie. An autopsy revealed he had THC in his system, which would explain why he appeared to barely understand Yanez’s instructions and why he was slow to respond to Yanez’s increasingly loud orders to not pull it out. And by the way, what the hell was he doing driving while stoned, and with a small child in the back seat?
4 – Yanez’s partner Joseph Kauser testified he did not see any gun, nor did he smell any burnt marijuana smell in the car, which Yanez claims he had. Kauser looked pretty calm standing there on the other side of the vehicle until his partner escalated quickly. It’s also important to note that at the 9:10 mark, Yanez doesn’t appear to have actually seen a gun either. He tells the female officer interviewing him that despite instructing Castile not to reach for it, he did and “his grip was a lot wider than a wallet.” This tells me that he was basing his assessment of the situation on the grip, rather than actually seeing a firearm.
I’ve seen some guys with wallets literally stuffed so full, they look ridiculous, and much bigger than any pistol grip, so the fact that he was pulling out something fat doesn’t mean it was necessarily a gun. Yanez’s assessment was based on the fact that Castile told him he had a firearm, had already handed him documents (probably registration and insurance), and was reaching for something (ostensibly an ID). I know I keep my registration in my glove box, and my ID in my wallet in my purse, so I would have had to reach into two separate places to get the documents Yanez demanded.
5 – Yanez was visibly shaken, borderline hysterical, and weeping. He was fighting to keep from hyperventilating, and repeatedly cried “No! Please Jesus no!” several times. That doesn’t strike me as someone who targeted Castile because of his race.
6 – Castile did not have a record of violence. His extensive record consisted of traffic violations. Yanez in a transcript of his conversation with the dispatcher was heard saying, “The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.” So it sounds like even though it was a case of mistaken identity, the officer honestly believed he may have been pulling over a robbery suspect, which also would explain why he was tense.
And finally, let me preface this by reminding you I’m not a lawyer. But I do believe the prosecution was overcharging in this case by claiming second degree manslaughter. According to Minnesota law, manslaughter in the second degree involves causing the death of another in the following means:
(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
Based on this statute, I don’t see how Yanez was negligent or created an unreasonable risk, or consciously took chances, causing Castile’s death.
He believed that Castile looked like a robbery suspect.
He observed behavior on the part of his suspect that seemed odd, or “hinky,” as he described it. “He was just staring straight ahead,” he said, and admitted at that point he was getting nervous.
Castile was stoned, so he wasn’t exactly following directions very well, and Yanez’s observations match that possibility.
Now, in my opinion, and judging from the video and its transcript, Yanez overreacted. He escalated from perfectly calm to putting rounds in Castile in the span of five seconds, and he wasn’t certain Castile was pulling out a gun – only that he was gripping whatever he was taking out of his pocket with a wider grip than a wallet, which is a pretty subjective measurement.
Nonetheless, the less than credible witness Diamond Reynolds proved to be, coupled with what was probably an attempt to overcharge second degree manslaughter probably wound up in a “not guilty” verdict.
There are no winners here.
Yanez was clearly traumatized and weeping after having shot Castile.
Philando Castile died, and his loved ones lost someone dear to them. For what? Yeah, he was driving stoned, and yeah, he had a long record of traffic violations. Did he deserve to die for those transgressions?
I don’t think so.
Reynolds’ little daughter is probably more than traumatized, having watched a police officer put seven rounds in someone she cared about.
Castile’s mother lost a son. I cannot begin to imagine what that feels like. I can’t imagine having to bury my child. The mere thought of the loss sends agonizing shocks through me!
I guarantee Yanez will also never live this down either. His anguished cries are ringing in my ears. His shock and horror at having shot another human being were palpable.
I also doubt he will ever work as a police officer again.
Training that could mitigate these types of situations and could possibly reduce incidents of fatal police shootings should be standard, but resource and time constraints generally limit its availability.
Much of the current training focuses on static skills and techniques that may or may not be practiced diligently by the individual officer after the annual, or if they are lucky, quarterly agency training iterations. Most often, it consists of going through the motions of rehearsed techniques without applying that training under stress, with as many variables and judgment calls at real-time speed. If done correctly, the most important outcome of that type of situational training is that the individual officer can see what works (or doesn’t) for the first time in training, and not on the street, where consequences can be severe and often permanent.
Also, “Mat room folly” is a real phenomenon. If you slow any training down enough, it will always work… it just won’t work under stress in real situations! Too often, training teaches solutions and techniques for specific problems (like a specific knife attack, tackle, weapon malfunction, door entry, etc.) and allows officers to practice until they get it “just right.” The goal seems to be to perform up to some predetermined and sometimes almost arbitrary standard. The problem is that in reality, events rarely go as planned, so why are we not applying that truth in training and bringing that concept into practice for our officers in a tangible way?
Realistic training often seems to be lacking in our police forces today. Much like in other classroom environments, the focus is on passing the exam – proficiency and qualification – rather than giving officers instinctual, developed skills to deal with stressful situations.
In this case, Officer Yanez reacted fatally, and Philando Castile lost his life.
A beautiful young girl was murdered in Virginia yesterday, and a 22-year-old illegal alien has been charged in her death. Police found Nabra Hassanen’s body in a pond after she was kidnapped and savagely beaten with a baseball bat. The 17-year-old was walking back with a bunch of friends from a local IHOP back to the mosque where they were observing Ramadan when Darwin Martinez Torres accosted the group.
Snuffing out a young life, a life full of joy, a smiling future full of promise – it’s a heinous crime no matter how you stack it.
But that’s not enough for some, who choose to immediately claim bigotry and Islamophobia, merely because the young girl was wearing a headscarf.
The usual suspects like the HuffPost are screeching about vulnerable Muslim women of color.
The victim’s father proclaimed he was “100 percent” sure Nabra Hssanen was targeted because of her religion.
Initial social media posts pompously proclaimed this is why they fight Islamophobia, while pretentious derpasauri pontificated pretentiously about how dehumanization leads to “hate crimes.”
Some of this occurred before the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Department released additional facts about the face. A number of these supercilious snot wads continue to do so despite the fact that there has been no indication that a hate crime occurred here, other than the fact that Nabra had a head scarf on.
The Sheriff’s Department statement explains that the murder was likely an incident of road rage.
The group of teens had been attending an overnight event at a mosque, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society or ADAMS Center, and had left to go to a fast food restaurant. As they were returning to the mosque, some were on the sidewalk and others were on the road itself. Detectives believe Torres came upon the teens while he was driving. The investigation reveals a teenaged boy on a bike began arguing with Torres. Torres then drove his car onto the curb as the group scattered. Witnesses say Torres caught up with them a short time later in a nearby parking lot and got out of his car armed with a baseball bat and began chasing the group. Torres was able to catch Nabra.
A vicious murder committed by an illegal alien from El Salvador, who murdered a beautiful young girl in a fit of rage.
But no one is talking about why this savage was in this country in the first place, why he got in an argument with a bunch of kids, and why he caught up with Nabra Hassanen, kidnapped her and beat her to death with a baseball bat, tossing her body into a pond after he was done. No one is talking about the fact that illegal aliens are over-represented in US incidents of crime. “The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.”
Were all these crimes violent offenses? Probably not. But there’s no denying that for a relatively small portion of the population, illegal immigrants certainly commit crimes at a high rate.
Vetted crime statistics from USDOJ, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) are both clear and demonstrative that illegal immigrants who comprise only 3.5 percent of our nation’s population, are convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder at a rate of three times that of their American citizen and legal immigrant counterparts.
No one is talking about this. No one is talking about the fact that had this murderous piece of detritus not been here in the United States, Nabra Hassanen would likely still be alive.
Instead people are frothing about nonexistent “Islamophobia.”
Because it’s so much easier to blame evil whitey for hating angelic oppressed minorities than face the fact that this young life was snuffed out by someone who should have never been here in the first place.
It’s much easier to condemn the residents of Loudoun county for their ostensible “ignorance,” and “bigotry” for killing a young girl who was wearing a head scarf than face the reality that there are some people who should be tossed back to whichever hell hole they came from, by a trebuchet, if necessary.
It’s much easier to acknowledge that the head scarf may have been nothing but an unfortunate coincidence, and that Torres was a violent thug who should not have been in this country in the first place.
I can almost understand Nabra’s father, in his grief, blaming hatred of Islam for his daughter’s death.
But the facts are coming out now, and kneejerking into some odious assumptions about our neighbors merely because the teen was wearing a hijab is pretty nauseating.